POT, UTILITY'S SALE HELP DEFINE ATTORNEY GENERAL CANDIDATES

Attorney general candidate Brian Sandoval believes rival John Hunt didn't
know that possession of less than 1 ounce of marijuana is no longer a felony
in Nevada until Sandoval told him so Wednesday.

Hunt insisted he did.

Pot and power were defining issues as the men addressed a group of students
at Boyd Law School at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, with Sandoval
saying they differ on drug laws and Hunt saying they differ on power issues.

Both lawyers vowed they would vote against Question 9, the November ballot
item that would decriminalize possession of 3 ounces or less of marijuana
for people 21 and older.

"I oppose Question 9 unequivocally," said Hunt, a Democrat.

"I oppose Question 9," said Sandoval, a Republican, explaining he believes
federal drug laws will supersede the state's if voters approve Question 9.

But questioned afterward, their stances on drugs laws were not the same.

Sandoval holds a hard-line, anti-drug position: Possession of any amount of
marijuana "should be a felony," he said. His only exception is support of
the medical use of marijuana.

He even disagrees with the actions taken by the 2001 Legislature, which
removed the felony status for possession of up to an ounce of marijuana. It
is now a misdemeanor to possess an ounce or less of the drug.

Hunt took a more relaxed position on the possession of small amounts of
marijuana, but was unable to explain why he thought possession of 1 ounce
should not be a crime, but possession of 2 ounces should. Asked why he
distinguishes between 1 ounce and 2, Hunt laughed and said, "I don't know."

Question 9 also was discussed by the two at an event in Pahrump on Saturday,
where Hunt stated: "I don't think possession of marijuana should be a
felony." Asked if he was talking about any amount, he clarified he was
referring to small amounts, but said it should be a felony if there is an
intent to sell or distribute.

On Wednesday, after Hunt said he opposes charging people with felonies and
clogging the court system with cases involving possession of less than 1
ounce, Sandoval pointed out that the law changed in 2001, and having 1 ounce
or less is no longer a felony.

Afterward, Hunt insisted he knew the existing law before Sandoval explained
it, while Sandoval insisted, "there is no doubt in my mind he didn't."

When it came to power, Hunt called for Sandoval, who formerly represented
power company shareholders, to support the sale of Nevada Power Co. to the
Las Vegas Valley Water District. Sandoval demurred, saying there were two
questions about tax and bonding ramifications that needed answers before he
would take a position.

Hunt, a Las Vegas attorney, said he favors Question 14, which would allow
legislation enabling the sale of Nevada Power to the water authority, even
if it removes Public Utilities Commission oversight on power rates.

As a Reno resident, Sandoval cannot vote on Clark County's Question 14. But
he believes there initially would be problems with loss of $500 million in
property tax revenues if the power company becomes a nonprofit. Later, he
checked the accuracy of that figure and said it was a potential tax loss of
$75 million, the $500 million was Nevada Power's assessed value.

"The water district has already stated there will be no loss of tax
revenues," Hunt told the law students. He omitted a key word. The authority
has said there would be no immediate loss of tax revenues.

When asked about whether the special session's legislation would reduce
medical malpractice premiums, Hunt said no, while Sandoval refused to
engage.

"It's not appropriate to enter into that debate," he said.

Because a constitutional challenge is expected, whoever is elected might
have to defend the law. Sandoval believes the law is constitutional.

Hunt believes the legislation will have no effect on insurance premiums.