DETAILS CLOUD DEBATES FOR, AGAINST PROP. 5

The citizens initiative to legalize marijuana, which will appear as Proposition 5 on the ballot next month, will do much more than legalize marijuana. And it's the details that have some opponents up in arms.

"What they're asking for is the moon and everything in it," said Aaron Harrop, a substance abuse counselor who is co-chairman of the No on 5 campaign.

Len Karpinski, the Anchorage man who drafted the proposed law, said Proposition 5 began as a bill proposed years ago by Californian Jack Herer, author of the pro-hemp primer "The Emperor Wears No Clothes."

"I just took the text, and where it said 'California' I put 'Alaska,' " Karpinski said. " 'Secretary of State' became 'lieutenant governor.' "

He said he's not entirely sure how a couple of the details will play out if the measure is approved because no state has ever adopted anything like it.

"This thing is breaking new ground," said Karpinski, state chairman of the Libertarian Party.

Among other things, the 1,300-word initiative would:

Let adults 18 and older own, grow and distribute marijuana, at least for personal use in private.

Apply retroactively, granting automatic amnesty to people convicted in state court of marijuana crimes that would be no longer illegal.

Destroy all criminal records of no longer illegal marijuana activities.

Convene an advisory panel to study the feasibility of paying restitution to people imprisoned or fined because of marijuana laws no longer in effect.

Allow for prosecutions of people who drive while impaired by marijuana.

Ban the mandatory use of the common urine test for marijuana as a means of determining impairment.

Prohibit Alaska from providing any help or money for federal enforcement of marijuana laws that conflict with the new state law.

Del Smith, the state's deputy commissioner of public safety, said that while legalization is bad enough, the devil is in the details of this initiative.

"It's not a matter of a straight-up 'Should we legalize marijuana again?' " he said.

Fodder For The Opposition

Even NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, was at first reluctant to endorse it, said director Allen St. Pierre. NORML supports the ideas, but the initiative provides so much fodder for opponents, he said.

"It's hard enough to get the laws passed. But reparations and some of these other things, clearly they are very problematic," he said.

But to people campaigning for Proposition 5, freeing the convicts and considering their losses are important. This is about ending the drug war, they say.

"When the war is over, the prisoners of war come home," said Sil DeChellis, campaign treasurer for Free Hemp in Alaska.

The campaign keeps a special-edition copy of Herer's book in a glass display case at its Spenard Road headquarters. It's printed on hemp paper.

Though the initiative mostly uses the word "hemp" -- the term some people use to distinguish industrial-grade cannabis from the type that gets you high -- it would clearly legalize both dope and rope.

Its backers don't dispute this. They say Proposition 5 opponents overstate their case.

"Things aren't going to change that much," said Al Anders, chairman of Free Hemp. The federal government will still be free to enforce its laws banning marijuana, but without the state's help, he said.

Last week, he and other people at Free Hemp were riled over a public letter Gov. Tony Knowles and his wife wrote criticizing Proposition 5.

"The initiative legalizes marijuana use for all Alaskans, children and adults. . . . It requires those incarcerated for previous marijuana-related crimes to be released from prison with restitution for fines paid and time served," the Knowleses wrote in the letter, published Wednesday in the Daily News.

Not so, said Al Anders, chairman of Free Hemp. The initiative says "persons, 18 years and older, shall not be prosecuted" for various marijuana activities. It would not legalize marijuana use by children, Anders said.

And it only calls for an advisory panel to consider restitution.

"There's absolutely nothing in there that requires restitution," Anders said.

The governor's spokesman, Bob King, acknowledged that the initiative does not "categorically" require restitution but "requires a process with restitution as its end goal."

But questions about the initiative don't end there.

Defining The Provisions

What does it say about large-scale, commercial marijuana production? Would it be legal? The initiative says pot should be regulated "in a similar manner to alcoholic beverages." How exactly? Would the state license marijuana bars?

The Department of Law, which reviewed the initiative and approved it for the ballot, said many provisions are unclear and would have to be decided in court if Proposition 5 passes.

Karpinski said the idea is that marijuana growing should be regulated like home-brewing: You can make a certain amount of it in your basement, but at some point you'll need a state license.

