LEGALIZING MARIJUANA: NEVADA'S SMOKE SIGNAL

The national spotlight will be on Nevadans when they go to the polls in
November to determine whether they wish to legalize marijuana, something no
other state has done.

Question 9, a proposed constitutional amendment, would make it legal for
individuals 21 and older to possess up to 3 ounces of the controversial
substance -- enough to make 80 to 255 marijuana cigarettes, depending on
whom you believe -- for use in their residences.

The statewide initiative would also direct the Nevada Legislature to
establish ways to grow, sell and tax marijuana and set penalties for
individuals who violate the law.

Because it takes passage in two consecutive general elections to amend the
state constitution, the initiative must pass both in November and in 2004
to take effect on Jan. 1, 2005.

The initiative is being financed by the Marijuana Policy Project, a
Washington pro-marijuana lobby whose main backer is billionaire auto
insurance executive Peter Lewis of Cleveland. The project sent one of its
directors with political campaign experience to Nevada to coordinate the
effort to get Question 9 on the ballot.

Its proponents argue that marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol or
other legal products and that legalization would allow law enforcement to
concentrate on other crimes.

But a less organized coalition of opponents that includes law enforcement
agencies and an anti-drunken driving group says marijuana is a harmful
"gateway drug." The opponents, Nevadans Against Legalizing Marijuana, fear
legalization will lead to more drug dependency and crime, including driving
under the influence. More specifically, they believe that Question 9 would:

Legalize hashish, which they say is far more potent than marijuana.

Eliminate existing laws that deal with motorists caught driving under the
influence of marijuana.

Discriminate against users of medical marijuana, who are already protected
by state law.

Be difficult to enforce because possession would be legal in most public
places.

Do nothing to eliminate illicit sales to children.

If Question 9 passes, the Legislature could decide either to have the state
grow the plant or have private contractors do it under state supervision.
Sales would then be accomplished through stores licensed with the state and
taxes similar to those for cigarettes would apply to marijuana.

But a major hurdle to implementation is that federal law prohibits the
cultivation, possession or sale of marijuana. The nation's drug czar, John
Walters, is scheduled to make an Oct. 10 appearance in Las Vegas to speak
against Question 9.

"Marijuana is riskier than people think, especially for kids," Walters said
in a prepared statement last week. "Smoking marijuana can lead to
significant health and behavior problems for youth -- disrupting families
and jeopardizing our children's futures. The risks associated with
marijuana have been trivialized and our kids are getting the wrong message."

Proponents will keep an eye on how the federal government reacts if voters
in San Francisco approve a measure in November that would allow that city
to be first to grow marijuana for medicinal purposes.

Proponents have been successful in recent years at getting the government
to relax federal sentencing guidelines for marijuana- related crimes.
Backed by wealthy businessmen, legalization proponents have also gained a
toehold in nine states -- including Nevada -- that have legalized marijuana
for medicinal purposes. And they have been successful in convincing many
states -- including Nevada -- to reduce penalties for possession.

Current Nevada law, passed last year, makes possession of less than 1 ounce
of marijuana a misdemeanor subject to a $600 fine or mandatory drug
treatment, and possession of an ounce or greater a felony. Question 9
proponents say the most relaxed marijuana laws in the country are in Ohio,
where an individual can possess up to 3 1/2 ounces and face only a $100 fine.

Lewis, chairman of Progressive Corp., the nation's fourth largest auto
insurer, represents the common thread between Nevada's successful medical
marijuana initiative and the drive to pass Question 9. He was a major
financial backer of Americans for Medical Rights, the Santa Monica, Calif.,
organization that sponsored Nevada's medical marijuana initiative. And
Question 9 proponents say that Lewis is the largest contributor to the
Marijuana Policy Project.

Lewis, who declined an interview request, has donated millions of dollars
to universities and museums. He also has financed efforts by the American
Civil Liberties Union to litigate against drug laws. The Wall Street
Journal reported last year that Lewis was arrested in New Zealand in 2000
for possession of marijuana and hashish, but was released after making a
donation to a local drug rehabilitation center.

