DECRIMINALIZING POT NOT NECESSARILY 'PRO-POT'

We always love to get a mention in the Mercury and hate to complain,
but it really is not accurate to refer to the Marijuana Policy Project
as "pro-pot" [Quick and Dirty, "Pro-pot Forces Have Eye on Court
Ruling," May 6]. We are not pro-pot; we're anti-jail. They are not the
same thing.

We don't endorse or encourage the use of any drug, period. We just
don't think that adults who choose to use marijuana in a way that
doesn't harm others should risk arrest and jail. We approach the issue
much like the moms who rallied to repeal Prohibition in the 1920s.
They were not "pro-booze," they simply saw that prohibition was a
destructive failure that put their kids in danger.

Speaking of terminology, I'd ask you to consider that the initiative
now being circulated by the Committee to Regulate and Control
Marijuana is a regulation initiative. While "legalization" is a term
that's commonly used, it's so vague as to be nearly meaningless.
People often assume "legalization" would treat marijuana like
Coca-Cola, displayed next to the Snickers bars at 7-Eleven. That is
not at all what is being proposed and not something we would ever
support. The measure now being circulated would have licensed,
regulated merchants, strict rules against sales to minors, smoking in
public and other behavior that puts people at risk.

Those are the elements that drug czar John Walters always leaves out
when he tries to scare people with the bugagoo of "legalization." In
truth, the CRCM marijuana initiative would give Nevadans more control
over marijuana than the present, failed system.

Bruce Mirken

Marijuana Policy Project

Washington, D.C.