NO ON MEASURE 2

Ballot Measure 2 has no place in Alaska, despite what the advertising
effort of its proponents will have you think. This is not about
privacy, this is not about Alaska being "The last best place," this is
not about keeping marijuana out of the hands of children. This is all
about allowing adults to possess, with the blessing of society and its
law, as much marijuana as they want. It's about allowing them to trade
it, to buy it, to sell it, to grow it to their happy heart's content.

They aren't satisfied with recent Alaska court rulings that, using the
Alaska Constitution's privacy provision as their foundation, indicate
people can legally have up to four ounces--the equivalent of a joint a
day per year--of marijuana in their home?

Perhaps someday the state's lawmakers and residents will have the
wisdom to close that loophole and thereby put an end to this misguided
coupling of Alaska's vaunted right to privacy and the use of
marijuana. Alaska, and its residents, simply cannot afford the passage
of Measure 2.

Will businesses want to relocate here knowing there's a greater chance
their employees might go home from a hard day's work and light up a
fatty?

How will commanders at Alaska's many military installations,
especially those in the cities, control the urge to smoke among their
primarily young, male population? Will the military subsequently be as
generous as it has been to Alaska?

Will the federal government, whose laws still prohibit marijuana
possession, penalize Alaska through the loss of funds, much like
federal highway funds were at risk until the state lowered its
drunken-driving threshold to 0.08 percent from 0.10? And whose
marijuana law will prevail? The answer is not known.

And how will parents explain to their children that marijuana use
harms the body and mind in so many ways, as documented by the federal
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Office of National
Drug Control Policy and other agencies? The consequences are numerous,
obvious and call for rejection of Measure 2.

What's important to acknowledge in the discussion about Measure 2 is
that marijuana is readily available and widely used in Alaska and is
likely to remain that way, perhaps for the foreseeable future.
Marijuana grown in Alaska is quite renowned, among its users and those
in the law enforcement and drug rehabilitation fields, for its potency.

Proponents of Measure 2, however, suggest that the facts point to the
need for the measure's approval, that legalizing the essentially
unlimited possession of marijuana will reduce the rate of related
crimes and decrease its use among children, who even in Fairbanks
middle schools have a relatively easy time of finding a little loose
weed or a couple of joints maybe rolled by a classmate. They argue
marijuana regulation, not criminalization, is the way to go--though
voters should note the measure does not mandate regulation. It could
simply open a pot free-for-all.

But such points in favor of Measure 2 are weak. There is little
offered in the way of evidence that any of the proponents' suggested
benefits will come true. So why gamble?

Yes, marijuana is easily found--too much so. Consider this, though: Do
intelligent societies take the easy way out by legalizing away a
problem behavior? No. Yet that is what is proposed for Alaska. Perhaps
if we have another problem that is proving hard to beat, society
should simply make the problem legal. Presto! Problem solved.

Measure 2 warrants a "no" vote. It truly is a no-brainer decision, for
if the unlimited use of marijuana is approved, the consequence is
clear: Alaska will have a lot more no-brainers.