Alaska Marijuana Legalization, Ballot Measure 2 (2014)

Ballot Measure 2 Type Initiated state statute Origin Citizens Topic Marijuana Status Approved a

2014 measures August 19 Ballot Measure 1 d November 4 Ballot Measure 2 a Ballot Measure 3 a Ballot Measure 4 a Endorsements • Full text Advertisements • Polls Expenditures Local measures

The Alaska Marijuana Legalization, Ballot Measure 2 was on the November 4, 2014 ballot in Alaska as an initiated state statute, where it was approved. As a result of its passage, the measure allowed people age 21 and older to possess up to one ounce of marijuana and up to six plants. It also made the manufacture, sale and possession of marijuana paraphernalia legal. The initiative was designed to implement these changes at the state level; however, these acts still remained illegal under federal law, at the time of the measure's passage.

The plans to try to place the measure on the ballot were announced by the Marijuana Policy Project in mid-January 2013. In June 2013, Lieutenant Gov. Mead Treadwell announced his office certified a measure allowing adults to possess up to one ounce of marijuana. A citizens' group called The Alaska Campaign to Regulate Marijuana officially sponsored the measure.

Aftermath

The Marijuana Control Board created by Measure 2 met for the first time on July 2, 2015. It was determined that unincorporated villages cannot prohibit marijuana stores or cultivation because they are not "local governments" like incorporated cities and boroughs. About 19,264 Alaskans live in unincorporated villages and areas as of 2003.

In October 2015, the control board released its full marijuana regulation proposal in a 100-page document. The proposal outlines rules for marijuana packaging, store locations, distribution, edibles, social clubs and more.

Retail marijuana stores would have to label their marijuana products with the following statements:

“

Marijuana has intoxicating effects and may be habit forming. Marijuana can impair concentration, coordination, and judgment. Do not operate a vehicle or machinery under its influence. There may be health risks associated with consumption of marijuana. For use only by adults twenty-one and older. Keep out of the reach of children. Marijuana should not be used by women who are pregnant or breast feeding.

”

The state's Marijuana Control Board met during the second week of April 2018. On the agenda were discussions about public consumption regulations. Under current regulations, people are only free to legally consume marijuana inside their homes. On May 23, 2018, the city of Fairbanks, Alaska addressed the issue of developing cannabis clubs and public places to sample and consume cannabis in Fairbanks.

Election results

Below are the official, certified results:

Alaska Ballot Measure 2
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		149,021	53.23%
No		130,924	46.77%

Election results via: Alaska Division of Elections

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot title of this measure read as follows:

“

Ballot Measure No. 2 - 13PSUM An Act to Tax and Regulate the Production, Sale, and Use of Marijuana.

”

Ballot summary

The full ballot summary read as follows:

