LEGALIZING MARIJUANA: FIVE MAJOR STICKING POINTS

Question 9 on the November general election ballot asks Nevadans
whether they want to amend the state constitution to legalize
possession by adults of up to 3 ounces of marijuana for private use.

There are five major areas of disagreement between proponents and
opponents regarding the initiative and its potential impacts.

1. Does it cover only marijuana or does it also legalize hashish and
other by-products?

Question 9 defines marijuana as a plant "of the genus Cannabis or its
product." Proponents interpret that to mean only the leafy substance
or residue, such as that left in a pipe. Opponents interpret "its
product" to include hashish, which they say contains 10 times the
amount of THC found in marijuana.

Billy Rogers, brought in by the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington
to run the Question 9 campaign, said the intent of the initiative was
to cover only marijuana.

"It doesn't say hashish and hashish is not covered by this," Rogers
said. "It's clear that it's talking about the plant. If there is any
question about this, the Legislature has the authority under this
initiative to determine what a 'product' is."

Webster's Dictionary defines hashish as the concentrated resin from
the flowering tops of the female hemp plant, known as Cannabis sativa.
Hashish can be smoked, chewed or drunk for its intoxicating effect,
according to the dictionary.

Chief Deputy District Attorney Gary Booker, head of the vehicular
crimes unit, said he believes hashish would be legal under Question 9
and that three ounces would be enough to last a year.

"Question 9 says marijuana and its products and hashish is a product,"
Booker said. "The active ingredients are so high that someone who uses
hashish would be high as a kite."

Question 9 opponents point to federal studies that show that teenagers
who smoke marijuana are many times as likely to move onto harder drugs
as adults than if they don't smoke marijuana. A federal study released
last month ranked Nevada as tied for seventh in the nation with an
estimated 7 percent of youths aged 12 to 17 who tried marijuana for
the first time in 1999 or 2000.

"There are allegedly 3,000 new marijuana smokers per day in this
country and three-quarters are under age 18," Metro narcotics
detective Todd Raybuck said. "Youths who smoke marijuana are 85 times
more likely to use cocaine than nonsmokers."

But Rogers said he doesn't buy the "gateway drug" argument. He said 80
million Americans have tried marijuana and that there are an estimated
11 million current marijuana smokers, including 110,000 to 150,000 in
Nevada.

"Don't you think that if their argument was the case that there would
be 80 million cocaine and heroin addicts?" Rogers said. "Their
argument is insulting to the 80 million people who have tried
marijuana. There's no doubt addiction is a problem in this country but
for people to say that marijuana is the cause of addiction to cocaine
and heroin ignores the complexities of addiction and ignores the
struggles of people who go through addiction."

2. Does the initiative nullify existing penalties for motorists caught
driving under the influence of marijuana?

The initiative directs the Legislature to establish penalties for
users of marijuana who were "driving dangerously." Proponents say this
provision would ensure that motorists under the influence of marijuana
would be penalized for such driving. But opponents say that phrase is
vague and would exclude some motorists who would be convicted of DUI
under existing laws.

Booker said "driving dangerously" leaves too much for interpretation
and cannot be enforced.

"There is no definition for 'driving dangerously' in Nevada law," he
said.

Under current law, motorists can be charged with driving under the
influence even if they were stopped by police for other reasons, such
as a malfunctioning taillight. But Booker said that if a motorist
under the influence of marijuana is stopped for reasons other than
"driving dangerously," it is possible under Question 9 that he would
not be cited for DUI.

His concern is that marijuana-related DUIs are on the rise -- he said
they make up as much as 20 percent of all DUIs in Clark County -- and
that three of the most publicized DUI fatality cases he has worked in
the past two years involved motorists who had marijuana in their system.

He said those cases included Jessica Williams, who was sentenced to 18
to 48 years in prison for killing six teenagers along Interstate 15;
Juanita Kim McDonald, who was sentenced to four to 20 years in prison
for killing a pedestrian and injuring four others along the Las Vegas
Strip, and John Simbrat, who was charged with the Aug. 9 traffic death
of Las Vegas Sun Vice President and Associate Editor Sandy Thompson on
Interstate 215.

"Marijuana is more insidious than alcohol in that you cannot see the
symptoms," Booker said. "It has a hallucinogenic effect whereas
alcohol affects motor skills. With marijuana you think the road is
going left when it is going straight. With alcohol you know it is
going straight but you just can't stay on it.

"My fear with Question 9 is that our DUI rate would go right through
the roof."

Rogers said his organization takes DUIs seriously and supports severe
punishment for such drivers.

"Under our initiative you're allowed to smoke in the privacy of your
home," Rogers said. "If you walk out and drive a car and kill a
person, you will go to prison and you should go to prison for a long
time. This initiative would do nothing to prevent Gary Booker from
putting someone in prison for a long time if they're found guilty."

But Rogers took offense that Question 9 foes are using the Simbrat
case and others to attack marijuana use.

"It's shameful that opponents would take a tragedy and try to exploit
it for political purposes," Rogers said. "If they were sincere, why
not try to ban the sale of alcohol?"

Another concern Booker has is the provision of the initiative stating
that "any statute or regulation inconsistent with this section is null
and void after Jan. 1, 2005." Booker said he believes that would
eliminate Nevada's current marijuana DUI law, which is triggered by 2
nanograms of marijuana per milliliter in the blood or 5 nanograms of
the by-products known as metabolites.

Rogers disagreed, armed with a legal opinion from Las Vegas attorney
JoNell Thomas who concluded that existing DUI laws would not be
nullified by Question 9. Thomas informed Rogers that "the plain
language of the ballot question makes it clear that the Legislature
must punish those who drive under the influence of marijuana."

"It is absurd to suggest we want people to drive under the influence
of marijuana," Rogers said. "That goes beyond the scope of what this
does."

