However, isn't marijuana and drug possession a federal offense? Can a state legalize something that is illegal at the federal level? Personally I would vote no on this amendment, but I'm not in California.
Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
The federal government can enforce drug laws, although the President can inform the attorney general, DEA, etc... not to arrest non violent drug users.
It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
"Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911
The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016
Article 1:The Alaska supreme court ruled in 1975 in Ravin V. State:§ 22. Right of Privacy
The right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed. The legislature shall implement this section. [Amended 1972]
Ravin v. State - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia“ ...we conclude that no adequate justification for the state's intrusion into the citizen's right to privacy by its prohibition of possession of marijuana by an adult for personal consumption in the home has been shown. The privacy of the individual's home cannot be breached absent a persuasive showing of a close and substantial relationship of the intrusion to a legitimate governmental interest. Here, mere scientific doubts will not suffice. The state must demonstrate a need based on proof that the public health or welfare will in fact suffer if the controls are not applied.
I do not think this has been challenged at the federal level, and the issue ended with that case (more or less.. read the wiki article linked), and the feds are still able to enforce their laws in Alaska, but I think they are hesitant to piss on the state's constitution and upset the apple cart by busting down doors for misdemeanor posession.
The California initiative is not a Constutional issue (yet) and could face some serious hurdles, what they are doing is actually prohibited not just federally, but also by international treaty (Single Convention on Narcotic Substances). Alaska gets some wiggle room, especially when it comes to the Single Convention of Narcotic Substances because it is an issue of Constitutionality, which is an automatic exemption.
Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs - WikisourceArticle 36: PENAL PROVISIONS
1. (a) Subject to its constitutional limitations....
Last edited by marduc; 06-30-10 at 05:02 PM.