CANDIDATES FOR AG STUMBLE OVER POT QUESTIONS

The state's marijuana initiative tripped up both candidates for attorney
general during a debate Wednesday at UNLV's Boyd School of Law.

Democrat John Hunt seemed unaware that possession of one ounce of marijuana
is a misdemeanor in Nevada, and later vowed not to defend Question 9
against federal attack if it becomes state law.

Republican Brian Sandoval answered two separate debate questions in
apparent conflict. He vowed to defend the state's medical malpractice law
because, "The attorney general is the state's chief law enforcement
officer. You're not the 64th legislator, you're the person who enforces the
law." But earlier when he stated his opposition to the marijuana
initiative, he said he would "look and try to not be able to implement it."

After the debate, Sandoval admitted his statements were in conflict and
said he would uphold the law if Question 9 is approved.

Later during an interview with the Las Vegas Sun's editorial board, Hunt
said: "Some laws, as attorney general, you can't just blindly say you'd
support them.

"I would not defend that law," Hunt added.

During the debate Hunt reiterated a position he first made during a debate
last Saturday at the Nevada Press Association in Pahrump, saying he
supports "defelonization."

Sandoval asked Hunt to explain that position, and Hunt responded that "if
someone is trafficking, it should be a felony. But if someone is found with
less than an ounce of pot he should not be charged with a felony.

Sandoval then pointed out that current law makes possession of one ounce a
misdemeanor, and after the debate Hunt said he knew that all along.

When asked what he meant by defelonization, and whether that applied to
possession of two ounces, Hunt said: "No, just one ounce."

When asked why, he said, "I don't know," before being hurried away from
reporters.

After the debate Sandoval said "There's no doubt in my mind, he didn't know
that," when asked about Hunt's answer.

During the debate, both candidates also discussed Question 2 -- an
initiative seeking to amend the constitution to say that marriage can only
be between a man and woman.

Both men said they voted yes on that initiative in 2000, and both agreed it
should not lead to prohibitions on benefits for domestic partners. However,
both have signed a pledge from Question 2 proponents which states they
would not support benefits for domestic partners.

"If someone wants to expand that to create an injustice on somebody, I'd be
their worst nightmare," Hunt said.

When asked about Clark County Question 14 -- seeking voter advice on
whether a public power company is a good idea -- Hunt said he supports the
initiative, but Sandoval said it was "incredibly premature" to support it
because he is not sure whether the proposed purchase of Nevada Power by the
Southern Nevada Water Authority makes sense.

Sandoval said he wanted to know how Nevada Power's tax revenue would be
replaced and whether the purchase would impact Clark County's ability to
bond for schools or roads.

Since Sandoval lives in Reno, he will not have to vote on the initiative.

Hunt said the water authority had agreed to make up any loss of tax
revenue, and, he said the authority's better bond rating makes them better
suited to purchase the utility.