OR WOULD 'HUNTING MAN' GET THE SAME CONSIDERATION AS BURNING MAN?

Maybe I just don't get it. Citations at the 2004 Burning Man event
were up 23 percent, drug offenses were up 14 percent, all six Pershing
County Sheriff's Office checkpoints for compliance with not serving
alcohol to minors failed the checks, and it's only a postscript?

A little over 35,000 people frolic on the suddenly non-environmentally
sensitive playa of the Black Rock Desert for a week, and the Bureau of
Land Management simply plays along, even 'policing' the event to the
tune of 60-plus officers?

Do you suppose, then, that if, as a sportsman or outdoor enthusiast,
you kick one stone out of place in, say, High Rock Canyon, you're not
going to be shackled with a citation for disturbing environmentally
sensitive land?

And does that mean that if sportsmen chose to hunt naked, or to splay
urban camouflage grease paint all over their bodies rather than
confining it to their faces, or to do a few drugs, toss the kid a beer
and roam around the countryside in a Mad Max-style vehicle, they would
get the same kind treatment as the 'Burners' do?

Do you really believe that, if ecosystems are truly the cornerstone of
our earthly environment, the ecosystem of the Black Rock Desert is any
less fragile for a select week in late summer than are those of, say,
Mason Valley and/or Walker Lake on any particular day of the year?

And do you suppose that if 'Hunting Man' were to do something artsy
like decorate his camp with pseudo-petroglyphs of the animals he
hunts, or had a cleanup crew to follow behind him like Burning man
does--or better yet, packed a large enough wallet--he would be
celebrated as a cultural icon?

That's what I thought, but I still thought I'd ask...

Maybe I'm slow, but...when are Nevadans going to tell the Marijuana
Policy Institute to take a hike?

After failing to get a question on this November's ballot asking
voters to approve amending the State Constitution to allow adults to
legally possess up to one ounce of marijuana and appealing the fact
that it missed the deadline for getting the require signatures to the
9th Circuit Court of Appeals, that group--and make no mistake about
it, by any other name, including The Committee to Regulate and Control
Marijuana, it is that group--the effort now is to get a proposal
before the 2005 Nevada Legislature to allow stores to sell the drug
and raise revenue for state coffers via a tax on those sales.

The proposal is another initiative that will require the collection of
51,337 signatures of registered Nevada voters by November 9. If that
deadline is met, the issue would then go to the '05 Legislature, which
would be required to take action on it within 40 days. If no action is
taken in the Legislature, the measure would then be placed on the 2006
ballot.

This is the MPI's third attempt to legalize marijuana in Nevada, and,
in its basic wording, it closely resembles the group's first stab at
legalization in that it suggests that 'rather than spending millions
of taxpayer dollars arresting marijuana users, the state of Nevada
should instead generate millions of dollars by taxing and regulating
marijuana, and earmark part of these revenues to prevent and treat
abuse of marijuana, tobacco, alcohol, and other drugs.'

Beyond the obligatory lure of adding funds to the state budget, new
window dressings this time around are that rather than the state
basically owning the stores that would sell the drug, as was proposed
two years ago, this proposal would instead see the state licensing
wholesalers and retailers to sell the drug; and that tobacco, alcohol
and other drugs are included in the disbursement of funds collected
from the proposed licensure and taxation of those selling the drug.

To complete the package, it is also noted that no wholesaler or
retailer could locate within 500 feet of a school or church; licenses
would not be issued to gas stations, convenience stores, nightclubs,
gaming casinos or businesses that sell alcohol (a nice way of
confining the drug to California-style marijuana clubs); and the
initiative would prohibit driving under the influence of marijuana
and/or possession of the drug in a public place, jail or public school
(which are already prohibited by the current law, by the way).

The spin on this issue over the past few years would make James
Carville proud; but to borrow a phrase from the master of the modern
soundbite disaster, Nevadans should simply take a hard look at the
truth and say, 'It's the marijuana, stupid,' and send this measure
packing as well.