Marijuana Use Is A Constitutional Right In Alaska: Ravin V. State

[medmanmike]

http://www.cannalawblog.com/marijuana-use-is-a-constitutional-right-in-alaska-ravin-v-state/?utm_source=HarrisMoure+-+Canna+Law+Blog&utm_campaign=633570fcb7-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f771927421-633570fcb7-71351949

 

Home > Cannabis Case Summaries > Marijuana Use Is a Constitutional Right in Alaska: Ravin v. State

 

Marijuana Use Is a Constitutional Right in Alaska: Ravin v. State

By Hilary Bricken on February 26, 2016

Posted in Cannabis Case Summaries

Marijuana LitigationAttorney Irwin Ravin was arrested on October 11, 1972, and charged with violating Alaska Statute 17.12.010 for possessing cannabis for personal use. Before trial in front of the Alaska District Court, Ravin attacked the constitutionality of AS 17.12.010 by a motion to dismiss asserting that the state had violated his right of privacy under both the federal and Alaska constitutions, and further violated the federal and Alaska equal protection provisions. The district court denied Ravin’s motion to dismiss. Ravin appealed that decision to the superior court, which affirmed. Ravin then appealed that decision to the Alaska Supreme Court.

 

"Under the Alaska constitution though, the Court recognized that one has a fundamental right of privacy in their home, and that

 

This right to privacy would encompass the possession and ingestion of substances such as marijuana in a purely personal, non-commercial context in the home unless the state can meet its substantial burden and show that proscription of possession of marijuana in the home is supportable by achievement of a legitimate state interest."

 

and

 

"Most importantly, the Alaska Supreme Court held that the right to privacy enshrined in the Alaska Constitution allowed Ravin to consume cannabis in his own home:

 

"[W]e believe that at present, the need for control of drivers under the influence of marijuana and the existing doubts as to the safety of marijuana, demonstrate a sufficient justification for the prohibition found in AS 17.12.010 as an exercise of the state’s police power for the public welfare. Given the evidence of the effect of marijuana on driving an individual’s right to possess or ingest marijuana while driving would be subject to the prohibition provided for in AS 17.12.010. However, given the relative insignificance of marijuana consumption as a health problem in our society at present, we do not believe that the potential harm generated by drivers under the influence of marijuana, standing alone, creates a close and substantial relationship between the public welfare and control of ingestion of marijuana or possession of it in the home for personal use. Thus we conclude that no adequate justification for the state’s intrusion into the citizen’s right to privacy by its prohibition of possession of marijuana by an adult for personal consumption in the home has been shown."

 

I'm no lawyer, but it would seem to me that this argument would be applicable today, in Michigan, As well as elsewhere. Any attorneys care to comment?

[t-pain]

alaska probably has a different constitution than michigan.

[outsideinthecold]

Irvin Ravin was a lawyer in Homer if memory serves me correctly.

 

Homer was a pretty small place then, a molding fishing town with a dirt Main Street. Equal numbers of bars and churches lining both sides of its two block length. Along with Yule Kilcher and Brother Isiah, he was a well lknown local character.

 

Marijuana remained legal until, you guessed it, a Republican governor with the necessary Republican legislative majority to enforce its will changed the AK constitution during the height of Reagan's 'Just Say No' propaganda blitz in the mid-80's.

 

Even after every cop knew alcohol was the real problem and pot and small scale growers were tolerated.

 

Alaska was and is light years ahead of Michigan.

[AmishRnot4ganja]

Is the right to privacy enshrined in the Michigan constitution?

[GregS]

The US Constitution includes privacy and states' rights. Arguments that the Supremacy Clause is more compelling than the provisions of the Tenth Amendment, in this instance, , most especially alongside the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,are ridiculous. The legislature in DC needs to get its tail in gear. 

[Timmahh]

The US Constitution includes privacy and states' rights. Arguments that the Supremacy Clause is more compelling than the provisions of the Tenth Amendment, in this instance, , most especially alongside the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,are ridiculous. The legislature in DC needs to get its tail in gear. 

What do you think the Legislature in D.C., both Washington and Lansing, have been doing since they instituted the War on People called the War on Drugs. Making things Better?