Alaska Marijuana Legalization Gets Enough Signatures To Appear on Aug. 19 ballot

[AkSaber]

Alaska Could Be Next State to Legalize Marijuana

Voters in Alaska will go to the polls this year to decide whether to legalize marijuana for recreational use. More than 31,000 signatures have been verified for a state petition released by the Alaska Division of Elections Tuesday, compelling a vote on the issue August 19th. The lieutenant governor's office is expected to certify the question for the ballot in the coming weeks.

Medical marijuana has been legal in Alaska since 1998, passing by a wide margin. But voters rejected, by a similarly wide margin, a bill that would have legalized marijuana for recreational use in 2000. Four years later, a comparable measure was defeated, though by a much smaller margin.

The latest proposal would allow anyone 21 or older to use marijuana for recreational use, but not in public spaces. They could also grow a small amount for themselves, or purchase marijuana from licensed retailers.

30,000 verified signatures, collected from 30 of the 40 house districts, were needed to get this question on the August primary ballot. They collected over 46,000 signatures total.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Very good news.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

I wonder if they smoke it in cariboungs.

[H. Ross Peron]

Very good news.

[Maxwell]

Way to go Alaska!

[ElectionsGuy]

And hopefully, Alaska's libertarian leanings will pull this through. And watching Alaska state troopers, I see the enormous amount of arrests just from having marijuana on hand. Its unbelievable.

[Хahar 🤔]

"Alaska's libertarian leanings" aren't a real thing.

[Gass3268]

Polling shows that as of now Alaska would suppport marijuana legalization, a veto referendum that would repeal a new tax cut for oil companies, minimum wage increase and even same sex marrige.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2014/02/alaska-miscellany.html

[Sol]

"Alaska's libertarian leanings" aren't a real thing.

That true for Wyoming and most other Western states, but I think Alaska is actually genuinely Libertarian.

[Alcon]

+1 to the idea that Alaska's libertarianism is overrated.

Alaska's electorate is full of lower middle class suburbanites.  I'm sure they have their libertarian leans, but I doubt they have them at exceptional rates.  A lot of Republicans support pot legalization, I think because fewer of them have religious prohibitions against doing so than with our cultural issues.  Supporting pot legalization doesn't mean much if you're basically a traditionalist on any cultural policy that touches on your personal views.  I really doubt the Republicans in suburban Anchorage are actually "libertarian" in any meaningful sense, and the libertarianness of hard-scrabble rural areas is probably overestimated too.   I would imagine there are a lot of socially conservative Democrats in hard-scrabble rural areas (since hard-scrabble rural areas tend to be poor), more than hardcore "to each his own" Republicans.  That's especially true considering how many of the Democrats in rural Alaska are native -- not that natives are socially conservative (Native Americans on the mainland are probably more socially liberal than whites), but they're certainly less socially liberal than they are Democratic.

Alaska may have more social-left/economic-right voters than vice-versa, but I don't think it's by much, and I don't think it's anywhere near enough to make for a social-liberal majority.

Just because someone expresses a hands-off attitude doesn't mean they're "libertarian."  Plenty of "hands-off" rural voters see social liberalism as an imposition on their right to live their traditional way of life.  "Get away from me" is not synonymous with "to each their own."

[courts]

+1 to the idea that Alaska's libertarianism is overrated.

Alaska's electorate is full of lower middle class suburbanites.  I'm sure they have their libertarian leans, but I doubt they have them at exceptional rates.  A lot of Republicans support pot legalization, I think because fewer of them have religious prohibitions against doing so than with our cultural issues.  Supporting pot legalization doesn't mean much if you're basically a traditionalist on any cultural policy that touches on your personal views.  I really doubt the Republicans in suburban Anchorage are actually "libertarian" in any meaningful sense, and the libertarianness of hard-scrabble rural areas is probably overestimated too.   I would imagine there are a lot of socially conservative Democrats in hard-scrabble rural areas (since hard-scrabble rural areas tend to be poor), more than hardcore "to each his own" Republicans.  That's especially true considering how many of the Democrats in rural Alaska are native -- not that natives are socially conservative (Native Americans on the mainland are probably more socially liberal than whites), but they're certainly less socially liberal than they are Democratic.

Alaska may have more social-left/economic-right voters than vice-versa, but I don't think it's by much, and I don't think it's anywhere near enough to make for a social-liberal majority.

Just because someone expresses a hands-off attitude doesn't mean they're "libertarian."  Plenty of "hands-off" rural voters see social liberalism as an imposition on their right to live their traditional way of life.  "Get away from me" is not synonymous with "to each their own."

that and they're one of the most heavily subsidized states and literally give people free money just for becoming residents. hard to get more un-libertarian than that

[AkSaber]

+1 to the idea that Alaska's libertarianism is overrated.

Alaska's electorate is full of lower middle class suburbanites.  I'm sure they have their libertarian leans, but I doubt they have them at exceptional rates.  A lot of Republicans support pot legalization, I think because fewer of them have religious prohibitions against doing so than with our cultural issues.  Supporting pot legalization doesn't mean much if you're basically a traditionalist on any cultural policy that touches on your personal views.  I really doubt the Republicans in suburban Anchorage are actually "libertarian" in any meaningful sense, and the libertarianness of hard-scrabble rural areas is probably overestimated too.   I would imagine there are a lot of socially conservative Democrats in hard-scrabble rural areas (since hard-scrabble rural areas tend to be poor), more than hardcore "to each his own" Republicans.  That's especially true considering how many of the Democrats in rural Alaska are native -- not that natives are socially conservative (Native Americans on the mainland are probably more socially liberal than whites), but they're certainly less socially liberal than they are Democratic.

Alaska may have more social-left/economic-right voters than vice-versa, but I don't think it's by much, and I don't think it's anywhere near enough to make for a social-liberal majority.

Just because someone expresses a hands-off attitude doesn't mean they're "libertarian."  Plenty of "hands-off" rural voters see social liberalism as an imposition on their right to live their traditional way of life.  "Get away from me" is not synonymous with "to each their own."

that and they're one of the most heavily subsidized states and literally give people free money just for becoming residents. hard to get more un-libertarian than that

You wanna know what's funniest about that?

It's always the people who boast the loudest about being independent who are always the first to scream for federal dollars.