Nevada Measure Is First Marijuana Legalization Initiative to Qualify for 2016 Ballot


Jacob Sullum

Yesterday a Nevada initiative became the first marijuana legalization measure to qualify for the 2016 ballot. Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller said the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol had submitted more than enough valid signatures to submit its initiative to voters in November 2016, assuming that the state legislature does not act on the issue before then.

Like Colorado's Amendment 64, the Initiative to Regulate and Tax Marijuana would make it legal for adults 21 or older to possess up to an ounce, grow up to six plants at home, and transfer up to ounce at a time to other adults "without remuneration." The initiative charges the state Department of Taxation with licensing and regulating marijuana producers, distributors, and retailers. It imposes a 15 percent excise tax on the "fair market value" of marijuana sold by growers. 

Consuming cannabis in a marijuana store, "a public place," or a moving vehicle would be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $600. The initiative defines "a public place" as "an area to which the public is invited or in which the public is permitted regardless of age," which suggests that age-restricted establishments (other than marijuana stores) could allow cannabis consumption on their premises. That option would distinguish Nevada from Colorado and Washington, where the rules governing consumption outside the home remain fuzzy.

So far voters in four states (Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington) and the District of Columbia have approved the legalization of marijuana for recreational use. A 2013 survey of Nevada voters by Public Policy Polling put support for legalization of recreational marijuana at 54 percent. Other states where voters are likely to see legalization initiatives in 2016 include Arizona, California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Montana.

NEXT: How Much Did Taxpayers Pay for Jonathan Gruber's Obamacare Consulting Work? To Find Out, Congress Will Have to Talk to His Lawyer

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. OT: Cop arrests dude for taking good parking spot he wanted.


    1. Oh, for fuck’s sake – why did I read that??!!

      *bangs head on wall*

      1. Link from same article


        1. And yet another. Its like stupid pig central


    2. “The judge threw them out after it was revealed that the officer had too many conflicting statements of the account,” says Brown. He adds that during a deposition, Maio claimed he was already in the process of backing his vehicle into the spot and Pierre stealthily swooped in to confiscate the parking space. But Brown says that was proved to be impossible based on the size of the two vehicles.

      I love it when cops can’t stop lying so much that it fucks them. Because they lie even when they don’t have to.

      I blew through a red light in Brooklyn one time on Flatbush Ave. It had turned red maybe a second or two before I ran it. NYPD cruiser pulls me over, gives me a ticket. Because I was/am a pain in the ass, I requested a hearing. In the hearing at the DMV on Coney Island, the judge asks the cop for his version (I had said the light was yellow). Now, remember that I really did run the light. He had me. But instead, he got that shifty cop look on his face and insisted that the light had been red for thirty seconds. I look at him, go “thirty seconds?!?” incredulously, and look knowingly at the judge. The judge bangs his gavel, dismisses the ticket, and the whole courtroom erupts into applause. That was great. And it was all because the cop couldn’t stop from lying.

      I didn’t take the Belt home and took sneaky surface streets the whole way instead with my eyes glued to the rearview mirror. Thankfully nothing happened.

      1. Yesssssss!

        Beautiful reverse nut punch.

  2. I would think weed would lower one’s enthusiasm for irrational gambling. It’s probably more in Nevada’s self-interest to legalise coke or Heisenberg Blue.

    1. Medicinal cocaine? You’ve been playing too much GTA V.

      1. Recreational cocaine. What other kind is there really.

        1. To be fair cocaine is great for nasal surgery because it provides an anesthetic and helps control bleeding. I was referencing the medicinal cocaine commercials in GTA that mock med-pot.

  3. I’m curious how this will effect drug tourist. If you legally use marihuana in Las Vegas and come home sober and get spot checked by an employer, would you have grounds to file a wrongful termination suit if you test positive for MJ?

    1. I’m wondering about this type of thing, as well.
      Right now (in Montana), users fly under the radar because it’s illegal, so employers are inclined to think no one does it. The only folks subjected to testing at my work place are employees who drive a company vehicle (randoms), or employees who are involved in an accident on or involving company property resulting in damages in excess of $500. These types of rules are pretty standard in this state for large employers.

      So what happens when it’s suddenly legal? Randoms for everybody? Are they going to get rid of testing altogether?

      1. It’s an interesting question. I’d think that from an actuarial point of view pot would be less of a worry than alcohol, and few employers test for that. Would insurance companies stop wanting to test for pot if it were legal?

        I think stupid federal contractor rules also have a lot to do with why employers drug test. So until it is legalized federally, that testing won’t go anywhere.