"You couldn't have acres and acres of intoxicating hemp products without a permit, and that's what the intent of this is," he said.

Proposition 5's mention of testing people for marijuana use is open to debate even among backers of the initiative.

Here's what it says at the end of a paragraph permitting a ban against driving while high:

"Testing for inert cannabis metabolites shall not be required for employment or insurance, nor be considered in determining impairment."

Matthew Fagnani, president of the Anchorage drug-testing firm WorkSafe Inc., said he had to look up what "inert cannabis metabolites" means. What that refers to, he concluded, is the only realistic marijuana test he knows, the urine test for chemical signs that your body has processed -- metabolized -- cannabis. His firm conducts that sort of test for about 3,000 Alaska employers, including trucking firms. Federal law requires trucking outfits and other employers to drug test their commercial drivers.

No one has invented a Breathalyzer for pot or a way to test for active marijuana in the body, said Fagnani, who is working on the No on 5 campaign.

"There is not a drug test out that I'm aware of that will test you for marijuana impairment," he said.

So make one, Anders says.

"This will put pressure on the marketplace to develop a test" for marijuana impairment, he said.

The problem with the test now in use, he and Karpinski said, is that it doesn't discriminate between a driver who comes to work high and one who had a few hits at a party days earlier.

But what does the whole sentence mean? Who can't require this kind of testing?

"Because it was written by Libertarians, I think it doesn't mean employers" can't require it, Anders said. As he reads it, it says the government can't require that companies do this kind of testing but employers may require such tests as a condition of employment. But he referred questions to Karpinski, who had a different interpretation.

"It looks like it's reading like a ban of metabolite testing itself," Karpinski said. "Whether that flies remains to be seen. . . . It certainly may come down to a fight over grammar."

As a practical matter, said Palmer assistant district attorney Jack Smith, you can't prosecute people for driving under the influence of marijuana if you can't test them.

"What are you going to say, 'He smelled like marijuana'?" Smith asked.

Nothing Is Set In Stone

Del Smith, the deputy public safety commissioner, said he also wonders about the destruction of criminal records relating to marijuana. There have been thousands of arrests in Alaska in which marijuana has been involved somehow.

"You pop a guy for DWI, and he happens to have some marijuana in his pocket," he said by way of example. Would police have to comb through all such cases and delete all references to marijuana? Would the law reach right down to a police officer's notepad?

"It's a massive task if you take the law to the letter," he said.

Karpinski said the authorities would have to destroy some files and black out specific portions from others at police stations and at courthouses. What about Supreme Court opinions? The state law library has volume after volume.

"Speaking personally, I wouldn't hire armies of workers to black out all those books," Karpinski said.

The Legislature will no doubt make changes before the law goes into effect, he said.

"Don't everybody light up on the afternoon of (Nov.) 8th," Karpinski said.

If the measure is approved, the law would go into effect about 90 days later. By then legislators would be in session in Juneau.

Count on them to make massive changes, said David Finkelstein, a former legislator who led Alaska's successful medical marijuana campaign two years ago.

The Legislature would no doubt remove many of the provisions, such as those that apply the law retroactively.

"There's no reason to think that provision will go into effect," he said. "There's not a chance in a bazillion."

He hasn't campaigned for Proposition 5, but he said he'll vote for it. He said he cares about medical marijuana users. The bottom line for him is it will make it easier for them to get what they need. Some details in the initiative are troublesome, he said, but they are not likely to stand.

"This is a fight basically about the penalties we apply to marijuana use," he said.

1975

Alaska Legislature decriminalizes possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, applying civil penalty of $100. Eleven days later, Alaska Supreme Court issues the Ravin decision, finding marijuana so innocuous that the government has no business prosecuting adults for possessing limited amounts in private.

1982

Legislature brings statutes in line with Ravin, legalizing adult possession of up to 4 ounces. Selling remains illegal.

1990

Voters decide 54-46 percent to recriminalize simple possession. Civil libertarians say the Ravin decision still stands.

1998

Voters decide 59 percent to 41 percent to legalize medical marijuana for sick people.

2000

Voters will decide Nov. 7 whether to legalize marijuana.