“

This bill would tax and regulate the production, sale, and use of marijuana in Alaska. The bill would make the use of marijuana legal for persons 21 years of age or older. The bill would allow a person to possess, use, show, buy, transport, or grow set amounts of marijuana, with the growing subject to certain restrictions. The bill would ban the public use of marijuana. The bill would prohibit a person under 21 years of age from using false identification to buy or try to buy marijuana or marijuana accessories. The bill would allow validly registered marijuana-related entities and persons 21 years of age or older who own or are employed by these entities to make, possess, buy, distribute, sell, show, store, transport, deliver, transfer, receive, harvest, process, or package marijuana and marijuana products, subject to certain restrictions. Alaska Statute 17.30.020 (Controlled Substances) would not apply to these entities. The bill would require the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board to implement parts of the bill. But the bill would also let the legislature create a Marijuana Control Board to assume these duties. The bill would require the ABC Board to adopt regulations governing marijuana-related entities. The regulations would need to cover certain topics and be subject to certain restrictions. The bill would also create procedures for registering a marijuana-related entity. The procedures would be managed by the ABC board and local governments. The bill would allow a local government to prohibit the operation of marijuana-related entities. A local government could do that by enacting an ordinance or through voter initiative. The ordinances could cover the time, place, manner, and registration of a marijuana entity’s operations. The bill would allow a person 21 years of age or older to possess, use, show, buy, or transport marijuana accessories. Marijuana accessories are products individuals use to grow or consume marijuana. The bill would also allow persons 21 years of age or older to make marijuana accessories and to distribute or sell them to persons who are 21 years of age or older. The bill states that it is not intended to require an employer to allow marijuana use, transportation, possession, sale, growth, or transfer, or prevent an employer from prohibiting these activities. The bill does not intend to supersede laws prohibiting driving under the influence of marijuana. The bill does not intend to prohibit schools, correction facilities, hospitals, or private persons or entities from restricting marijuana on their property. The bill does not intend to limit the state’s existing medical marijuana laws. The bill would impose a $50 per ounce (or proportionate) excise tax on the sale or transfer of marijuana from a cultivation facility to a retail store or marijuana product manufacturing facility. The marijuana cultivation facility would pay the tax and send monthly tax statements to the Department of Revenue. The Department of Revenue could exempt certain parts of the marijuana plant from the tax. It could also establish a lower tax rate for certain parts of the plant. The bill defines numerous terms. The bill contains a statement of purpose and findings. The bill would impose civil fines and penalties for violations. Should this initiative become law?

”

Full initiative text

The full initiative text can be read here.

Background

See also: 2014 ballot measure hot topics: Marijuana

Marijuana in Alaska

The state of Alaska has had a complicated relationship with marijuana over the years. In 1975, the state legislature approved a bill to decriminalize private possession of up to one ounce of marijuana in public, thereby replacing the possibility of time in jail with a civil fine of up to $100. Shortly thereafter, the Alaska Supreme Court did away with all penalties for possessing up to four ounces of marijuana and up to 24 plants in one's home, ruling that the prohibition of marijuana possession violated the right to privacy guaranteed in the state constitution. As a result of the ruling, known as Ravin v. State, the legislature got rid of the $100 civil fine for possessing up to four ounces of marijuana in 1982.

Then, in 1990, all of this was undone by the approval of the Alaska Marijuana Criminalization Initiative, which made all marijuana possession in Alaska illegal and punishable by up to 90 days in jail and/or up to a $1,000 fine. However, in 2003, the Alaska Court of Appeals overturned the law established by the measure and upheld the previous ruling set in Ravin v. State. Legislators once again attempted to criminalize the possession of marijuana in 2006, though they were unsuccessful in overturning the Ravin ruling. Medical marijuana was legalized in the state in 1998 with the approval of Measure 8.

Ballot Measure 2 was the third attempt in 15 years to decriminalize marijuana in Alaska. In 2000, voters defeated Measure 5, which sought to "do away with civil and criminal penalties for persons 18 years or older who use marijuana, or other hemp products." The legalization of recreational marijuana was once again defeated at the polls in 2004 when voters turned down Measure 2, which attempted to "remove civil and criminal penalties under state law for persons 21 years or older who grow, use, sell or give away marijuana or hemp products."

2012 marijuana ballot measures

The 2012 elections proved to be groundbreaking for marijuana legalization support groups. Voters in Washington approved Initiative 502, thereby legalizing the recreational use of marijuana. Coloradans followed suit when they approved Amendment 64 during the same election. However, voters in Oregon rejected Measure 80, a similar, though slightly less stringent, marijuana legalization measure. Measure 80 would have allowed adults over the age of 21 to possess an unlimited supply of marijuana and given an industry-dominated board permission to regulate sales.

Supporters

The Alaska Campaign to Regulate Marijuana is a citizens' group that officially sponsored the measure. The measure was also supported by the Marijuana Policy Project. Supporters argued that marijuana is significantly less harmful than alcohol and therefore should be legalized.

