READING Q-9'S FINE PRINT

Re: "Got Pot?" [RN&R, Oct. 3]:

After reading the article on Question 9, I realized that it was time to
take a stance on this issue. This was a result of two things. One was the
frustrating style the author used in the article to make his points. After
reading the article, I recognized that not having a position on this issue
is the frustrating part about it. If only I had the actual measure to help
me make a stand. Thankfully the RN&R printed the actual text of the
proposed measure at the end of the article. Reading this led me to form my
opinion.

As I understand it, people 21 or over with a medical prescription to
possess marijuana will be protected from legal penalty (Article 4, Section
38.1). Penalties still apply to those who legally possess marijuana but
drive under the influence (4.38.3.a), distribute to minors (4.38.3.b),
smoke marijuana in public (4.38.3.c), or distribute, sell or possess on the
property of a school or jail/prison (4.38.3.d). What I do not see is a
penalty for adults who legally possess marijuana and who distribute to
other adults for non-medical use. A section in the current state
constitution adresses this (4.38.2.a) but Q-9 proposes that this be
stricken (4.38.5.a). If this is the case, legal possessors of marijuana can
become a new wave of drug dealers. I cannot support this measure as it
currently stands. If this should change, then I would be willing to give my
vote to help those who suffer from diseases.

I thank the RN&R for printing the measure and the author for candidly
presenting what has been a very confusing issue for me as well.

Chad Shenk

Reno