    2. Nope. Ima get ya every time. Cause my company says you can’t test positive.

      Now, we’re “for cause”, so unlikely I’d test you without other symptoms/evidence, but….have never, ever lost a case. It’s right there in the rule book. Don’t care where you smoked it or why – you work here, you’d better not test positive.

      I don’t like it, which is why I can’t wait to retire so I can smoke with impunity again w/out worrying about losing my FUCKING JOB over some weeds that grow in da erf.

      1. I understand firing someone impared on the job, but can’t you test positive for MJ like a week after consumption? It seems like firing someone who is not impared and who used under legal circumstances would bring a wrongful termination suit. full disclosure, I don’t know shit about employment laws.

        1. Also, that old Seinfeld joke about poppy seeds making you test possible for opiates? Totally true.

          1. *Test positive. Stupid phone.

          2. They did that on myth busters. It didn’t take a lot to test positive.

            1. Didn’t they test it with poppyseed muffins and bagels? Poor bastard who had to eat the bagels…

              1. What’s wrong with bagels you philistine?!? Good bagels with lox and cream cheese and capers and red onion are the shit.

                1. Hey, you’re talking to the girl who puts ketchup on a hotdog,* OK?!

                  *Not a Polish dog or brat, though

                  Bagels just aren’t a huge thing in Montana. If they passed a bagel-tax here, everyone would just shrug and keep eating CostCo muffins.

                  1. Hey, you’re talking to the girl who puts ketchup on a hotdog

                    (gags, dry heaves)

                    Bagels just aren’t a huge thing in Montana

                    Emergent market! Somebody just needs to start making good bagels there.

                    1. Could it be that simple? Maybe I could serve homemade bagels at my Madame’s Coffee House, which I one day dream of running.

                    2. I think you have to convert to Judaism first. See? It is simple!

                2. Chicken salad on a rye or pumpernickel bagel…

        2. As long as it is illegal, I don’t think anyone would have a case for wrongful termination. It will be interesting to see if that is any different when it is legal.

  4. OT: This is not good:

    What is clear is that the world has become addicted to central bank stimulus. Bank of America said 56pc of global GDP is currently supported by zero interest rates, and so are 83pc of the free-floating equities on global bourses. Half of all government bonds in the world yield less that 1pc. Roughly 1.4bn people are experiencing negative rates in one form or another.

    These are astonishing figures, evidence of a 1930s-style depression, albeit one that is still contained. Nobody knows what will happen as the Fed tries break out of the stimulus trap, including Fed officials themselves.

    1. By the way it’s easy to get around the new Telegraph paywall, just delete the cookies

      1. If you can tell me how to get past the WSJ paywall, I will bake you some cookies.

        And you can delete them with your mouth.

        1. WSJ is an easy one. If you go to the article from a search engine result, it will take you through the paywall. Just go to the article you want to read, copy the name of the article into the search engine (Google and Bing are the ones I tested), and click the corresponding link.

          1. Genius! Sort of!

            I’m going to need to fine tune it a little. There’s just one article I like reading every day–Taranto’s Best of the Web.

            1. That’s what I use it for.

              1. This is why there are no female libertarians. Oh wait…

              2. Also, what kind of cookies would you like? 😛

                1. Dark chocolate pot cookies, for medicinal purposes, of course.

                  To be fair, PapayaSF beat me to it by a minute. SIV got in there, too, though a bit late. Cookies for all!

                  1. You get a cookie!

                    You get a cookie!

                    You, you, and you get a cookie!

                    Everyone gets cookies!

        2. Google news search the subject or a phrase from the headline or lede.

      2. Haven’t tried that. Sometimes I can get around the free article limits by using a different browser, or copying and pasting a snippet of the article text into Google and using that link.

  5. People should stop saying “regulate marijuana like alcohol” since MJ is regulated much more heavily. Where it is “legalized”, there are still many areas that are criminalized. Basically it’s legalized in X,Y,Z specific ways, with all others not allowed. And these enumerated ways are more narrow, more restrictive than alcohol or tobacco, the later of which can still be consumed in a public place and has a age limit of 18 instead of 21 (although this is changing too).

    1. Alcohol is regulated insanely tightly. Wanting it to be regulated like alcohol is wanting a looooooooot of regulation.

    2. Well, a lot of people really want that. More people should be complaining that it is more tightly restricted than alcohol (which is too regulated itself). I imagine that to most libertarians it is at best a strategic argument. More likely to appeal to a broader audience who worry about the children and all of that.

    3. I can make 100Gal. beer & 100Gal. wine at home every year without regulation or permit, twice that if there are 2 or more adults in my household. What’s the cannabis equivalent of that? 6 plants? Ridiculous!

  6. Right in GOP mega donor, and anti pot crusader, Adelson’s backyard. Interesting.…..n#Cannabis

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.