[ QUOTE ]
I think he'd get a lot farther by pushing the notion that the court's reasoning on Roe should apply generally to everything related to personal decisions. (ie. drug laws, FDA laws, health food restrictions, seatbelt laws, smoking laws, financial restrictions, etc)
natedogg
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I find this very interesting. Although our Federal Constitution doesn’t have an explicitly guaranteed right to privacy, the Roe court found an implied right to privacy in the due process clause of the 14th amendment, thus establishing a constitutional right to privacy.
The State of Alaska has a right to privacy explicitly written into its constitution ( unlike the Federal constitution ). This right to privacy guarantees, among other things, that persons possessing or smoking small amounts of marijuana in the privacy of their home are free from prosecution.
See Ravin v. State of Alaska ( Alaska Supreme court decision )
[ QUOTE ]
Thus, we conclude that citizens of the State of Alaska have a basic right to privacy in their homes under Alaska's constitution. 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.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ravin v. State of Alaska
Notice that this isn't a decision regarding medical use and the Federal boys can't touch this with their overreaching commerce clause.