End-of-Chapter Material
Summary
All states and the federal government criminalize specific conduct relating to controlled substances (i.e., drugs). Jurisdictions classify drugs in schedules, based on their harmful or addictive qualities, and punish drug offenses accordingly. Alaska’s drug schedules are similar to the federal drug schedules, but significant differences exist. Alaska’s drug statutory scheme is largely broken into two groups: possessory offenses and trafficking offenses. Possessory offenses are normally prosecuted at the misdemeanor level, depending on the drug. Trafficking includes the manufacture, delivery, and possession for sale, with the grading ranging from a misdemeanor to a felony, depending on the defendant’s conduct and the drug. Alaska has largely legalized the cultivation, distribution, sale, and possession of marijuana, which potentially violates the federal supremacy clause since the federal government does not legalize marijuana for any purpose.
Alaska has relatively restrictive alcohol laws. In addition to laws that criminalize the possession and sale of alcohol to prohibited persons, Alaska also allows local communities to prohibit the importation, sale, and possession of alcohol if approved by a majority of the community’s voters. Such laws are frequently referred to as local option laws.
The law also permits police to take an individual into protective custody if they are intoxicated or incapacitated. A person taken into protective custody is held until they are sober and no longer a danger to themselves.
Answer to Is Evidence of Drug Use Evidence of Drug Possession?
The Court of Appeals, in Thronsen v. State, 809 P.2d 941 (Alaska App. 1991), held that while the presence of a drug in one’s body may be considered circumstantial evidence of possession, the presence of drugs in the person’s body alone is insufficient for conviction. To convict a defendant of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, the state must prove that the defendant consciously possessed, either physically or constructively, the substance and that the defendant had actual knowledge of the nature of the substance. A defendant who had previously injected drugs no longer possesses the drugs since the defendant has no dominion or control over the drug. “[C]ontrol is an essential element of possession and that because the host body cannot exercise control or dominion over a substance after it is ingested … the mere presence in the body cannot support a criminal conviction for possession.” You can read the entire Thronsen v. State, 809 P.2d 941 (Alaska App. 1991) online at the University of Alaska Anchorage Consortium Library using your student credentials.
