I don't believe weed was quite "legal" in Alaska. The Alaskan State constitution had very good privacy rights protections in it and it was difficult to enforce arresting people for possessing at home.
Also the Governor is a member of the executive branch of government, he may have advocated stricter control which would make him an asshole, but not a member of the legislative body and thus able to "make it illegal".
On that note, the separation of powers whereby the legislators are supposed to enact laws is violated by the DEA. They are unelected appointees falling under the executive branch of the Federal government. It is "illegal" for them to both schedule drugs (make laws) and enforce laws...
Legislators make laws, executive branch carries them out, courts interpret them, well that's the way it's SUPPOSED to work anyway.
i had a very long and frustrating conv with CJ about this.
regulating drugs is not a legislative issue anymore. the power to regulate and enforce controls over mind altering drugs falls with the DEA and FDA.
congress cannot try to legalize or illegalize any substance, beause it's not a legislative power anymore, it's an executive one, invested in the FDA and DEA by the 1975 Drug Law.
you can bet your ass the DEA will put up one tough fight all the way up to the supreme court, and probably win, if Congress tries to pass a law legalizing weed. they'll claim seperation of powers, and the power to regulate and enforce drugs falls within the DEA and FDA SOLELY. it can't happen.
a perfect example is crystal meth. that drug didn't exist when the drug law was passed. yet it made it to the list without the need for a congressional hearing, or anything else. a small administrative meeting, with a few FDA and DEA executives was more than enough to make this drug illegal, without the need for congress to act. the law was purposefully written so that illegalizing was very simple, re-legalizing is a practical impossibility, a theoretical possibility, never gonna work.
congress can pass a law, that repeals the 1975 act, effectively disbanding the DEA and legalizing every drug. and work from there. as long as the 1975 stands strong though, nothing's happening.
as a side note, it is interesting to note seperation of powers. the DEA will very likely appeal that it and the FDA alone have the power to regulate and enforce drugs, should legalization enter into discussion within congress. but the constitution says very clearly that giving power to one branch of government to enact laws and another to enforce them is a way to keep things fair.
the DEA and FDA can regulate AND enforce their regulations, a little bit of unconstitutionality on the part of the executive branch in those respects. but if you see how the law is written, the scheduling of drugs isn't technically a law, so it's not unconstitutional, but the 'regulations' are enforced with the full force of the law, which is kind of fucked up.......