Yes on 2 TV ad: "The Officer"

Officials

• Rep. Scott Kawasaki (D-4)
• Rep. David Guttenberg (D-38)

Individuals

• Larry Murakami (D)
• Adam Wool (D)
• Joe Blanchard II (R)
• Bill Parker, former Deputy Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Corrections
• Laurie Constantino, Alaska's former Chief Prosecutor

Arguments

On their website, supporters of Ballot Measure 2 listed various impacts of marijuana on consumers and the community. They argued that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol.

“	Impact on the Consumer: Many people die from alcohol use. Nobody dies from marijuana use. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that more than 37,000 annual U.S. deaths are attributed to alcohol use alone (i.e. this figure does not include accidental deaths). On the other hand, the CDC does not even have a category for deaths caused by the use of marijuana. People die from alcohol overdoses. There has never been a fatal marijuana overdose. The official publication of the Scientific Research Society, American Scientist, reported that alcohol is one of the most toxic drugs and using just 10 times what one would use to get the desired effect could lead to death. Marijuana is one of – if not the – least toxic drugs, requiring thousands of times the dose one would use to get the desired effect to lead to death. This “thousands of times” is actually theoretical, since there has never been a case of an individual dying from a marijuana overdose. Meanwhile, according to the CDC, hundreds of alcohol overdose deaths occur in the United States each year. The health-related costs associated with alcohol use far exceed those for marijuana use. Health-related costs for alcohol consumers are eight times greater than those for marijuana consumers, according to an assessment recently published in the British Columbia Mental Health and Addictions Journal. More specifically, the annual cost of alcohol consumption is $165 per user, compared to just $20 per user for marijuana. This should not come as a surprise given the vast amount of research that shows alcohol poses far more – and more significant – health problems than marijuana. Alcohol use damages the brain. Marijuana use does not. Despite the myths we’ve heard throughout our lives about marijuana killing brain cells, it turns out that a growing number of studies seem to indicate that marijuana actually has neuroprotective properties. This means that it works to protect brain cells from harm. For example, one recent study found that teens who used marijuana as well as alcohol suffered significantly less damage to the white matter in their brains. Of course, what is beyond question is that alcohol damages brain cells. Alcohol use is linked to cancer. Marijuana use is not. Alcohol use is associated with a wide variety of cancers, including cancers of the esophagus, stomach, colon, lungs, pancreas, liver and prostate. Marijuana use has not been conclusively associated with any form of cancer. In fact, one study recently contradicted the long-time government claim that marijuana use is associated with head and neck cancers. It found that marijuana use actually reduced the likelihood of head and neck cancers. If you are concerned about marijuana being associated with lung cancer, you may be interested in the results of the largest case-controlled study ever conducted to investigate the respiratory effects of marijuana smoking and cigarette smoking. Released in 2006, the study, conducted by Dr. Donald Tashkin at the University of California at Los Angeles, found that marijuana smoking was not associated with an increased risk of developing lung cancer. Surprisingly, the researchers found that people who smoked marijuana actually had lower incidences of cancer compared to non-users of the drug. Alcohol is more addictive than marijuana. Addiction researchers have consistently reported that marijuana is far less addictive than alcohol based on a number of factors. In particular, alcohol use can result in significant and potentially fatal physical withdrawal, whereas marijuana has not been found to produce any symptoms of physical withdrawal. Those who use alcohol are also much more likely to develop dependence and build tolerance. Alcohol use increases the risk of injury to the consumer. Marijuana use does not. Many people who have consumed alcohol or know others who have consumed alcohol would not be surprised to hear that it greatly increases the risk of serious injury. Research published in 2011 in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, found that 36 percent of hospitalized assaults and 21 percent of all injuries are attributable to alcohol use by the injured person. Meanwhile, the American Journal of Emergency Medicine reported that lifetime use of marijuana is rarely associated with emergency room visits. According to the British Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, this is because: “Cannabis differs from alcohol … in one major respect. It does not seem to increase risk-taking behavior. This means that cannabis rarely contributes to violence either to others or to oneself, whereas alcohol use is a major factor in deliberate self-harm, domestic accidents and violence.” Interestingly enough, some research has even shown that marijuana use has been associated with a decreased risk of injury. Impact on the Community: Alcohol use contributes to aggressive and violent behavior. Marijuana use does not. Studies have repeatedly shown that alcohol, unlike marijuana, contributes to the likelihood of aggressive and violent behavior. An article published in the Journal of Addictive Behaviors reported that “alcohol is clearly the drug with the most evidence to support a direct intoxication-violence relationship,” whereas “cannabis reduces the likelihood of violence during intoxication.” Alcohol use is a major factor in violent crimes. Marijuana use is not. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism estimates that 25% to 30% of violent crimes in the United States are linked to the use of alcohol. According to a report from the U.S. Dept. of Justice, that translates to about 5,000,000 alcohol-related violent crimes per year. By contrast, the government does not even track violent acts specifically related to marijuana use, as the use of marijuana has not been associated with violence. (Of course, we should note that marijuana prohibition, by creating a widespread criminal market, is associated with acts of violence.) Alcohol use contributes to the likelihood of domestic abuse and sexual assault. Marijuana use does not. Alcohol is a major contributing factor in the prevalence of domestic violence and sexual assault. This is not to say that alcohol causes these problems; rather, its use makes it more likely that an individual prone to such behavior will act on it. For example, a study conducted by the Research Institute on Addictions found that among individuals who were chronic partner abusers, the use of alcohol was associated with significant increases in the daily likelihood of male-to-female physical aggression, but the use of marijuana was not. Specifically, the odds of abuse were eight times higher on days when men were drinking; the odds of severe abuse were 11 times higher. The website for the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN) identifies alcohol as the “most commonly used chemical in crimes of sexual assault” and provides information on an array of other drugs that have been linked to sexual violence. Given the fact that marijuana is so accessible and widely used, it is quite telling that the word “marijuana” is not included.	”
—Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol

