Nevadans Get Another Chance to Legalize Pot

The Marijuana Policy Project is trying again with a decriminalization initiative in Nevada this fall. The last one lost by a 39-percent-to-61-percent margin. The folks at MPP say they've tried to address what they see as the major weaknesses of the last campaign. Among other things, the new initiative reduces the amount of pot adults would be permitted to possess from three ounces to one and increases penalties for selling marijuana to minors and for killing someone while driving under the influence of drugs.

Comments

[Thomas]

Um...

What happened to the Julian Sanchez post about the bus/ad debate -- the one in which he used "blog" as a transitive verb?

[J. Alexander Lowman]

This time I agree with you, Thomas. 🙂 Where is that article?

[Thomas]

The post was titled "What is Norm Mineta Smoking?"

It had already generated several comments when it disappeared.

[Shultz]

I have relatives in Vegas.

Word around the campfire has it that one of the reasons residents of Las Vegas, who under other circumstances would support legalization, don't want marijuana legalized in Nevada is that there is an almost uunbelievable incidence of drunk drivers there, and residents have to pay exorbant prices for auto insurance as a result.

Not that I would expect many of the big casinos to immediately offer free bong hits as long as you're playing.

I've heard that some well known insurance companies charge good drivers hundreds of dollars a month more in Vegas than what I pay here in LA. Others simply quote ridiculous prices rather than tell customers that they won't write policies in Vegas.

P.S. Trivia Quiz: Anybody know what Las Vegas means in Spanish?

[Joe Majsterski]

"Big worthless desert"???

Just kidding

[Joe Majsterski]

"Big worthless desert"???

Just kidding. Kinda like Greenland. Serious misnomer.

[nobody]

The Meadows.

[spur]

The initiative failed by so much last time because of an anti-gay marriage proposition that was on the ballot and all the kill-joys came out of their bunkers in Yearington to vote for it and thusly against mj legalization -- without such a lightening rod like gay marriage getting the so-con's out in force to the ballot box it should get a much higher % of the vote and maybe even pass -- which would rule -- MPP is hands down the best reform group out there in terms of pro-active legislative and electoral action taken that is effective...

[Shultz]

In Spanish, "Las Vegas" means..."The Vegas".

[joe]

"Not that I would expect many of the big casinos to immediately offer free bong hits as long as you're playing."

Sir? You've been shaking those dive for 10 minutes. Sir?

[joe]

"dice"

[thoreau]

Can somebody explain to me how pot could be illegal in Nevada? I thought everything was legal in Nevada. Or so the Onion said... 🙂

[Luca Brasi]

If this passes, would that mean Nevada supports terrorism?

[Swamp Justice]

Most marijuana is grown in North America. Maybe Nevada can require that only marijuana grown in Nevada can be smoked in Nevada? Create a make-work program to combat terrorism? 😉

[thoreau]

Even if pot grown in NV is only smoked in NV, some creative supreme court rulings have apparently held that such activities would still "affect interstate commerce." Well, everything has at least some effect on interstate commerce. So I guess everything can be regulated under the commerce clause, and the odds are good that such a proviso would not be enough to pass federal scrutiny.

Incidentally, I once heard a campus leftist argue in favor of drug prohibition on the following grounds: Right now pot is (supposedly) made and sold by small local businesses. A real "grass roots" operation, all puns intended. If drugs are legalized, then big corporations will get involved in pot, destroying the (alleged) last bastion of small local business. Big greedy corporations will take over the drug trade, instead of your local pot dealer in his tie-dye shirt, a member of the community who stands against the evils of capitalism. Plus, McDonalds will start putting crack in the burgers, just to get even more people addicted to their products.

Apparently this kid has no clue how the drug trade really works. I've never done drugs, but I have a relative involved in the drug trade. He and his friends make Ken Lay look like a pillar of humanitarian virtue.