He told the newspaper that he became involved in efforts to change
marijuana laws because, "I have seen it for quite a while as pure
patriotism to try to change a policy that is sillier than Prohibition."

The successful 1998 campaign to approve medical marijuana in Nevada was
coordinated by Las Vegas political consultant Dan Hart. His arguments won
out over Washington politicians who suggested that medical marijuana
efforts would be the first step toward legalization of illicit drugs.

Four years later, Nevada has become the initial battleground in efforts to
legalize marijuana possession for all adults. But Hart is not involved in
the Question 9 effort and said he is neutral on that initiative.

"This is a different issue because what we were talking about before was to
have patients with catastrophic illnesses have something to relieve their
symptoms," Hart said. "Three ounces would seem to be an awful lot of
marijuana. But from what I understand there is a belief that we spend far
too much money on drug prosecution in this country and that we could use a
lot of that money on treatment or prevention."

Hart said he was not surprised that the measure made Nevada's ballot given
the success of the medical marijuana initiative.

"The people of Nevada are fiercely independent and don't like people to
tell them what to do," Hart said.

University of Nevada, Las Vegas political science Chairman Ted Jelen echoed
that sentiment, noting that the talk on campus about Question 9 has to do
with the libertarian notion that marijuana use should be a private issue.

"It would seem to me that it would have at least a fighting chance of
passing by virtue of the state's libertarian streak," Jelen said. "It has
no better than a chance."

Gov. Kenny Guinn has not taken a position on Question 9 because "he's
interested in seeing what the will of the people is," spokesman Greg
Bortolin said. But Democratic gubernatorial foe Joe Neal, a state senator
from North Las Vegas, said he opposed Question 9 because he has concerns
about the hallucinogenic effects of marijuana's tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC.

"I just don't feel that we know enough about that and the addiction rate
could be tremendous," Neal said. "I'm concerned about the THC levels and
the other chemicals in marijuana that we hardly know anything about. I am
told marijuana has about 40 chemical properties."

Local business organizations, including Las Vegas Convention and Visitors
Authority, Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce and Nevada Development Authority,
have not taken a stand on Question 9. The chamber's government affairs
committee discussed the initiative, but decided to take no position,
according to Virginia Valentine, the chamber's senior vice president of
government affairs.

"They didn't look at this as an image issue but more from the standpoint of
how it would affect employee health care," Valentine said. "It's also hard
to know whether this will reduce the cost of law enforcement or the judiciary."

But Somer Hollingsworth, president of Nevada Development Authority, which
recruits businesses, expressed concern that the marijuana initiative would
set back local efforts to distance Las Vegas from its "Sin City" image.

The authority has said that businesses looking to move to Nevada often
inquire about the effect of controversial issues in this state.
Hollingsworth said he has not yet fielded any inquiries about Question 9,
but believes that that could change if the initiative passes.

"If we pass the most liberal marijuana laws in the country, I don't think
it's going to help our recruiting at all," Hollingsworth said. "We pretty
much have gotten past the image of Las Vegas as 'Sin City.' This may take
us back and reinforce the complaint of it being a city of sin."

To launch its campaign the Marijuana Policy Project directed Austin, Texas,
native Billy Rogers to set up shop in Nevada in May under the moniker
Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement. Rogers, who comes complete with
drawl and cowboy boots, is a veteran Democratic political operative who was
campaign manager for Gary Mauro, the candidate defeated by then-Texas Gov.
George W. Bush in 1998 to retain his office.

The irony is that Rogers said he hasn't smoked marijuana in several years.

"I don't like it," Rogers said. "When I was growing up I had a lot of
friends who were arrested and they went through ordeals."

But Rogers, the project's director of state policies, is passionate in his
belief that adults ought to be able to smoke marijuana privately. He opened
an office at 3201 W. Sahara Ave. and in a mere 40 days coordinated a
petition drive that gathered 110,000 signatures statewide -- including
67,000 in Clark County -- to put Question 9 on the ballot.

Through last month, the Marijuana Policy Project -- which says it has 8,000
individual contributors, including 300 Nevadans -- had pumped $575,000 into
the Nevada campaign, much of which was spent to pay the petition gatherers.
More money is expected to come to finance additional television advertisements.

