PROPRIETY OF NEWS RELEASE QUESTIONED

A Las Vegas police news release opposing Question 9 violated a law that
prohibits using taxpayer money for political purposes, said the leader of
the effort to decriminalize marijuana possession.

"In my 20 years of being involved in politics I have never seen anything
this stupid," said Billy Rogers, spokesman for Nevadans for Responsible Law
Enforcement. "When we put out a press release, it's paid for by people who
have contributed to our campaign. When they put out a press release, it's
paid for by the county taxpayers."

A Clark County attorney says the news release doesn't violate the law.

Passage of Question 9 on Nov. 5 and again by voters in 2004 would legalize
the possession of up to 3 ounces of marijuana by adults age 21 and older.
Using the drug in public, driving under its influence or use by those
younger than 21 would remain illegal.

An Oct. 16 news release opposing the question included the Police
Department's letterhead, the logo for Nevadans Against Legalized Marijuana,
the group opposing the measure, and a contact name and phone number for a
police officer. The release responded to campaign advertisements in favor of
Question 9.

Two days later, the department sent out another news release, but it didn't
include the department's letterhead alongside the logo for the
anti-marijuana organization. The second release announced the time and place
of a campaign event.

Supporters of the anti-marijuana campaign, including Sheriff Jerry Keller
and STOP DUI, are quoted saying the pro-marijuana campaign advertisements
are misleading.

"The real issue here is that legalizing three ounces of marijuana is, pure
and simple, a bad idea," Keller said in the release.

Sgt. Rick Barela, the department's public information officer and the
contact listed on both news releases, said the Oct. 16 release didn't
violate the law. The release appropriately responded to misleading
information put out by the pro-marijuana campaign, he said.

The public for weeks has been confused about the position of law enforcement
agencies on the marijuana question, and the recent advertisements have
created more confusion, Barela said.

Particularly, one pro-marijuana ad shows police officers talking about the
drug even though all law enforcement agencies in Clark County oppose the
ballot question. The ad was full of "out-and-out lies," Barela said.

"We were dragged into this issue and we had to respond," Barela said. "We
have not stepped over the line. ... We are merely answering questions that
the public and the press have asked us."

Government officials are supposed to consult with Clark County Counsel
Mary-Anne Miller before circulating literature that could be interpreted as
political to make sure they're within the law.

Miller said the releases didn't violate the law. Police have always spoken
out against drug use, and sending a release to the local press isn't nearly
as costly as circulating a mass mailer to voters, she said Monday.

However, Las Vegas City Councilman Gary Reese, a member of the Police
Department's Fiscal Affairs Board, said it's wrong to use department
resources and letterhead for political gain.

"There is a right way and a wrong way to do things. ... The stationery you
have at work isn't appropriate if you're going to go and do this
(campaigning)," said Reese, who opposes Question 9. "If I went out to oppose
this, I wouldn't use my office stationery."