[Shawn Smith]

Thoreau,

No, not everything is legal in all of Nevada. Prostitution is technically just as illegal in Clark County (Las Vegas metro), Washoe County (Reno metro), and Carson City (the state capital) as it is in Des Moines, Iowa. If you want to avoid gambling, Boulder City, between Henderson and Hoover Dam, will oblige you there.

As far as exhorbitant auto insurance rates, as a married, 39-year-old male with a 2000 Nissan Frontier, I'm paying $75-$100 / month, with no tickets in the last five years. The annual registration fees I know are quite a bit higher here ($159 / year for my truck) than most states. If it gets much worse, I might just decide to sell my truck and start riding my bicycle to work. My coworkers would just LOVE that June-September 🙂

Shawn S.

[Hick American]

I smoke and I vote.

[American Hick]

At the same time?

[Frank]

I went to high school in a wealthy L.A. suburb in the late 70s/early 80s; at that time, every wherehouse and licorice pizza record store had bongs, pipes, papers, and roach clips clearly on display, and no one thought anything about it. Hell, the local head shop took out a half page ad in our yearbook. Yet, with (very few) exceptions, the majority of us managed to survive the "horrors" of marijuana and grow up to lead productive lives.

As I was reading Brendan's comment, my local news was running a story on high-school kids abusing dextromethorphan (cold medication) -- apparantly the side effects occaisionally include death.

At what point does society's collective light bulb go on and the realization sink in that criminalizing *relatively* harmless soft drugs does not eliminate the underlying desire to alter consciousness, but frequently leads to the substitution of other, far less desirable methods of getting high?

If you think policing pot is tough, try airplane glue, paint thinner, spray paint, nail polish remover, etc.

[Brendan Perez]

Frank's comment got me thinking. During prohibtion, people have written that use of harder drugs went up as did use of quasi-alcohol products-methanol, questionable moonshine, etc.

This is something that happens to a smaller degree to young people. Groups like MADD claim that most youth have no problem getting alcohol, so the instances of substituion for other harder drugs may be less prevalent because of that.

Drug war reformers and legalizers always rail about the harms of prohibition-how it causes disrespect for the law, in creases invasion of privacy/police state, causes the black market to develop, doesn't allow for consistent or safe quality, etc. yet they have no problem continuiing prohbition with young people. Why? Does drug prohibition work on youth? What makes it work with them might just work on adults...

They also claim that the drug war isn't based on sound science and always want drug prohibitionists to base their claims in facts and research, yet these same people abandon scientific demands when it comes to young people-they tout "reefer madness" type studies of youth brain development and immaturity that date back to the 1900s.

They claim that legalizing drugs for adults will reduce adult drug problems. If that's the case, wouldn't legalizing it for youth also reduce their problems?

This type of drug "reform" is really scapegoating, lies, and delpoyment of smokescreens in varying proportions.

Does anyone with half a brain really buy the argument that legalizing marijuana will reduce youth use. I, at 16, had dozens of people who could secure me alcohol quickly, some were 21+, some had older brothers, etc. But MJ always required phone calls, several, and lots of "I'll call so and so, and he'll call me, and I'll call you back." I had no problem getting liquor at the liquor store at 19.

What will happen is that youth marijuana use will go up, but not by much. In reality, it won't be a big deal because youth use is rarely ever more dangerous then adult use. But this increase will immediately draw cries from anti-drug nannies for a combination of:
a. even more draconian anti-drug(read: anti-youth)policies
b. Calls for tax increases on MJ
c. Calls for more spending on ineffective, deceptive anti-drug propaganda aimed at youth-these costs will most likely cost more then the tax increases that were for them
d.Calls for going to back to criminalization

Falling so easily for this "adults only" nonsense will be the undoing of any movement. It's a backdoor for prohibitionists and it's morally bankrupt; groups with real integrity don't simply try to divert their opponents' attention towards a politically powerless group, especially when that group doesn't even account for their share of the problems.

