More than eight years ago Alaska's voters approved Ballot Measure 2 to make possession of all amounts of marijuana a criminal offense. On the official election ballot, the question was presented to voters as follows: "This initiative would change Alaska's laws by making all ... possession of marijuana criminal, with possible penalties of up to 90 days in jail and/or up to a $1000 fine. Should this initiative become law?" A majority of Alaskans said "yes," and marijuana possession was recriminalized in this state. One of the primary supporters of Ballot Measure 2, former state lawmaker Alyce Hanley, stated that "a yes vote on Proposition 2 sends a clear message that marijuana is a dangerous drug ... Marijuana is not a benign substance. It is dangerous to users and society at large."

On November 3 of last year, voters were once again asked to decide a ballot measure related to marijuana. This time it was Ballot Measure 8, which was described by its sponsors as a measure to allow marijuana use by "terminally ill patients and others suffering debilitating medical conditions." A majority of Alaska voters said "yes" to this initiative. Public support was certainly strengthened based on assurances from the initiative's sponsors that a "yes" vote would not result in a wholesale legalization of marijuana. In the 1998 Official Election Pamphlet, the group sponsoring Ballot Measure 8 stated: "Marijuana would still be illegal for non-medical use. Ballot Measure 8 provides full protection against abuse of the new law ..."

Unfortunately, close scrutiny of the initiative by Alaska's law enforcement personnel has revealed plenty of room for abuse. The initiative contains several gaping loopholes and other defects. Collectively, these flaws will make it difficult for law enforcement to enforce Alaska's drug laws. Chief Duane Udland of the Anchorage Police Department and Deputy Commissioner Del Smith of the state's Department of Public Safety have both testified before legislative committees regarding the problems with the marijuana initiative. The following are just a few examples:

• n The initiative creates a confidential state registry of patients entitled to use marijuana. However, registration is not mandatory - it is optional. The new law allows the "privileged medical use of marijuana" even for persons who are not registered with the state. One of the primary advocates for the marijuana initiative, David Finkelstein, testified last month before a legislative committee that registration was intentionally left optional. This makes it difficult for law enforcement personnel to distinguish between "medical use" of marijuana (now legal under certain conditions) and "recreational use" of marijuana (still illegal).
  
  
n The initiative states that "no patient in lawful possession of a registry identification card" can use marijuana in a public place, or use it in a manner that endangers the health or well-being of any person. However, by the plain language of the initiative, these restrictions do not apply to a person who refuses to register with the state, and therefore does not possess a registry I.D. card. Thus, a person claiming a medical need for marijuana who refuses to register with the state could smoke marijuana publicly in a way that endangers the health and well-being of other people.


n The initiative created new law under Title 17 of Alaska's statutes, designated as "Chapter 37." This chapter is further divided into eight different sections. The fourth section of the marijuana initiative states that "nothing in this section shall require any accommodation for any medical use of marijuana in any place of employment, in any correctional facility, on or within 500 feet of school grounds, at or within 500 feet of a recreation or youth center, or on a school bus." On the surface, these seem to be very wise precautions, but close scrutiny reveals that these restrictions are an illusion. The initiative says "nothing in this section" requires accommodation of marijuana use in a school, prison, etc. It should say "nothing in this chapter," which would make the restrictions functional by applying them to the entirety of the marijuana initiative, not just one of eight sections. As the law is currently worded, a person using medical marijuana could demand that his or her use of marijuana be accommodated at work, on a school bus, in prison, etc. This is just one of more than a dozen loopholes that make the marijuana initiative a nightmare for law enforcement.

I believe most voters who supported Ballot Measure 8 were motivated by a compassionate desire to alleviate the suffering of people with terminal illnesses, or other conditions with severe pain or nausea. Like many Alaskans, I have had family members and relatives experience such suffering, so I can understand their motivation to help. However, the fact remains that the initiative is flawed.

Last month I introduced Senate Bill 94, legislation designed to eliminate the loopholes in the medical marijuana initiative while still ensuring that those with a valid medical need can use marijuana to address their condition. This bill is designed to reconcile the provisions of Ballot Measure 2 of 1990 and Ballot Measure 8 of 1998. Both of these measures represent the majority will of the Alaskan people. Both measures deserve to be respected by those of us who serve in public office.

To protect legitimate medical marijuana patients from unwarranted prosecution, Senate Bill 94 makes registration mandatory - yet keeps this information confidential from the public. It also addresses the health and safety of patients by requiring doctors to consider other forms of legal medical treatments that might help address a patient's condition. This latter requirement for physicians was supported by the federal government's Institute of Medicine report on medical marijuana released just last month.

I am pleased that the initiative's primary sponsor, Alaskans for Medical Rights, has recently acknowledged their support for more than a dozen changes proposed in SB 94. They have urged the Department of Health & Social Services to implement these changes through regulations. Although much of the campaign against SB 94 has been intemperate and misleading, I am hopeful that critics will work constructively with the Legislature to help make the new law work as intended-and as represented.

You can learn more about SB 94 by visiting my website at http://www.akrepublicans.org/pastlegs/Leman.htm.

| Top | Senator Leman's Page |