SEPARATING THE WEED FROM THE CHAFF

Nevada Now Knows What To Call It: Question 9.

Now, all the state needs to do is figure out what to make of it.

"It," of course, is the initiative that would amend the state Constitution
to legalize three ounces or less of marijuana. And here's what we do know:
Since the Secretary of State's Office on July 9 determined the signature
drive to get the initiative on the ballot was successful, an increasing
number of law-enforcement wonks have been coming forward to claim,
essentially, that this initiative is a bad, ugly thing that will result in
all sorts of heathen behavior and wanton crime if passed.

The people behind the pot petition have countered that these law
enforcement officials are full of it and that Nevadans think cops should be
worrying about murderers, not stoners.

And in the middle of the fray are state officials, who are preparing
Question 9's ballot language in as fair of a way as possible while bracing
for the possibility that the question could put them in blatant violation
of federal law, resulting in all sorts of drama.

To top it off, all indications are that the vote is going to be reeeeaaaly
close come November.

Gosh. Putting politics and pot together is kind of interesting, ain't it?

Pot's bad. No it's not.

Predictably, Question 9 has the collective underwear of many law enforcers
and prosecutors in a bunch.

Two days after the initiative's ballot certification by the secretary of
state, Drug Enforcement Administration Director Asa Hutchinson asked a
crowd in Reno: If the ballot question is approved, "what kind of tourism
will Nevada attract?" Hutchinson apparently forgot that Nevada already
attracts tourists who like to gamble and see adult-themed shows and
occasionally sneak into a rural county to legally boff a prostitute.

Then, Office of National Drug Policy Director John Walters showed up in Las
Vegas and claimed, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, that Question
9 would make Nevada the "vacation spot for drug traffickers." He also
claimed that the pot of today is stronger than the pot that Baby Boomers
smoked when they were kids. Looking at some of the freaky stuff Boomers
came up with in the 1960s, we're skeptical.

This was followed by a vote by the Nevada District Attorney's Association
to oppose Question 9, with some folks using the age-old argument that
marijuana is a gateway drug to more serious drugs.

Stewart Bell, the Clark County District Attorney who is not running for
re-election but is instead running for a District Court seat this year -
and who, it should be noted, did not participate in the Nevada District
Attorney's Association vote - is more reasonable about things.

"We believe that having possession of a small amount of marijuana as a
misdemeanor protects the community without treating it more harshly than it
deserves," he said, choosing his words carefully since he won't be the D.A.
when and if the initiative goes into effect - although he could be a judge,
and judges are not supposed to take public positions on such issues.

"We support the current law," he said.

Billy Rogers, a representative of the pro-pot group Nevadans for
Responsible Law Enforcement (a name that gives some police officers fits),
which is funded by the Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project,
called these claims by prosecutors and law enforcement officials
"disinformation campaigns" and, appropriately, "smoke screens."

"Ultimately, most Nevadans don't think that it's appropriate to waste tax
dollars on going after people who possess a small amount of marijuana,"
said Rogers, who works for the Marijuana Policy Project. "They'd rather the
police use their resources on criminals such as murderers and rapists."
Where Rogers got the idea that Nevada cops are focusing on catching tokers
in favor of catching killers, we aren't sure.

Long story short: Both sides are a little full of it, which is to be
expected, seeing as politics is involved.

Stop the madness

Amidst all the rhetoric sits the state, which is in the unenviable (yet
somewhat amusing) position of trying to present Question 9 fairly and
impartially to the public, even though the whole darned thing is illegal
according to federal law.

"We're kind of in a monitoring phase," said Gina Session, a senior deputy
attorney general.

The attorney general's office is not taking a position on the issue,
although it certainly has some concerns. Tom Sargent, a spokesman for the
office, said he personally had some problems with how some of the
signature-gatherers for Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement
misrepresented the effort as being primarily over medical marijuana. That's
not the case; medical marijuana is already legal in the state. While
Question 9 does have a medical marijuana element (it would make the state
set up a marijuana distribution system for patients), it's only a small
part of it.