Charlo Greene calling on Alaskans to support Measure 2.

Charlene Egby, also known as Charlo Greene, a former reporter for KTVA-TV in Anchorage, Alaska, was discussing the Alaska Cannabis Club, when she outed herself on live television as the owner of the club. She continued on, "[I] will be dedicating all of my energy toward fighting for freedom and fairness, which begins with legalizing marijuana here in Alaska," followed by "f*ck it, I quit." Greene released a video a few days later detailing why she quit on air and calling for people to vote "yes" on Measure 2. The following is a text excerpt from her video:

“	Who is willing to take a stand? I'm not afraid, clearly. But if you are, I don't judge you or any other man. Nearly a century of marijuana prohibition and stigma have stained America, the land of the free and home of the brave. But we have a chance to start taking back the right. Today it's marijuana prohibition and, once we get that done nationally, we the people will realize that we are stronger than ever and you will feel empowered to take up what you choose to fight. Advocating for freedom and fairness should be everyone's duty. I'm making it my life work, to uphold what America stands for truly: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — ideals that now need to be defended. (quote)This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.	”
—Charlene Egby

Campaign contributions

Total campaign cash as of December 2, 2014
Support:	$1,022,230
Opposition:	$1,306,447

As of December 2, 2014, The Alaska Campaign to Regulate Marijuana had received a total of $897,230 in contributions. Yes! Yes! Yes! on 2, 3, and 4 was registered to support all three measures on the November 2014 ballot in Alaska. The committee reported $125,000 in contributions and expenditures. All of the committee's funds were provided by the Progressive Kick Independent Expenditures, which was located in Oakland, California.

PAC info:

PAC/ballot measure group	Amount raised	Amount spent
The Alaska Campaign to Regulate Marijuana	$897,230	$1,181,447
Yes! Yes! Yes! on 2, 3, and 4	$125,000	$125,000
Total	$1,022,230	$1,306,447

Disclaimer: According to campaign finance reports published by the state of Alaska, the group, The Alaska Campaign to Regulate Marijuana, spent more than it raised. This was possible because the group was able to accrue debt.

