POT CRITICS SHOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK

A Clark County judge made the right call last week when he ruled that
elected officials and police officers should be able to give their
views on a statewide ballot initiative that would decriminalize marijuana.

The judge said those officials have a right and a duty to publicly
discuss political matters like Question 7, which would legalize
marijuana possession by adults.

While we agree that's dangerous territory (you wouldn't want a school
administrator advocating one school board candidate over another, for
example), the marijuana advocates are building their campaign on
specific assumptions that require an answer from the police and from
government officials.

Specifically, they say their initiative would benefit police by
freeing up their time and allowing them to focus on serious crimes.
Without the input from police, we would have to accept that as fact.
Yet no Nevada law enforcement agencies have stepped forward to
endorse those views or to say they are unduly burdened by enforcing
marijuana laws.

Likewise, the pot legalization advocates say taxing the drug would
generate a great amount of tax revenue, another statement that
deserves vetting by those best qualified, even if they happen to be
government officials.

Do you think the marijuana advocates would be so concerned if police
and government views were supportive of legalizing pot? Not very
likely. The complaints filed by the group amount to an attempt to
silence those who oppose them.

It represents another example of their lack of credibility in Nevada.
How could we think otherwise when we watched supporters of the ballot
initiative - funded almost entirely by out-of-state money - chant at
an appearance of a federal drug policy official, "Czar go home, leave
Nevada alone."

We wholeheartedly agree with half of what they're saying.