Rogers said his organization chose Nevada because of the Legislature's
decision last year to reduce possession of less than 1 ounce of marijuana
from a felony to a misdemeanor. That made Nevada the most recent state in
the nation to reduce marijuana penalties, he said.

"The Nevada Legislature is the only one in a decade that has passed that
type of legislation," Rogers said. "We can all count on the Legislature to
act responsibly. They are a conservative Legislature. We can count on them
to set up a system for the regulation, taxation and distribution of marijuana."

Rogers hired as a consultant Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, D-Las
Vegas. She sponsored last year's bill that reduced penalties for possession
of marijuana. The bill also implemented the regulations for medical
marijuana use.

"If there wasn't an appetite for this, then why did 110,000 Nevadans sign a
petition in 40 days?" Giunchigliani said. "That's phenomenal. Most Nevadans
are independent and don't think that the government should be involved in
the privacy of their homes."

But Question 9 foes, including the Clark County district attorney's office,
Metro Police and the head of an anti-drunken driving organization, say that
"Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement" is an insult since neither
Rogers nor other executives with the Marijuana Policy Project have a law
enforcement background.

Metro narcotics Detective Todd Raybuck said the initiative would threaten
public safety if implemented.

"We could see more traffic problems and increased drug use and increases in
violent behavior associated with drug use," Raybuck said. "Under this
initiative, if marijuana becomes legal, employers will not be able to
discriminate against those employees who use it. If your test comes back
positive for marijuana, employers can't refuse to hire you for only that
reason. We're talking about school bus drivers. They could smoke before
they drive the bus.

"I'm also insulted that virtually all the money supporting this movement is
from non-Nevadans. Billy Rogers is a carpetbagger. As far as I know Billy
Rogers and the others at the Marijuana Policy Project have no law
enforcement background, so they don't know what responsible law enforcement
is."

The opponents last month organized their own group, Nevadans Against
Legalizing Marijuana, though they've only been able to scrape together
enough money to print fliers with the title, "Don't be fooled by Question
9." Chief Deputy District Attorney Gary Booker, head of the vehicular
crimes unit, is pictured holding three plastic bags filled with marijuana.
Above the photo is the proclamation that amount is equivalent to 255
marijuana cigarettes.

"This has public safety disaster written all over it," Booker said of
Question 9. "We're at risk for a couple reasons. We have a 24-hour town so
we always have teenagers with minimal or no supervision. It's also the
nature of our town to attract people who are a little excessive and
compulsive. They are predisposed to having a chemical dependency."

Rogers scoffed at the "scare tactics" used by opponents, accusing them of
constantly increasing the number of marijuana cigarettes that can be
produced by 3 ounces. He said law enforcement opponents previously
estimated that 3 ounces would yield 90 to 120 cigarettes.

His own office calculated that 3 ounces was equivalent to 80 cigarettes, or
four packs.

"They can't get their story straight," Rogers said of opponents. "They're
trying to scare people and ultimately it won't work. All this initiative
does is allow responsible adults to possess three ounces in the privacy of
their home or under the care of a doctor."

As for the carpetbagger tag, Rogers said: "If that were true, 110,000
Nevadans wouldn't have welcomed us with open arms and signed the petition
to put it on the ballot. Ultimately Nevadans will make the decision whether
it passes."

But STOP DUI Executive Director Sandy Heverly of Las Vegas, an advocate for
tougher laws against motorists who drive under the influence, said she
feared that the more marijuana is available "the more it will be used and
abused."

"We honestly believe that this initiative will lead to more death and
destruction on our roadways," Heverly said. "This is crossing the line into
the victims' arena. If marijuana isn't harmful, why stop at legalizing 3
ounces? Why not 100 pounds or more?"

Question 9 foes say the initiative is vaguely worded and full of gaping
legal holes. But Giunchigliani said she is not concerned about the way the
initiative is worded, saying those problems can be worked out by the
Legislature.

"If something is vague and not clear, we in the Legislature have the
authority and a responsibility to fix it," she said. "When you amend the
state Constitution you're specific about the intent, but the actual
implementation is our responsibility."