While Rogers insisted that Question 9 would not change existing
marijuana DUI laws, he said wasn't convinced that someone would still
be "under the influence" of marijuana based on the quantities in the
blood that trigger Nevada's existing law.

"At 2 nanograms you're talking about someone who smoked 30 days ago or
15 days ago and it would still be in their system but they certainly
wouldn't be under the influence," he said.

3. Does Question 9 give users of medical marijuana new benefits or,
rather, does it discriminate against those Nevadans?

Question 9 proponents state in fliers that the initiative would give
seriously ill people "easy access" to medical marijuana. But foes say
that is misleading because qualified Nevadans already have that access.

"I don't think people understand that," said Sandy Heverly of Las
Vegas, STOP DUI executive director. "They've been purposely deceived
by this group that it will help people for medicinal purposes but we
already legalized that two years ago."

As of last week, 211 Nevadans were registered through the state
Agriculture Division to use marijuana for medicinal purposes. The law
allows those registered to possess up to one ounce of marijuana and
own three mature marijuana plants and four immature plants.

Question 9 foes say the initiative would discriminate against medical
marijuana patients because they would still have to register with the
state, whereas all other adults would be able to possess marijuana
without registration. But Rogers said the difference is that medical
marijuana patients will still be allowed to grow plants -- and
therefore register with the state for that reason -- whereas all other
adults would be prohibited from growing plants.

Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, D-Las Vegas, a consultant to
Rogers, said another advantage of Question 9 -- and one of the main
reasons she supports the initiative -- is that it is designed to allow
the state to sell marijuana to qualified patients at below retail
prices. She said that provision would help low-income patients who now
find growing their own plants cost-prohibitive.

"This reduces the difficulty of having to grow it," Giunchigliani
said. "They are expensive to grow and some people are having to access
it illegally. It could cost a lot of money to obtain the equipment
such as the lights and the seeds as well. What we want to do is fix
the problem for the medically needy."

4. Do police spend too much time making arrests in relatively trivial
marijuana possession cases? Conversely, is Question 9 enforceable if
it becomes law?

Proponents of Question 9 say police spend too much time arresting
individuals for marijuana offenses and could better use their
resources elsewhere. Opponents say the amount of time police spend on
marijuana arrests is exaggerated.

A bone of contention is the argument from proponents that 3,742 people
were arrested in Nevada for "small amounts" of marijuana in 2000,
according to FBI statistics.

"We estimate that law enforcement officers were off the street for
10,000 hours arresting people for small amounts of marijuana," Rogers
said. "There is no argument officers could have spent more time on the
street protecting us from violent criminals."

Rogers' statistics contrast greatly with Raybuck's, who said that the
FBI figures also included individuals who were arrested for other
crimes. Raybuck said that Metro booked into jail only 50 people in the
first half of this year on a sole charge of possession of marijuana of
any amount. He said he didn't have available the latest number of
arrests for multiple crimes that included marijuana among the charges,
nor the number of citations issued under the new misdemeanor
possession law.

"It looks like they've got something to hide," Rogers
said.

But Raybuck said he wouldn't be surprised if the new misdemeanor
possession law reduced the number of marijuana arrests, since all the
arrests cited by Rogers for 2000 would have been felonies.

Booker also said that Metro often won't bother to even issue citations
for marijuana possession if, for instance, police respond to a
domestic dispute and happen to spot a few marijuana cigarettes in the
residence. In those cases, Booker said police often will either
confiscate the marijuana or have the individual flush it down the toilet.

"We're not spending a lot of resources on this," Booker said of
marijuana arrests. "That's a lie."

The intent of Question 9 is to restrict use of marijuana to one's
private residence, Rogers said. He said the initiative would allow
people to possess marijuana in most public places -- including in
their car or while walking home from a store where they purchased
marijuana. Possession at schools, jails and prisons would be banned,
he said.

But Raybuck said the initiative would be difficult to enforce for an
officer driving along the street.

"How do you tell if someone is smoking a marijuana cigarette or a
regular cigarette?" Raybuck said. "What type of harassment complaints
will we face if we stop someone with a lit piece of paper in their
mouth and it turns out to be a regular cigarette?"

5. Will Question 9 eliminate the black market in marijuana, or will it
actually make it more likely that a black market will thrive?

Question 9 proponents say the marijuana initiative will reduce, if not
eliminate, the black market because licensed retailers will be able to
sell marijuana cheaper than the estimated $100 to $700 per ounce that
is now fetched illegally. Opponents say the black market will continue
to thrive to peddle to children.

Rogers pointed to the end of Prohibition, which legalized alcohol and
put bootleggers out of business. He said the same should happen to the
illicit marijuana trade.

"In a regulated marketplace, where anyone who sells marijuana to a
minor would go to prison, the availability of marijuana for children
and the use of marijuana by children will decrease," Rogers said.

He cited a Columbia University study that found that it was three
times as easy for children to score marijuana than to obtain beer. He
attributed that to laws over the past 20 years that have cracked down
on underage drinking.

"You have strong enforcement and underage use of beer and alcohol went
down," he said.

But Raybuck painted the opposite picture. He said that children who
see adults smoking marijuana at home are more likely to want to
imitate that habit. And that, in turn, will keep the black market thriving.

"We know that a lot of young people don't want to wait to be adults to
engage in activities meant for adults," Raybuck said. "It would lead
to more drug use among children and more crime in Nevada. If the
majority of new users are underage and can't purchase marijuana
legally, the black market would still exist to supply that demand.

"Legal sellers would have to register with the state and pay taxes.
They would also have overhead for employees and utility bills. If you
sell on the black market, you don't have to pay taxes or overhead. So
what incentive is there to go into legal business when you can still
sell it on the black market?"