Top 5 contributors:

Donor	Amount
Progressive Kick Independent Expenditures	$125,000
2013 Marijuana Policy Project	$728,831
Drug Policy Alliance	$100,000
Marijuana Policy Project	$26,519
Thomas Cody Swift	$15,000

Opposition

The group, Big Marijuana. Big Mistake. Vote No on 2, officially opposed Ballot Measure 2.

Opponents

• Anchorage Municipal Assembly
• Alaska Association of Police Chiefs
• Napaskiak Tribal Council
• Bristol Bay Native Corporation

Officials

• Rep. Steve Thompson (R-3)
• Rep. Pete Higgins (R-5)
• Rep. Tammie Wilson (R-2)
• Sharron Hunter (D-3)

Individuals

• Dave Talerico (R)

Arguments

The group Big Marijuana. Big Mistake. Vote No on 2 listed the following reasons why voters should turn down Ballot Measure 2 on the group's website:

“	Commercialization. With the legalization of marijuana comes mass marketing, advertising, and storefront properties. Such a vastly different, commercial landscape will significantly change the social norms and perceptions of our communities. Outside interests. Much like the tobacco industry, the legalization of recreational marijuana will bring to Alaska extensive industrialization from Outside, corporate entities. Big Marijuana won’t be about homegrown local businesses. Rather, it will be led by Outside companies seeking to make a profit off Alaskans. This initiative is being funded by big-dollar interests from the Lower 48, who see Alaska as a domino in their quest to legalize marijuana nationwide. More government oversight and costs. This initiative will impose significant costs on Alaskans. The State of Alaska estimates that if passed, the initiative could increase costs to state government by more than $7 million per year in regulation and other increases in state government costs: Statement of Costs. This only represents a fraction of the costs that marijuana commercialization will impose on Alaska families, businesses, health, schools, productivity and more. Health effects. There is a growing amount of evidence that marijuana is harmful. Since legalization in Colorado, there have been dozens of reports surrounding the negative impacts of marijuana and marijuana concentrates on the health of children and adults. Public health science is clear—if the initiative passes, rates of youth marijuana use will increase. In addition, recent studies link marijuana use to abnormalities in the brain. Impact on rural Alaska. The initiative as written eliminates the local option for communities in Alaska to be “dry” in regard to marijuana. It specifically allows individuals to transport and possess up to one ounce of marijuana anywhere and everywhere in Alaska, preventing villages and other communities from choosing to be marijuana-free. Alcohol. The proponents of marijuana legalization would like to make the issue about whether marijuana is worse than alcohol. This is not the point. Alcohol is and will be legal. For a state that already struggles with substance abuse, why add another legal drug to the mix? Continued illegality. This initiative will not eliminate the black market for marijuana, as proponents suggest. The black market is still thriving in Colorado despite legalization. In fact, law enforcement and drug dealers in Colorado say legalization has actually enhanced the black market because street vendors, who aren't taxed, can sell the drug cheaper.	”
—Big Marijuana. Big Mistake. Vote No on 2

Campaign contributions

As of December 2, 2014, Big Marijuana. Big Mistake. Vote No on 2 had received a total of $180,499 in contributions.

PAC info:

PAC/ballot measure group	Amount raised	Amount spent
Big Marijuana. Big Mistake. Vote No on 2	$180,499	$267,612
Total	$180,499	$267,612

Disclaimer: According to campaign finance reports published by the state of Alaska, the group, Big Marijuana. Big Mistake. Vote No on 2, spent more than it raised. This was possible because the group was able to accrue debt.

Top 4 contributors:

Donor	Amount
Northwest Strategies	$32,577
Chenega Corporation	$25,000
Robert B. Gilliam	$10,000
Thomas Tougas	$5,500

Media editorial positions

See also: Endorsements of Alaska ballot measures, 2014

Support

• New York Times said,

“	Ideally, the federal government would repeal the ban on marijuana, so states could set their own policies without worrying about the possibility of a crackdown on citizens violating federal law. Even though a majority of Americans favor legalization, Congress shows no sign of budging. So it’s better for the states to take the lead than to wait for an epiphany on Capitol Hill that may never come.	”
—New York Times

