PERKINS A GATEWAY DRUG TO STUPIDITY

Richard Perkins tells us that "every law enforcement group in Nevada
strongly opposes the ballot measure" to tax and regulate marijuana,
as though their positions of authority are simply enough to induce
the population. No need to bother with such trivials as facts or
realities ["Do NOT rock the ganja!," Your Opinion, May 25].

I believe Perkins when he says that he has "rarely met a heroin,
crack or meth addict who didn't start with marijuana." But this is
anecdotal nonsense meant to conjure up the mystical "gateway drug"
that leads all down the path to coke parties and premarital sex.

And no one will take issue with his claim that violent criminals
smoke marijuana. Violent criminals also drink beer, smoke cigarettes,
eat fast food and probably don't floss enough. But if they are
violent criminals, why don't we prosecute them for their violent
behavior, instead of victimless crimes?

Many people in this city, state, and country believe that
decriminalization, regulation and taxation of marijuana would greatly
restrict access of the drug to minors, while diverting resources in
the criminal justice system toward fighting crimes with victims,
increasing tax revenue and allowing adults more freedom to do what
they please in the privacy of their own home.

And to suggest that Neil Levine and his group are somehow taking
advantage of Nevada's open initiative laws is completely
undemocratic. I don't know Levine or his group, and while it's
possible that putting this question on the ballot has "nothing to do
with any care or concern for our citizens and the well-being of our
families," it's also possible that it's about letting those same
citizens and families deciding for themselves what's is best for the community.

So, instead of the usual horseshit, why doesn't Perkins offer up some
benefits to the current system in order to allow the electorate to
make an informed decision? This is, after all, America.

Robb Witmer Full