Everywhere across Alaska, politicians are standing up and claiming Alaskans didn't have a clue as to what they were doing when they voted to legalize marijuana. Yet, the ballot measure's title, without ambiguity, describes the scope of the initiative to "tax and regulate the production, sale and use of marijuana in Alaska." The proposition went on to define and delineate each of those three elements: production, sale and use.

Already politicians and regulators are reinterpreting the new marijuana law to mean what they want it to. As the question appeared on the ballot, the initiative specifically allows validly registered entities and persons to sell marijuana subject to certain restrictions. But, regulators are referring to licensing commercial marijuana businesses rather than registering them as specified on the ballot. At first blush, the difference may seem trivial, but it is not. The difference is important and will dictate the success or failure of our new law in eradicating the black market for marijuana.

In Black's Law Dictionary, the dictionary our courts turn to when deciding points of law, the definitions of those two words, "registration" and "license," are pages long. In more common dictionaries, such as Merriam-Webster, "registration" means "the act or process of entering information about something in a book or system of public records" while the word "license" means "a permission granted by competent authority to engage in a business or occupation or in an activity otherwise unlawful." Just as Alaskans didn't need their government's permission to vote on the new marijuana law, that new law says we don't need our government's permission to grow and sell marijuana. We just need to meet basic requirements laid out by regulators and to tell the government what we're doing.

According to a recent news story in the Alaska Dispatch News, Cynthia Franklin, the director of the Alaska Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, is already using the word license rather than registration. And House Bill 59 introduced by Rep. Paul Seaton, of Homer, seeks to amend the new law in part by replacing the words "register" and "registration" with "license."

The original HB 59, which Rep. Seaton pre-filed last January before the legislature convened, did not make the distinction between registration and license, but ostensibly sought to delay legalization and regulation of marijuana concentrates for a year. Rep. Seaton said his goal was to give regulators more time to address unforeseen consequences of concentrated forms of marijuana. Yet Franklin has repeatedly told legislators that the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board can ready regulations on marijuana concentrates in time to meet the deadline established in the new law.

The first version of HB 59 also contained provisions that were simply another affirmative defense similar to the ones in Senate Bill 30, which was soundly rejected in a joint Judiciary Committee hearing bill late last month. Following the rejection of SB 30, Rep. Seaton's HB 59, version E, was replaced by a new version P. The affirmative defense provisions are gone, and in their place are amendments which substitute the term "registration" with "license" in regards to commercial production and sales of marijuana. There has been no explanation or justification for the substitution entered into the public record.

"I think the voting public believed this new industry would be a well regulated commercial business," Homer's representative stated in an email to this writer. He went on to say, "I believe the voters generally knew that a distillery, a package store, bar or restaurant required separate licenses when they voted to regulate marijuana like alcohol." There are currently nine dispensary, eight package store and four restaurant liquor licenses in the City of Homer, not counting another 13 temporary licenses issued to seasonal businesses catering to tourists. Statewide, there are 3,000 authorized dispensary and package store licenses and 1,500 restaurant licenses.

It is not likely the state would issue marijuana business licenses in numbers approaching those of alcohol despite marijuana being a much safer drug with considerably less negative impact on communities and families. The high probability of a severely limited number of licenses may explain why proponents of commercial marijuana are not contesting the inconspicuous transition from registration to licensing. The marijuana market in Alaska could be worth close to $200 million a year, and many of those proponents are working hard to be first in line for a share of that bounty.

The difference between registration and license is significant, and a change would virtually ensure a continued black market for marijuana. Alaska's hundreds of small micro growers who currently supply the bulk of black market marijuana in our state would likely register and meet reasonable regulations to become legal growers, while it is unlikely that the state would even give them permission if they had to ask for a license.

As things are shaping up, there will only be a very limited number of licenses, so most of those supplementing their incomes growing modest amounts of marijuana would remain outlaws and continue selling their crops to the black market. As is currently the case in Alaska's black market, which is a free if not open market, demand would limit supply or the price would fall and the profit margin would shrink as it has in Washington, and marginal growers would go out of business.

Keith Searles is a 40-year Alaska resident, the former editor of two Alaska weekly newspapers, and he actually smoked marijuana with real hippies in the early 1970s. He currently writes the Alaska-based marijuana blog www.DenaliSmoke.com.