Opposition

• The Daily News-Miner said,

“	Measure 2 is, bluntly, poorly worded. It is vague to the point of being reckless in that it fails to specify, for example, what controls would be in place to ensure a legalized marijuana market is run properly and without harm to Alaskans. It leaves that task for later, though we don’t know when that would be. Also, the state would incur a substantial cost if Measure 2 is approved — up to $7 million in implementation costs during the first year, according to information developed by the Legislative Affairs Agency and included in the official election pamphlet.	”
—Daily News-Miner

Polls

See also: Polls, 2014 ballot measures

In May and August, Public Policy Polling published two separate polls on Measure 2. The question asked of poll respondents in both instances read as follows:

“

On the November ballot, there will be an Alaska Marijuana Legalization Measure. This would allow people age 21 and older to possess up to one ounce of marijuana and up to six plants. It would make the manufacture, sale, and possession of marijuana paraphernalia legal. If the election was today, would you vote 'yes' or 'no' on this measure?

”

In October, pollster Ivan Moore and Dittman Research each published a poll on Measure 2. The question asked of poll respondents in the Ivan Moore poll read as follows:

“

There is an initiative on the General election ballot that would tax and regulate the production, sale, and use of marijuana in Alaska. Criminal penalties would be removed for adults over the age of 21 who possess up to an ounce of marijuana, and constitutional protections allowing home cultivation would be preserved.

”

The question asked of poll respondents in the Dittman Research poll read as follows:

“

Ballot Measure 2 is a bill that would tax and regulate the production, sale, and use of marijuana in Alaska for people 21 years of age or older. The bill would allow a person to possess, use, show, buy, transport, or grow set amounts of marijuana. If the election were held today, would you vote for this initiative to become law -- Yes or No?

”

Alaska Measure 2 (2014)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Dittman Research	43%	53%	4%	+/-4.0	600
Ivan Moore	57.2%	38.7%	4.2%	+/-4.0	568
Public Policy Polling 7/31/2014 - 8/3/2014	44%	49%	8%	+/-3.8	673
Public Policy Polling 5/8/2014 - 5/11/2014	48%	45%	7%	+/-4.1	582
AVERAGES	48.05%	46.43%	5.8%	+/-3.98	605.75
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Alaska

Supporters of the initiative were required to collect 30,169 signatures by January 9, 2014, in order to land the measure on the ballot. The group, The Alaska Campaign to Regulate Marijuana, said it turned in approximately 46,000 signatures on Wednesday, January 8, a day ahead of the state's deadline. On February 4, 2014, Alaska's Division of Elections confirmed that enough valid signatures were verified to send the measure to the ballot.

Ballot placement

All four measures set to appear on the state ballot in 2014 were originally slated to appear on the August 19 primary ballot. However, only one, a veto referendum, was on the primary ballot. The three others, including Ballot Measure 2, were scheduled to appear on the November 4 general election ballot. The 2014 legislative session began on January 21, 2014, and was scheduled to conclude on April 20, 2014. Instead, it ended on April 25, 2014, five days after its scheduled conclusion. Because lawmakers couldn't agree on an education bill, the 2014 session surpassed its deadline. Since legislators failed to end the session on time, the three initiated state statutes were pushed from the August primary ballot to the general one in November, as Alaska law mandates at least 120 days separate the end of the legislative session and Election Day for initiatives. Voter turnout for general elections has historically been greater than that of the primaries. Therefore, more residents were expected to cast votes on this issue than if the question had appeared on the primary ballot.

Related measures

• Colorado Marijuana Legalization Initiative, Amendment 64 (2012) a
• Washington Marijuana Legalization and Regulation, Initiative 502 (2012) a
• Oregon Cannabis Tax Act Initiative, Measure 80 (2012) d
• Oregon Legalized Marijuana Initiative, Measure 91 (2014) a

See also

Suggest a link

• Alaska 2014 ballot measures
• 2014 ballot measures
• Alaska Initiative Law
• Alaska signature requirements