NCOPS ENDORSEMENT OF QUESTION 9 QUESTIONED

Two days after a police organization announced its support for a ballot
question decriminalizing possession of less than 3 ounces of marijuana,
that support crumbled.

Four board members with the Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs
disagreed with the assertion earlier this week by the organization's
president, Andy Anderson, that the board's nine members voted unanimously
to support Question 9.

They said that an official vote never took place and that they believed any
discussions on the issue concerned medical use of marijuana, not legalization.

The organization was to hold a board meeting Friday to discuss what several
of its members are describing as a miscommunication.

News that a police group would support a controversial ballot question
received national attention.

But Thursday, board members representing the Las Vegas Police Protective
Association, North Las Vegas Police Officers Association, Henderson Police
Officers' Association, the State Peace Officers Council and the Clark
County School Police Officers Association said their unions will not
support Question 9.

Anderson said he thinks some are changing their position because of
pressure from their members. And he challenged their recollections of the
discussions.

"They all told me they support the initiative that if someone is 21 or
older they can smoke in the privacy of their home," he said.

NCOPS is an umbrella group for police unions representing more than 3,000
members of law enforcement.

Possession of up to an ounce of marijuana is a misdemeanor dealt with as a
ticket and punished by fines of up to $600 for the first two offenses.
Question 9 would amend Nevada's constitution to say adults over 21 who are
not in public places cannot be prosecuted for possession of less than 3
ounces of marijuana. Anderson had said NCOPS believes that to arrest and
book people for small amounts of marijuana is a waste of resources.

David Burns, president of the Henderson Police Officers' Association and
secretary-treasurer of NCOPS, said that when he talked to Anderson: "I
thought it was something we were going to place on the agenda for a future
vote. I was not aware we were looking to take a vote. This is important
enough to discuss the pros and cons. ... I believed I was just chatting."

Burns said he was not fully aware of the details of Question 9 and thought
it addressed medical use. He said he is changing his position now that he
knows it addresses decriminalization.

Some of the confusion might be because the medical marijuana initiative
that appeared on the ballot in 1998 and 2000 appeared as a Question 9.
Also, the new Question 9 has language addressing medical use, including how
to cultivate, tax, sell and advertise marijuana for medical purposes.

North Las Vegas Police Officers Association Mike Mcban said he thought
Anderson "was talking about medical marijuana. ... Andy said he wanted to
make a public statement and wanted to sound us out on it. It was not a vote."

Mcban said he would not vote to endorse the question.

Board member Mick Gillins from the Police Protective Association said that
he thought the question concerned medical marijuana and that he now would
vote against it. Ron Cuzze, the board member representing the State Peace
Officers Council, said: "I thought I was being asked an opinion. I've never
read the initiative, and I don't think any of us have." The union's members
are against Question 9, he said.

Phil Gervasi, president of the Clark County School Police Officers
Association and a vice president of NCOPS, was the only member who was not
confused by the question.

Gervasi said he supports Question 9, but his group will not.

"We're definitely not supporting it or taking any stand on it. We deal with
children, and we're not going to make children feel this is the way to go.
My personal feeling is that if they're 21 and in their house, they can do
what they want. But there will be no endorsement."

Though his union may not back Question 9, Gervasi said he may do so as an
individual member of the board. He said he wants to hear a full debate
before making up his mind. He said Anderson explained to him that "this
would put us in the loop where we could be part of the regulation" when the
Legislature would create penalties for public use.

David Kallas, executive director of the Police Protective Association, said
he chooses not to serve on the NCOPS board. "But I've got real issues with
an organization taking a stand on a significant issue without sitting down
and going over every line."

The NCOPS endorsement "embarrassed me personally and professionally because
of our relationship with NCOPS," said Kallas, a former vice officer.

He predicted a turnaround. "It's sure to be pretty much a no-brainer," he
said. "They'll say sorry we've made a mistake, and we're not supporting it."

After the initial endorsement, opponents of the question voiced their concerns.

Clark County Undersheriff Richard Winget said he was shocked at NCOPS'
position. "People with 1 ounce or less get a ticket, that doesn't clog up
the system. Three ounces is a lot of pot. Marijuana is like straw; it
doesn't weigh very much. Three ounces is 120 marijuana cigarettes. That's
not personal use; that's what a dealer might have."

Winget said 36 percent of the people police arrest are under the influence
of marijuana.

As far as Anderson's contention that police are spending too much time
handling petty drug cases, Winget said Las Vegas police this year have
booked just 49 cases in which a small amount of pot was involved. Drug
charges are usually secondary to another crime, he said.

Gary Booker, the chief deputy district attorney in charge of the vehicular
crimes unit, said anti-DUI activists and victims groups will organize to
fight the question because of fears it will weaken drunken-driving
prosecutions.

Billy Rogers, who leads the group promoting the ballot question, declined
to speculate what a withdrawal of the endorsement would mean. He praised
the "tremendous courage" of the nine board members. When told five
associations are not expected to stick with that position, Rogers praised
the "original support."

Despite the loss of support from his board, Anderson said he will continue
to work on behalf of the question. "This was a commitment I made because I
believe in the issue. ... If I have to, I'll carry it as an individual or
as president," he said.