At what point does enforcing a law become more burdensome than the
people who break it?

When the law involves arresting people for possessing small amounts of
marijuana, say Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement.

The group has completed a petition drive successfully placing on
Nevada ballots a proposal making it legal for adults to legally
possess up to three ounces of marijuana.

Billy Rogers, the group's Las Vegas spokesman, said it has gathered
74,767 valid signatures in 40 days -- 44,637 of them in Clark County.
To become law, it must be approved by voters in this year's election
and in 2004.

Nevada voters approved marijuana use for medical purposes in 2000. But
it remains unclear whether that or this new measure, which calls for
taxing marijuana as a tobacco product and selling it through
state-licensed shops, actually could take effect. The U.S. Supreme
Court ruled last year that no state could make exceptions to marijuana
laws for medical uses.

Rogers says it wouldn't be the first time state and federal policies
didn't match. And he says the time it takes to arrest, prosecute and
convict "otherwise law-abiding citizens" for possessing small amounts
of marijuana wastes law enforcement's time.

"Ultimately, the biggest problem with marijuana laws is the time
police officers waste on the arrest. With the paperwork and the time
in trial, it takes up to eight or nine hours to deal with one person
who has a very small amount of marijuana," he said.

About 750,000 such arrests were made nationally in 2000, Rogers
added.

The proposal prohibits possession by and sale to minors, public use,
use while driving or driving under the influence, advertising and
transportation into or out of Nevada.

"Anyone stupid enough to (violate) it would get sent to jail," Rogers
said.

Seems like we're trading one set of laws people don't follow for
another set.

According to Encyclopedia.com -- the most objective information I
could find -- marijuana use is traced back to China in 2737 B.C.

>From 1850 to 1942 it was prescribed in the United States to treat
labor pains, nausea and rheumatism. Federal drug officials of the
1930s portrayed it as an addictive substance that led to other drug
abuse. The Controlled Substances Act of 1970 lumped it into Schedule I
with LSD and heroin.

In moderate doses, marijuana creates euphoria and affects motor
skills. High doses can cause paranoia, delusions and abnormally rapid
heart rates. It lowers testosterone in men, and raises it in women.
Heavy smokers can suffer lung damage. Regular use results in
psychological dependence.

Cigarettes and alcohol are addictive. Tobacco products cause lung
damage. All medicines come with other "side" effects. It is up to us
to decide whether the benefits outweigh the risks.

This seems to be an issue of making good choices rather than strict
laws. For example, California officials want to penalize drivers of
gas-guzzling SUVs to curb ozone-damaging emissions.

As with zero-tolerance policies regarding marijuana, I applaud the
intent. But they don't solve anything. Liberty operates on personal
choice. If we choose to pollute our air or bodies, laws hinder us.
They don't change our minds.

We can regulate dope. Not acting like one still will be up to
us.