But now that the question is on the ballot, that's moot.

"It would be unbecoming for us to sound off too early on whether this is a
good law or a bad law," Sargent said, adding that the office could lobby
the Legislature one way or another if the amendment is passed this year and
in 2004, making it part of the state Constitution. If that happens, the
2005 Legislature would be mandated to make the appropriate changes to state
law.

For now, the state's job is to make sure that the ballot language for
Question 9 is as fair and noncontroversial as possible. Susan Morandi, a
deputy secretary of state for elections, is finishing up a draft of that
language. After her office signs off on the language, she said, the
attorney general's office will take a gander. Any suggestions will be sent
back to the Secretary of State's office, which will finalize the language
and then send it to the county clerks to place on the November ballot. The
language should be finalized by the first week of August, she said.

"It's very important to be able to make the language understandable and
accurate so citizens are fully able to understand what [the initiative] is
going to do," Morandi said.

This is important - and potentially controversial. The language on several
recent initiatives, including the medical marijuana initiative (in 1998 and
2000) and the so-called "Protection of Marriage" initiative (in 2000 and
this year) has been called into question for fairness.

The Secretary of State's Office also went the extra mile to help fairly
educate the public on the issue, recently holding televised public forums
in Las Vegas and Reno (on July 23 and July 22 respectively).

Beyond the question language, the state's role now can be summed up in one
word: wait. Wait and see if Question 9 passes. Wait and see what the
federal law is in 2005, when the Legislature will have to deal with it if
it does pass. (There are some whispers in Congress to make marijuana laws
more of a state issue than a federal issue.)

"Lots of questions are unanswerable until this is passed, if it's passed,"
Morandi said.

It's gonna be close

All indications are that Question 9's fate will come down to the wire. A
recent Las Vegas Review-Journal/Mason-Dixon poll showed that 44 percent of
those queried supported the question, while 46 were opposed. The remainder
was undecided.

That's close, folks.

Rogers, of Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement, thinks those results
were a bit off. He accurately points out that the pollsters only mentioned
that "possession of 3 ounces or less of marijuana by a person aged 21 or
older [would not be] a cause for arrest," and that it did not mention that
it would be illegal in public, to minors, and so on.

"We're doing much better than an even race right now," Rogers said,
predicting that Question 9 would pass. He also promised that his group
would "educate the public" on the issue between now and November. How,
exactly, that "education" will be done will be determined closer to Labor
Day, he said. Bet on an advertising/media campaign.

But there are also some problems that could hinder Question 9. One surfaced
this week, when a group of Clark County prosecutors came forward to say the
initiative could weaken DUI prosecutions, because the proposed amendment
says that "driving dangerously" while under the influence of marijuana
would be illegal. That one word, "dangerously," could let stoned drivers
off the hook if they were pulled over for something non-dangerous, the
prosecutors claim. And make no mistake about it - one or two faulty words
in a law can indeed create crippling loopholes.

Another potential Achilles' heel for Question 9 is the three-ounce
provision. While Rogers has been brilliant at claiming that three ounces is
a "small amount" of marijuana - newspapers and TV, for the most part, have
ignorantly gone along with this - that's debatable. By Rogers' own
admission, that's the equivalent of three to four packs of cigarettes, or
60-80 joints. (Some say that three ounces could make even more joints than
that.) Considering that only the biggest stoners use pot more than once or
twice a day, this is enough for weeks - or even months - for virtually all
potheads.

When asked why the line was drawn at three ounces, Rogers said that's often
the standard used by law enforcement on what is a small amount of pot
(although an informal CityLife poll of stoners disagreed). However, in
Nevada, that line has been set at one ounce.

In any case, the next three months are going to be quite interesting in the
state. Expect a ton of rhetoric from both sides - and expect a nailbiter
come Election Day.