BALLOT INITIATIVE: INTERNAL POLL FINDS SUPPORT

Question Would Allow Possession of Marijuana for Recreational Use

A ballot initiative to allow Nevadans to possess small amounts of
marijuana for recreational use has a better chance of passing than
most people think, according to a newly released internal poll
conducted on behalf of the proposal's backers.

In the new poll, respondents were read the actual text that will
appear on their November ballots. Of the 600 likely Nevada voters
interviewed statewide by a respected national polling firm, 49
percent said they would vote yes on the question and 43 percent said no.

Previously, survey after survey has shown that Nevadans are resistant
to a ballot initiative that would, in its words, "control and
regulate marijuana." But those results, such as a recent Reno
Gazette-Journal poll that found 55 percent of likely voters opposed
to the measure and just 37 percent in favor of it, were misleading
because they asked the wrong question, advocates of the marijuana
initiative said.

Other polls on the initiative have tended to ask whether respondents
favored a move to "legalize" marijuana, a word that doesn't appear in
the ballot language, said Neal Levine, campaign manager for the
Committee to Regulate and Control Marijuana, the Nevada initiative's
backers. The committee is largely supported by the Washington, D.C.,
based Marijuana Policy Project, a pro-legalization group.

"The word 'legalize' is a politically charged term," Levine said in
explaining the difference between his poll and others. "It gives
people the false notion of a free-for-all, marijuana on every corner.
That's not what we're proposing.

"We're proposing a very tightly regulated system where we'd get
institutional safeguards and tax revenue."

The poll was commissioned by the committee and conducted from Aug. 18
to Aug. 24 by Goodwin Simon Victoria Research, a Los Angeles-based
polling firm that works nationally with Democratic candidates and
state ballot initiatives. It has a margin of error of plus or minus
four percentage points.

"There's a lot in the ballot language (of the initiative) that really
appeals to many people," pollster Paul Goodwin said. "When people are
read the entire measure as a package, they like it a lot better than
when they're just asked whether they want to legalize marijuana."

Goodwin said his firm's extensive experience with California's ballot
initiatives had taught him that "the best method is to read people
the actual language, even if it's long and hard to get through."

The initiative's language states it would "permit and regulate the
sale, use and possession of one ounce or less of marijuana by persons
at least 21 years of age." It also says it would require sellers to
be licensed and legal, impose taxes and restrictions on them and
increase criminal penalties for driving under the influence of drugs
or alcohol that causes death or substantial bodily harm.

A Review-Journal poll conducted in April used the word "legalize" but
also mentioned other aspects of the proposal. Of its 625 respondents,
34 percent favored the initiative, 56 percent were opposed and 10
percent were undecided.

The initiative's backers in 2002 got a measure on the ballot that
would have amended the state's constitution to permit possession of
up to three ounces of recreational marijuana. That proposal failed,
61 percent to 39 percent.

In 2004, the same group tried a similar measure with a one-ounce
limit but failed to collect enough signatures to put a constitutional
amendment on the ballot. This time, they've taken a different tack,
proposing a statutory rather than a constitutional change for the
one-ounce limit.

If the ballot measure passes, it would become law on Nov. 28 and
could not be changed by the Legislature for five years.

Opponents of the measure say they don't believe it has popular support.

"I'm pretty confident that Nevadans are smart enough to see through
what this group is doing with its Washington, D.C., money," said
Patrick Smith, spokesman for the Committee to Keep Nevada
Respectable. "They're trying to divert attention from what it's (the
initiative) going to do, which is the legalization of the street use
of marijuana."