Election 2014 Buzz: could Alaska be the best of all legalization laboratories?

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously described the virtues of federalism in terms of a state being able to, “if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” Though we currently have lots of states now experimenting with marijuana legalization in various forms, many folks on the ground will report or assert that, when these state laboratories are located in the “lower 48,” there is an inherent risk to other states’ efforts to prohibit marijuana use. In Alaska, however, big spaces and big distances from other US states could perhaps make it the best of all isolate state laboratories to see how experiments with a legalized and regulated marijuana marketplace will work out.

For that reason (and others, of course), I think marijuana reform supporters and opponents ought to keep a close eye on the vote concerning Alaska’s Ballot Measure 2 this week.  Helpfully, this lengthy article from the Alaska Dispatch News, headlined “With Alaska marijuana vote near, the result appears to be anyone’s guess,” provides all the northern news you need to get up to speed on all the marijuana reform buzz. Here are excerpts:

Independent Alaskans, known for their libertarian streak, were a key reason activists threw their support behind Alaska’s effort to legalize recreational marijuana in 2014. But with only days until the vote, it’s anyone’s guess whether those live-and-let-live folks will go to the polls and which way they’ll vote.

Polls have been inconsistent, with wildly different results, in the weeks leading up to Nov. 4. Some show that support — nationally and in Alaska — has been above 50 percent. But whether that will mean success for the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol in Alaska remains to be seen….

At its core, Ballot Measure 2 asks Alaskans to approve “an act to tax and regulate the production, sale and use of marijuana.” But there’s much more to it. Proponents of the measure say the eight-page initiative — too short, according to opponents — allows the state to set up a basic framework for regulating marijuana. They expect the rulemaking process and any amendments to the law following its passage to be strict.

The initiative, if passed, would legalize recreational use of marijuana for those 21 and older. Beyond the age range, there are similarities to how the state controls alcohol. The initiative would allow the state to set up a marijuana control board, similar to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board currently housed under the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development. The initiative would also tax marijuana at $50 per ounce wholesale.

The initiative allows that board to take nine months to formulate regulations. Within that period it will set up a process for issuing growing and retail licenses, outline security requirements, labeling issues, restrictions on advertising, and health and safety regulations for marijuana products, among other things. It also allows a provision for communities to opt out of allowing commercial operations or retail stores….

The Yes campaign says Ballot Measure 2 would reconcile already confusing Alaska laws regarding marijuana. In 1975, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled in Ravin v. State that the right to privacy protects a small amount of marijuana in the home. However, per state statute, it is a misdemeanor to use or display a small amount of marijuana.

Also adding confusion is Alaska’s medical marijuana laws, approved by voters in 1998. Under those laws, patients registered with the state (or their proxy) can possess up to 1 ounce of marijuana and six plants, three of which can be mature. However, no system was ever set up for dispensing marijuana, and the only way patients can access the drug is by obtaining it through the black market….

The No campaign has run a fierce ground game in Alaska, pulling support from across the state. The No campaign points to a long list of organizations opposing the measure. Big help has come from Alaska Native leaders, law enforcement, Alaska mayors and political leaders on both sides of the aisle, among other groups. They championed that support by delivering their message across the state. The campaign has voiced numerous concerns over how the regulatory process will work….

The No campaign also argued that the measure goes beyond just allowing recreational marijuana, and that it would in effect create an entire commercial industry. Those concerns about commercialization tie into what they believe will be increases in youth use, public health and public safety problems, and fiscal irresponsibility.

They’ve often pointed to Colorado as a lesson on how not to do things, citing increases in stoned driving, hash oil explosions, concerns over potent marijuana concentrates and edible overdoses, and a lack of tax revenue, among others.

They’ve also sharply criticized the Yes side for its Outside funding sources, noting that their campaign is funded solely from Alaskans’ donations. To date, the No campaign has received more than $148,000 in contributions, all from in-state. In comparison, the Yes campaign has received more than $866,000, with big donations coming from the Marijuana Policy Project and Drug Policy Alliance….

The Yes campaign has pointed to support from the 45,000 people who signed the petition to get it on the ballot, well over the 30,000 needed, as well as thousands of volunteers across the state. But they’ve courted few endorsements from public figures, in striking contrast to the opposition. With the exception of Forrest Dunbar, a Democrat running for U.S. Congress, all candidates for statewide office have opposed Ballot Measure 2….

For the most part, Alaska followed a similar path to legalization seen in other states, according to Erik Altieri, communication director for NORML, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. He said the arguments, on both sides, were not all that different from arguments presented in Colorado and Washington.

What surprised him was the lack of partisanship in the election. Typically the lines are split more closely, with Republicans against the measure and Democrats for it. But that didn’t happen in Alaska. Campaign spokesman Bickford has a long history in Republican politics, and the campaign focused some of its efforts on getting out the vote to conservatives. In contrast, Williams, with the No campaign, is the former head of the Alaska Democratic Party.

Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, which donated $100,000 to the Yes campaign in July, said marijuana wins in Alaska and Oregon will undoubtedly lead to wins in other, larger states during the 2016 election. Nadelmann said Thursday he wasn’t sure how Alaska would turn out. What had seemed an easy win earlier in the year was clearly in “roll the dice mode” now.

That’s happened in Oregon too, he said. While either a loss or win in Alaska will likely affect national momentum, Nadelmann said other states will still move forward in 2016, including California. The ultimate goal? To put pressure on the federal government to decriminalize the drug at the highest level.

If it loses, local activists could come back but Nadelmann said Alaskans shouldn’t expect to see national organizations making the same donations they did before. “If either state loses by a small amount, and it’s because young people don’t turn out, two years from now it’ll be an easy win,” he said. “But enthusiasm will be less.”