[Brendan Perez]

I understand that "adults first" may be a workable strategy, but I don't agree with making things even harder on people under 21 in the meantime.

It's interesting that none of these groups have even discussed changing the penalties for possession of marijuana by people under 21 from the current felony that it is now.

I don't think that the drug reform movement will get off of their scapegoating ways, anymore than their anti-drug counterparts, until they are forced to.

My libertarian side says this is great, but the youth rights supporter in me says that it's not right to shift the heat away from adults onto youth.

If this measure didn't escalate the penalties related to youth use of marijuana I could see supporting it. But if this is the only way to get marijuana legalized, then I wholeheartedly hope it fails.

[SteveInClearwater]

BRENDAN, we just need to accompany the legal change with an increase in education for minors.

Nope, not 'marijuana' education, neccesarily, though there's nothing wrong with accurate information about pot being shared with those under 21.

The key education is basic civil rights and how to properly deal with police encounters. Anyone between 18 and 21 who practices general harm reduction techniques will find it pretty challenging to get arrested for simple marijuana possession.

Yes, legal would be better than Prohibition for minors, just as for adults. But the first step is to create a legal, regulated place where adults can possess marijuana so it can be amply demonstrated that the world will not end.

The other area that needs obvious attention is restructuring the current marijuana laws for minors to more resemble the current alcohol and tobacco laws for minors. No felony charges for the adult legal limit or less. The 'contraband' substance is seized, the offender is fined and given a short course on marijuana. Yeah, it would be state information, but if we also show him the way to the harm reduction information, he'll have a better chance of staying free from arrest until that magic age of 21 when he can rush out and buy his first sack with no interference.

[thoreau]

Brendan-

I understand what you mean, but the simple fact is that the only politically feasible way to legalize pot for adults is to have penalties for juvenile use. It sucks, but that's the reality.

So we have a choice:
1) Nobody gets to smoke pot legally until everybody gets to smoke pot legally.
2) Start with the adults, then move on to kids.

Would you rather lose with your ideological virginity intact?

[Brendan Perez]

Should it come up, I , once again, will unfortunately have to vote NO.

I'm all for legalization, but not when it means aiming even more drug war attention and penalties at young people.

In Nevada, like most states, anyone 18 to 118 can have sex with a 16 year old, but now a 21 year old could face prison time for providing marijuana to his/her 20 year old spouse. Thanks, but no thanks.

If the penalty for use/possession under 21, which is a felony right now, is going to stay the same or get worse, then adults over 21 will just have to live with the misdemeanor that their possession is now, either that or supporters of this iniative can explain why adults over 21 should be allowed to use/possess a drug that is so serious and/or dangerous that it must remain a felony for possession of any amount by someone under 21 and a person could get as much as 10 years, 1st offense, or life on the 2nd offense just for providing it to someone under 21.
These penalties come from the LVRJ article discussuing this misguided intiative.

[Brendan Perez]

Should it come up, I , once again, will unfortunately have to vote NO.

I'm all for legalization, but not when it means aiming even more drug war attention and penalties at young people.

In Nevada, like most states, anyone 18 to 118 can have sex with a 16 year old, but now a 21 year old could face prison time for providing marijuana to his/her 20 year old spouse. Thanks, but no thanks.

If the penalty for use/possession under 21, which is a felony right now, is going to stay the same or get worse, then adults over 21 will just have to live with the misdemeanor that their possession is now, either that or supporters of this iniative can explain why adults over 21 should be allowed to use/possess a drug that is so serious and/or dangerous that it must remain a felony for possession of any amount by someone under 21 and a person could get as much as 10 years, 1st offense, or life on the 2nd offense just for providing it to someone under 21.
These penalties come from the LVRJ article discussuing this misguided intiative.

[passing through]

Yo, Dave, keep your sordid habits to yourself, OK?

[Miller Steve]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 212.253.2.205
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/21/2004 05:45:37
Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but talent instantly recognizes genius.