The initiative process in Alaska is a playground for Outside bamboozlers and monied special interests that want, even need, to dodge the give and take -- the vetting, the debate, the political free-for-all of the legislative process to get their way.
Despite the progressive malarkey and populist romanticism of having the people rise up against "The Man," initiatives are, as the late Washington Post columnist David Broder pointed out, "alien to the spirit of the Constitution."
Ballot Measure 2, put on the Nov. 4 general election ballot by initiative, is a nifty example.
If voters approve, Alaska would become the third state, behind Washington and Colorado, to legalize marijuana for adults -- although that is not what this vote is about. The Vote No on 2 folks have it right: the vote really is about commercializing marijuana.
Would the current effort, largely supported by the Marijuana Policy Project, have survived a grinding legislative process? Maybe, maybe not, but instead of debate and compromise and a viable law, Alaskans now are left with a take-it-or-leave-it, up-or-down vote on a flawed measure, which includes, for example, "concentrates" in its definition of marijuana. That means products such as hashish, or butane hash oil, which has caused more than 30 fiery explosions in Colorado.
The legislative machinery would have sparked questions about taxes; about law enforcement technology; about the black market; about crime; about traffic accidents; about kids. Somebody would have asked why Colorado was told dope taxes would generate $130 million the first year, but after nine months they provided only $21 million, and why general fund money is being used to implement the law and train police.
Lawmakers would have figured out that the bigger question is not really about little dude-and-dudette dope shops and legalizing marijuana and its spinoff edibles, concentrates and other products. Not by a long shot. It certainly is not about freedom or regulating marijuana the same as alcohol -- that is a pipe dream, no matter how desperately the measure's supporters need you to believe otherwise.
It would have been clear the central issue is the industrial commercialization of the weed and efforts to make a buck with giveaways, full-blown advertising -- even on buses and billboards and sidewalk sandwich boards -- and every imaginable gimmick. One need only look at Colorado to understand Dope Inc. is a huge industry looking for room to grow.
Alaska's ballot question is almost identical to Colorado's. The question Nov. 4 is not "Should we legalize marijuana?" The question is: "Do Alaskans want to mirror Colorado?" Do we want boutique marijuana stores springing up at every turn? How about marijuana candy, cookies, soda and vape pens in convenience stores? Do Alaskans want more transients, more homeless, more crime, more indigents arriving here for dope and welfare? What about large pot cooperatives popping up and producing untaxed personal-use marijuana in areas that forbid retail sales. (The ballot measure, by the way, could make it tough for Alaska's rural villages to ban such enterprises.)
The truth is, if you want dope, you can get dope now in Alaska, though the law is confusing. The Alaska Supreme Court in 1975, citing privacy grounds, ruled individuals constitutionally can possess the drug at home, although state law forbids it.
The Legislature in 1982 set the amount at less than 4 ounces and later at 1 ounce. Lawmakers in 2006 recriminalized marijuana possession at home, but that, too, was challenged successfully on privacy grounds. Marijuana remains in legal limbo. Medicinal marijuana also is available here.
Ballot Measure 2 would allow individuals only 1 ounce and to grow up to six plants. Possession of more would be a crime. Other than huge profits for Dope Inc., painfully predictable social and cultural upheaval and boatloads of unforeseen consequences, what exactly is the advantage to the average Alaskan of abandoning the status quo?
There arguably is ample reason to further decriminalize marijuana and address confusion and conflict in state law, but those issues are best sliced and diced by the Legislature, which can weigh other states' experiences, assess the facts and craft a reasonable law.
As has happened too often in Alaska with initiatives, Ballot Measure 2 is simply an effort by its backers to dodge the messy political process; to frame the question for their own ends.
Great for them; not so much for us.
Paul Jenkins is editor of the AnchorageDailyPlanet.com, a division of Porcaro Communications.
The views expressed here are the writer's own and are not necessarily endorsed by Alaska Dispatch News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)alaskadispatch.com.