The Alaska Supreme Court released today their opinion on the 2006 case favoring the ACLU. The ACLU originally filed a lawsuit against the state when a law was passed a law making it illegal to possess less than 1oz of MJ.

Here's the conclusion, the full opinion can be found here: No. 6357 S-12370 State, David W. Marquez, Attorney General v. American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska [other civil]
http://www.state.ak.us/courts/ops/sp-6357.pdf


We conclude that the actual controversy requirement of AS 22.10.020(g)
has not been satisfied because this case is not ripe for decision. In striking the balance
required by the ripeness doctrine, the risks of adjudicating the constitutionality of AS
11.71.060 in a hypothetical setting outweigh the negligible hardships that the plaintiffs
will face if we do not decide this issue. On the “need for decision” side of the scale,
plaintiffs’ need is slight because their conduct, regardless of how this court might rule,
would still be criminal under federal statutes which impose much more severe penalties
than the amended state statute. On the risk side of the scale, our concerns echo those that
we expressed in Brause:
Without more immediate facts it will be difficult to deal
intelligently with the legal issues presented. . . . In order to
grant relief . . . [this] court would have to declare a statute
unconstitutional. This is, of course, a power that courts
possess. But it is not a power that should be exercised
unnecessarily, for doing so can undermine public trust and
confidence in the courts and be interpreted as an indication of
lack of respect for the legislative and executive branches of
government. Further, ruling on the constitutionality of a
statute when the issues are not concretely framed increasesthe risk of erroneous decisions.[54]In accordance with these views, the superior court’s judgment in favor of the ACLU, Jane Doe, and Jane Roe, is VACATED and this appeal is DISMISSED.

What's the problem? You said:

The Alaska Supreme Court released today their opinion on the 2006 case favoring the ACLU. The ACLU originally filed a lawsuit against the state when a law was passed a law making it illegal to possess less than 1oz of MJ.

Just carry more than an oz.


out.

__________________
...out
______________________________________
You haven't countered nothing, because the points you made are not valid, you are basing your counter on information you don't understand, regardless the accuracy of the information, because it does not state what you are saying.. (Brazko)

Well, first it was 4oz that was legal in one's home. Then it was changed to 1oz in another court ruling. This was based on "right to privacy"

The legislator responded by passing the law making it illegal to possess any amount and then ACLU sued the state. The ACLU originally won, the Atty Gen appealed, and the earlier decision is vacated.

Okay, I was just making abit of a joke... your post said it was illegal to possess LESS than 1 oz. That would make an awful lot of violators...

Okay, it has been vacated...that means what? back to 1 oz.?

out.

__________________
...out
______________________________________
You haven't countered nothing, because the points you made are not valid, you are basing your counter on information you don't understand, regardless the accuracy of the information, because it does not state what you are saying.. (Brazko)

I agree that wording is hilarious, but I'm not in the mood to read through legal jargon right now to see if its just poorly paraphrased..