PUSH(ERS), NEVADA

LAS VEGAS, the entertainment capital of the world. Sounds pretty good, right?

Las Vegas, the sports capital of the world. That also sounds pretty good.
How about the fun and sun capital of the world? The gambling capital of the
world; the food capital of the world and the plain old capital of the
world? It all sounds good, I know, and some of it is already true.

Now try this one on for size. Las Vegas, the drug capital of the world. How
does that grab you? Well, if we are not diligent in our voting this
November, we will be an odds-on favorite to be wearing that moniker for a
very long time. With the name, of course, comes all the ignominy,
humiliation and heartache that any city should deserve for making itself
the laughingstock of the free world.

You may be asking yourself at this point, what is he talking about? That's
a fair question and one that should be answered in much more depth by the
Las Vegas Sun as we get closer to the election and people begin to focus
more on the task ahead of them. At least those who aren't so stoned that
they can focus!

For today, my job is to rattle the voters just enough to make a few waves
and cause a few questions to be asked. Like, why Nevada? Why, of all the
states in this union, has the pro-illegal drug lobby chosen Nevada as the
test case for this Machiavellian assault on existing drug laws. The answer
seems to be in the "no good deed goes unpunished" category.

You see, Nevadans are a sentimental lot and they are sympathetic to the
plight of sick people who cannot get relief from pain and other effects of
sickness and disease. That is why we have already passed a constitutional
amendment making the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes legal in this
state. It was the right thing to do. But what the proponents of the
marijuana initiative are trying to get us to do to ourselves now is just
plain wrong. And anyone who will tell us otherwise ... like certain nutty
media outlets in this town ... aren't doing right by the people who live here.

So, don't be confused by those who would have us believe we are helping
sick people with their pain when the truth is that all we would be doing is
helping those who believe in legalizing drugs. Period. The fact that they
picked Nevada for their first foray into legalization tells us more about
ourselves than we should ever want to know.

First of all, I have a dislike for any amendments to our Constitution
except in very rare and compelling circumstances. Part of the reason is
that we shouldn't make amending our legal foundation a matter of course,
and the other part is that once it is in the Constitution it becomes a
right that is very difficult to contain. For example, once this initiative
becomes a part of Nevada's Constitution, then any effort by the Legislature
or any local government, no matter how justified and necessary the people
think it is, to restrict the use of marijuana could be tossed out because
the Constitution always trumps the law.

Without a prohibition on driving under the influence of a controlled
substance -- an illegal drug -- prosecutors would have to prove a person
who got high at home and killed someone on the road was "driving
dangerously" which is a hard thing to prove in a court of law. Don't we
have enough problems on the road without making it legal for drugged-out
potheads to get behind the wheel?

If the issue is whether or not to legalize drugs then let's have that
debate, again. There is some merit to the argument. But that would be a
matter for the Legislature, which could make it legal and then make it
illegal as it saw fit. To invest the legality into the Constitution ties
everyone's hands if it turns out we have made a mistake. That seems like
far too high a price to pay for an experiment.

So forget the fact that Nevada is already the butt of far too many jokes
because we are even voting on such an absurdity. How about the fact that
employers may not be able to reprimand, let alone stop an employee who
comes to work stoned out of his mind. A person would be able to possess up
to three ounces of marijuana if this ballot question becomes law. Do you
know how many cigarettes that is? Well over 200, I'd guess. How'd you like
the fellow who smoked that much or even one working the heavy machinery at
your plant? How'd you like your co-worker so stoned that your own
well-being is jeopardized and there may be very little you can do about it?
Except quit.

And what about our kids. If it is legal for mom and dad to smoke as much
pot as they want at home before they go to work or get on the road, how
long will it be before the kiddies try to act grown-up. Sure, that wouldn't
be legal, but how many times do kids emulate their parents by drinking
alcohol, dressing up in their clothes, brandishing their weapons or you
name it?

The point is simple. Nevadans should not let themselves be used and abused
by those who would have us believe, mistakenly, that this is about
compassionate use of marijuana. It is not. It is a foolish and dangerous
journey down the road to legalization that does not stop at the Legislature
but enshrines itself in our Constitution. Right alongside the right to
worship freely and to speak our minds.

I think those people behind the marijuana initiative, who think Nevadans
are so stupid that they will roll over and act like their minds are dead,
must be smoking something. Come to think of it, they probably are. But no
more than three ounces at a time.