THE POLICE AND LEGALIZING MARIJUANA: DEBATE CONTINUES

To the editor:

In response to John L. Smith's Aug. 11 column, "Dispute over police group's
stance on marijuana initiative stirs the pot":

As a former Las Vegas police officer, I can certainly understand why the
board of the Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs initially supported
the proposal to change the marijuana law in Nevada and allow possession of
up to 3 ounces. Until recently, being caught with any amount of "pot," even
residue, was considered a felony.

Those who are arrested for having very small amounts of pot simply aren't
prosecuted by the district attorney's office, which has huge case loads and
bigger fish to fry. These arrests wasted tax dollars and removed a cop off
the streets for two to three hours while filing a felony arrest and all the
reports that go with it.

Changing the law will forgo the expensive formality of arresting someone on
a felony charge that would never be prosecuted anyhow.

Bill Carns

Logandale

To the editor:

I hope that the police group's retraction wasn't based on fear of losing the
enhancement of job security provided by the War on Drugs.

Gerald M. Sutliff

Oakland, Calif.

To the editor:

Most editorials and other articles addressing the pros and cons of the
proposed Nevada pot law imply that the police are simply doing their job by
enforcing the law. And it's a mystery why "the government" doesn't legalize
marijuana.

If thinking caps are still in vogue, the answer is simple. The government
has trouble legalizing anything that it can't put a tax stamp on.

Cases in point: alcohol and tobacco. Even though these substances have been
proven to be seriously deadly to both users and innocent bystanders, both
during and after use, they are condoned by our laws. Reason? Atrocious
amounts of tax money is raked in from the manufacture, processing and sale
of these killer substances and their corporate manufacturers support the
politicos who keep the money rolling in.

Think about it. Prohibition ended at about the same time our lawmakers
figured out a way to put a tax stamp on a bottle. There was no question at
that time that alcohol was eating livers, causing aggressive behavior and
killing others by diminishing judgment, among other things. And tobacco is
the arch-enemy of healthy lungs -- they are affected even if we're in the
same building with a smoker. It is impossible to put a tax stamp on a weed
that can be grown in your kitchen or yard.

In the case of pot possession, logic seems to dictate that it should be
legal to use any mind-altering, recreational, non-addictive substance in
private -- but not in public places. Treating possession as a felony or a
misdemeanor seems ridiculous. Studies, both publicly and privately funded,
have shown that, in some people, short term memory loss may occur from
excessive use of this dastardly weed. That's it.

As a non-user, and a retired law enforcement officer, I simply have to side
with those who would prefer to see our police arresting drunken drivers,
burglars, and solving crimes such as corporate fraud and murder. Those
actions really have an effect on everyone's life.

Frank Musaraca

Henderson

To the editor:

The news stories reporting that the Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs
initially endorsed the proposed Nevada ballot initiative to amend current
marijuana laws, and then reversed its stance following NCOPS President Andy
Anderson's resignation, made for a sad commentary.

In the past 30 years, stringent and harsh criminal sanctions against
responsible adult marijuana use have done nothing to reduce it. Rather they
have helped create the largest criminal black market in the nation other
than that dealing in firearms and other deadly weapons. This criminal market
helps fund more dangerous and violent activities which endanger not only
police, but the public they serve.

Smart, street-wise police know full well the drag that enforcing marijuana
prohibition laws has on their primary mission of protecting and serving the
public. As the departing Mr. Anderson stated in his original endorsement of
the initiative, "... a single (marijuana) arrest would take anywhere from a
couple of hours to about half my shift ... time that could have been better
spent on the streets addressing violent crime."

More questions need to be asked of the eight NCOPS board members who
backpedaled Aug. 9, claiming "confusion" as to what Mr. Anderson was asking
them during his telephone survey earlier in the week. Further, close
scrutiny should be directed toward any and all law officers who campaign
against the initiative on taxpayer time. Police should be using their hours
on the job to enforce the law, not to lobby for or against proposed changes
in it.

Lee Eisenstein

Kailua, Hawaii