HOW HARD SHOULD IT BE TO LEGALIZE POT?

Such is the shorthand of politics that, should Nevadans defeat
Question 7 on November's ballot, the national press would doubtless
report that "Nevadans refused to legalize up to an ounce of pot."

In fact, I'm no lawyer, but I believe I could easily draft a
straightforward provision to re-legalize pot. It would go something
like: "Whereas the so-called 'War on Drugs' has done more harm than
good; and whereas all adults have the natural, human, civil, Ninth
Amendment, and God-given right to medicate themselves in any way and
to consume any plant extract they see fit for any purpose; therefore
any and all laws, ordinances, and regulations which tax or otherwise
tend to restrict, infringe, or limit the possession, manufacture,
cultivation, purchase, sale, or use of the cannabis plant, once known
as Indian hemp and now commonly called marijuana, are declared
anathema by the people of Nevada, and are hereby revoked, repealed,
and declared null and void, retroactively and forever."

My point is simply that marijuana could be re-legalized fairly simply,
without spinning 5,000 words of legal stipulations -- as Question 7
does -- without establishing any new regime of taxation and regulation
- -- as Question 7 does -- and without increasing penalties for causing
injuries while driving under the influence "of drugs or alcohol"
(which Question 7 also does -- somewhat dangerously, I would submit,
in a state that sets no reasonable bottom limit for drug
impairment).

There are some who will decline to vote for Question 7 because they
have sworn on the altar of freedom to support no new taxes or
regulations. If the national press should record such votes as being
"against the legalization of pot," the national press will be wrong --
though that would hardly be anything new.

Personally, I suspect Question 7 will pass -- and not accomplish much
in the short run because Nevada's electorate will show neither the
wisdom nor the courage to elect sufficient Libertarians or Independent
Americans (though Republican Don Chairez as attorney general might be
a good start) with the courage to stand up to the federal goons when
they wade in with their paddy wagons and their rigged federal trials.
(Do California's black-robed inquisitors still make witnesses swear to
"tell the whole truth" after threatening to fine and jail any defense
attorney who lets them mention that pot's now legal under state law?
That's hilarious.)

Mind you, I can't see any reason why tourists shouldn't be as free to
toke up in Las Vegas as in any Amsterdam hash bar. It would provide
Nevada's tourist economy a good 20-year shot in the arm (sorry) and
give a whole new meaning to "smoking section, please."

But wait. Question 7 provides a legal definition that tells us
marijuana "means a plant of the genus Cannabis or its product, but the
term does not include hashish" -- which is like saying you're
legalizing maple trees but not maple sugar -- and that smoking dope or
even flashing a pipe would remain illegal "in any place open to the
public or exposed to public view."

Isn't everything the proponents say about the evils of prohibition and
the relative harmlessness of the plant extract equally true about hashish?

Not only no hash bars, also no smoking on your hotel room balcony. So
much for the main tourist marketing incentive.

The defense for such embarrassing timidity, I'm sure, is "Hey, that's
all the voters were likely to swallow this time around."

That's merely cynical and pathetic. But under this scheme, also note
that a 20-year-old who shares her pot with a 17-year-old boyfriend
"shall be imprisoned in the state prison for a minimum term of not
less than 1 year and not more than 8 years" (see Section 11).

If this is the road to the high ground of freedom, why does it start
by winding down toward the prison yard?

I bear no personal animosity toward prosecutor Conrad Hafen, who's
challenging incumbent District Judge Tim Williams in Department 16. In
fact, Mr. Hafen is a personable fellow who deserves credit for
refusing campaign contributions from other lawyers (though that won't
make things easy for him on Election Day.)

But Mr. Hafen also declares himself "very proud" that he pursued the
Hiibel case all the way to a victory in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Back in 2000, for those of you who were watching "Dukes of Hazzard"
re-runs, Northern Nevada cattle rancher Larry Hiibel was standing
beside his parked truck by the side of Grass Valley Road when he was
approached by a Humboldt County sheriff's deputy. Mr. Hiibel refused
11 times to present proof of identification, insisting he'd done
nothing wrong. Mr. Hiibel was convicted of resisting and obstructing
an officer in the performance of his duties. By a 4-3 vote, Nevada's
reliably statist Supreme Court (motto: "How can we help Big Government
today?") ruled any privacy right guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution is "outweighed by the benefits to officers and
community safety" that flow from allowing police to force people to
provide ID anywhere, any time.

Safety? Have we established our courts to place hypothetical group
safety over our precious individual liberties? In a land where Ben
Franklin warned us that "Those who would give up essential liberty to
purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"?

"I cannot imagine any responsible citizen objecting to giving his
name," concurred law-and-order Justice Antonin Scalia, as the U.S.
Supreme Court upheld this latest ratcheting up of the police state in
2004.

Can the closeted Mr. Scalia really believe Mr. Hiibel would have been
off the hook if he had merely said "OK, my name is Sears Roebuck"?
This was about requiring Americans (though not illegal aliens, of
course) to produce a bona fide "government-issued photo ID" on demand.
And using his patrol car computer terminal, the modern American police
officer can learn more about a citizen from today's government-issued
photo ID -- cross-indexed to your nine-digit Social Slave number --
than was contained in the infamous "travel papers" required of any
citizen of the Third Reich.

If you're tempted to push that button for Conrad Hafen on Nov. 7,
remember that it's thanks to him (he's "very proud") that Americans no
longer have any more freedom to "just say no" than those German train
passengers in the old movies, shivering in their seats as the Gestapo
man works his way down the aisle, demanding "Papers, please."

And, just for good measure, Mr. Hafen further asserts "If people in
the individual states want to pass a more restrictive gun law, they
should be able to do that" -- never mind that nagging little 14th
Amendment guarantee that "No state shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States."