Two quick points:

1. If it did pass it would have made Alaska the only state to legalize pot.  BUT people in Alaska couldn't have used pot due to federal laws that supercede the state law (if it passed.)

2. The bill was defeated by 11 percent in the state with the most liberal pot policy.  Alaska currently allows a person to have up to 4 ounces of pot in their home (sorry no car or public use allowed.)

From National Drug Control Policy:

WHITE HOUSE DRUG CZAR: FAILURE OF ALASKA'S MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION BALLOT INITIATIVE IS RESOUNDING PUBLIC HEALTH VICTORY

Commenting on the failure of the marijuana legalization initiative in Alaska, John P. Walters, Director of National Drug Control Policy, made the following statement:

''The continued failure of the drug legalization movement this year sends a strong message that Americans are not willing to allow a small group of politically active billionaires to undermine the progress our Nation has made in driving youth drug use down by 11 percent over the last two years.

''Undeterred by their losses in Arizona, Nevada, and Ohio during the 2002 election cycle, the drug legalization advocates spent millions of dollars on their 2004 efforts, financing an expensive campaign that targeted Alaska. But once again, voters refused to allow the megaphone of big bucks to silence the voice of common sense.

''This public health victory reaffirms the simple, inescapable fact that no family, no community, no state is better off with more drug use. Although there are some who are indifferent to the harms that drug use brings, their repeated attempts to make marijuana more available are no match for the truth.

''The people of Alaska, as well as citizens throughout the Nation, can rest assured that we will continue to support their efforts to ensure that their children are healthy and that their communities are safe. We remain steadfast partners committed to building upon our shared success in reducing drug use in America.''

What about the simple, inescapable fact that nobody has the right to tell an adult what they may or may not put into their own body?

But, Claude, how better to avoid falling to temptation than to legislate it away?   How better to ensure that we will not fail God's tests than to prevent Him, by statute, from administering them?   



Ah, yes.  I keep forgetting God's an old wino. 

Um...why are you asking me?  I don't live in Alaska (though I will in 2006.)

Um...then why did you post about it in the first place?

Um...why are you asking me?  I don't live in Alaska (though I will in 2006.)

You're moving to Alaska? Whereabouts?

Should be Anchorage.

That is why I love working where I do, I have been offered jobs with better pay in: Tennessee, Texas, California, and even New Zealand!

I've heard New Zealand is beautiful.  I'd love to live there.  Of course, it's kind of socialist nanny-state nightmare, so I don't think you'd dig it.  Someday I hope to go to Alaska.  I hope I can take a tour out into the bush.  Anchorage is not nearly is frigid as the interior, maritime climate you know, but it's still plenty cold compared to Georgia!

  Alaska has no state sales tax, and the state government gives every citizen a yearly share of the profits from the oil drilling, last I heard it was around $700.00 dollars.  I wonder if the greedy state governments of New England would do that? 


We're too poor trying to subsidize the Red States to do that.  Maybe the red states would like to give it back? Didn't think so.

trying to subsidize the Red States


Yeah, subsidize farms.  That is where most of the red state ''welfare'' comes from.  Go ahead and don't subsidize farms, see what the cost of bread will be.

Yeah, subsidize farms.  That is where most of the red state ''welfare'' comes from.  Go ahead and don't subsidize farms, see what the cost of bread will be.

It ain't exactly Uncle Henry and Auntie Em the feds are subsidizing.  It's more like Archer-Daniels-Midland and Cargill, the huge multinational megacorporations who killed off the family farm, but still can't hold their own in the free market!

Yeah, subsidize farms.  That is where most of the red state ''welfare'' comes from.  Go ahead and don't subsidize farms, see what the cost of bread will be.


far less, since it'll come from overseas.  Strange the government won't stop outsourcing of factory jobs or white collar jobs, but they'll bend over backwards to subsidize farms.

and it's not just fams. Its a lot of government contractory spending in those red territories, such as Lockhead Martin, who basically bought and paid for Gingrinch when he was in office, and who responded by spending lots of business their way when he was in control of the House.  Gingrinch went so far as to mandate weapons programs that the military didn't even want, because they were being built in his state.