BACKERS OF NEVADA POT MEASURE SUE TO BLOCK OFFICIAL OPPOSITION

LAS VEGAS (AP) - Sponsors of a Nevada ballot initiative to legalize
marijuana asked a state court Thursday to order elected officials and
a police lieutenant to stop speaking out against the measure.

"Nobody's tax dollars should be used to tell people how to vote," said
Neal Levine, manager of the Committee to Regulate and Control
Marijuana, which backs Question 7 on the Nov. 7 ballot. The measure
would make Nevada the first state to tax and regulate the legal sale
of up to an ounce of marijuana to those 21 and older.

The group filed documents in Clark County District Court and held a
news conference on the courthouse steps accusing all seven Clark
County commissioners, six of 13 Nevada university regents, Washoe
District Attorney Dick Gammick and Las Vegas police Lt. Stan Olsen of
violating state law prohibiting campaigning on public time.

The lawsuit seeks an expedited hearing and a judicial finding that the
15 defendants broke state law, along with an injunction demanding they
halt the practice. No hearing date was immediately set, said Michael
Sommermeyer, court spokesman.

Clark County and Nevada System of Higher Education lawyers denied
commissioners and regents broke a state law that the committee said
bans public officials or employees from spending tax dollars to
support or oppose a ballot question.

Olsen and Gammick did not immediately respond to requests for
comment.

"The county commission did not use taxpayer dollars in any substantive
fashion to express their views on the marijuana initiative," Clark
County Commission counsel Mary-Anne Miller said in a statement.

Commission members spoke on a matter within their jurisdiction during
a properly noticed public meeting before unanimously passing a Sept.
19 measure opposing Question 7, Miller said.

"This is unlike the situation ... where a local government spent tax
dollars mailing out information that could be construed as advocacy,"
she said.

Bart Patterson, chief counsel for the university regents, noted the
marijuana advocacy group named six regents who voted Oct. 13 to oppose
Question 7 in a resolution that fell one vote short of passage. The
board was left taking no official position.

"I think it's pretty astounding that a ballot initiative that intends
to appeal to individual rights engages in a fight against First
Amendment rights and responsibilities to speak out on matters of
public concern," Patterson said. "There really is no public
expenditure of funds in talking about an issue at a regularly
scheduled board meeting."