PROPOSITION 5 VOTE NO ON THE HEMP INITIATIVE

Many Alaskans have reached the conclusion that there is something wrong
with federal and state drug laws. Prisons and jails are overflowing with
men and women convicted of drug crimes, yet the nation has a voracious
appetite for dope.

The drug war is a standoff. For every peddler removed from the streets,
there's another ready to take his or her place. The Daily News Sunday story
"Alaska's top crop" -- marijuana -- captured this phenomenon in vivid and
compelling detail.

Advocates of Proposition 5, the hemp initiative, are riding this wave of
frustration with marijuana laws. That's how they were able to get more than
24,000 signatures for their initiative. But Proposition 5 is not a careful,
restrained, analytical attempt at reform. It's an all-out assault on state
statutes and state law enforcement personnel who deal with marijuana.

Consequently, the Anchorage Daily News recommends a no vote come Nov. 7.

The initiative does away with civil and criminal penalties for Alaskans 18
years of age or older who use marijuana or hemp in its many forms -- paper,
food, fiber, medicine. Marijuana would be regulated like alcohol. Doctors
could prescribe it. Employers (including governments) could not test their
employees for marijuana.

The outrageousness of this proposal should be obvious by now.

You don't have to believe in "Reefer Madness" to conclude that chucking all
the state marijuana laws into Cook Inlet is a mistake. How many parents of
18-year-old high school seniors want their kids to have immediate, legal
access to a drug?

The novel notion that criminals could have their records retroactively
eliminated by initiative raises all kinds of legal questions, starting with
"Is such an action within the voters' power?" If drug felonies can be
quashed by initiative why not other crimes?

Marijuana dealers who pocket profits and pay no taxes are not civil rights
pioneers. People who engage in drug dealing are consciously, willingly, and
knowingly breaking the criminal law for profit. There may be individuals
who deserve their cases overturned because they have suffered an injustice.
But amnesty for all the people who have committed marijuana crimes? Forget it.

As for a commission to study restitution, don't be fooled by the word
"study." The obvious goal is to compensate those convicted of marijuana
crimes for their loses. There is no shortage of dirt-bag dope dealers who
contribute nothing to society. Do we really want to compensate them for
running afoul of the law?

Oh yes, and the money for the study of restitution would come from law
enforcement budgets.

If you still need a reason to vote no, how about this. The provision that
bans the state from cooperating with the feds on marijuana cases is without
any sensible legal foundation. The states have certain obligations to the
nation that they cannot ignore because they don't like them. This principle
is established in the U.S. Constitution and was verified by the outcome of
the Civil War.

Finally, Proposition 5 directs the governor and the attorney general to
"challenge federal cannabis/marijuana prohibitions which conflict with this
initiative." Is this really how we want the governor and the AG to spend
their time? Sure, the governor challenges the feds frequently over civil
matters -- regulatory and resource management questions, for example. But
over criminal matters like drug dealing? No way.

Proponents of Proposition 5 concede the initiative is imperfect. In fact,
they are prepared to let the Legislature clean up the mess they are making
if the initiative passes.

We say this is a bad way to make law. Never vote for legislation that's
full of obvious problems that the Legislature, the governor and the courts
are expected to "fix" later.

Proposition 5 deserves a thorough drubbing on many counts. On Nov. 7, make
your vote a no vote.