Posted on 08/02/2002 7:49:13 AM PDT by RJCogburn
After voting two years ago to ease state drug laws, Nevada voters could go even further this year, making their state the first to legalize marijuana and derive taxes from a regulated sales system.
It is a stunning possibility in a state where possession of more than one ounce of marijuana is still a felony, punishable by up to four years in prison, and possession of less than an ounce remains a misdemeanor that carries a $650 fine.
Yet the November ballot initiative follows two major changes in 2000 that seemed to reflect shifting sentiments in Nevada toward marijuana. Voters approved a measure to allow the use of marijuana for medical reasons. As part of the language to codify the measure, lawmakers reduced penalties for possessing less than an ounce of marijuana.
The combination made Nevada one of the nine states that have allowed legal access to the drug for patients with a doctor's prescription and one of the 12 that have eased penalties for some offenses.
But the new initiative would catapult Nevada to the forefront of all states reconsidering their approach to drug laws.
It would eliminate penalties for possessing up to three ounces of marijuana for any reason and would direct the Legislature to treat marijuana much like tobacco products and alcohol, regulating it through a system that would oversee how it is grown, distributed and sold, generating tax revenue in the process.
"This is a landmark initiative that seeks more than what any state has accomplished so far," said R. Keith Stroup, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, a nonprofit group working to reduce state and federal penalties for marijuana use.
Mr. Stroup cautioned, however, that the Nevada effort might be too ambitious to succeed.
While states have reduced penalties for some marijuana offenses without interference from the federal government, he said any measure that put a state in the drug business would violate federal law and draw a challenge from the Justice Department.
In general, when state law conflicts with federal law, the federal law takes precedence, giving federal prosecutors the discretion to pursue a case or not. A state-regulated drug operation, Mr. Stroup said, would be too much for the federal government to ignore.
"It is highly unlikely the federal government would allow a state to create a legal market for the sale of drugs in which the state licenses the sale or sets up stores to sell it," he said. "But what it would do is place enormous pressure on Congress to take a rational look at the nation's drug laws.
"As we begin to get more and more states considering legalization, it will be impossible for Congress to stand in their way."
Last week, the House of Representatives took a step in that direction when a bipartisan bill was introduced to allow all states to approve medical marijuana, thus eliminating any conflict with federal law. Passage of the measure is considered a long shot, but the 36 sponsors reflect a wide political range, from Representative Barney Frank, a liberal Democrat from Massachusetts, to Representative Dana Rohrabacher, a conservative Republican from California.
Besides Nevada, eight other states — Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Oregon and Washington — have passed exemptions since 1996 to allow patients with a doctor's prescription to use marijuana to relieve pain and discomfort.
Arizona has initiatives on the November ballot to reduce possession penalities. Other jurisdictions also have fall ballot measures, including the District of Columbia, with a medical marijuana proposal, and the City of San Francisco, with a plan for the city to grow and distribute the drug for patients living there. Ohio and Michigan have initiatives that would provide treatment instead of imprisonment for some drug users.
But nothing appears to be as far-reaching as Nevada's effort, which can only become law through a state constitutional amendment by voters this year and in 2004. The medical marijuana measure here passed with 59 percent of the vote in 1998 and with 65 percent in 2000.
Organizers of the campaign that put the current initiative on the November ballot, Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement, are selling it strictly as a law enforcement issue. As Billy Rogers, campaign manager for the effort, said, "Most Nevadans think it is a waste of taxpayers' money to arrest people for small amounts of marijuana when the time could be better spent arresting murderers and rapists."
Whether or not that means "most" Nevada voters would favor the new measure, it has generated an unusually high level of support for such a controversial issue. A recent poll by The Las Vegas Review-Journal, the state's largest newspaper, found that 44 percent of voters favored the initiative, 46 percent opposed it and 10 percent were undecided. The survey had a margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points.
In addition, The Review-Journal endorsed the idea in a July 7 editorial, calling it "a promising first step" toward ending "the needless harassment of individuals who peacefully and privately use marijuana."
Perhaps mindful of the poll results, none of Nevada's leading political figures, including Gov. Kenny Guinn, a Republican seeking re-election this fall, has openly opposed the idea.
So far, the most outspoken critics have been two recent visitors from Washington — Asa Hutchinson, chief of the Drug Enforcement Administration, and John Walters, head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Mr. Walters warned that passage could make Nevada "a vacation spot for drug traffickers," but said, "I don't believe you'd see federal officials coming in to enforce possession laws."
The proposal includes what organizers describe as safeguards, like prohibitions against advertising, selling marijuana to anyone under 21, or selling it in any public place like schools and parks.
"This allows law enforcement to go after people who truly act irresponsibly," he said. "People who smoke marijuana are otherwise law-abiding citizens who shouldn't be arrested. They are not endangering society."
That would be a good step forward.
Gee, whiz.
Love the use of that word, "allow", here ... yep, the Constitution has been turned on its ear, and now the feds decide what the states and the people are allowed to do, instead of vice versa. Guess what? The 10th Amendment will be reclaimed, not by SCOTUS, but by the states taking back the powers usurped by the feds.
Actually it's worse than that. They can outlaw potential commerce, and can even penalize you for doing something that might result in you not engaging in commerce. See Wickard v. Filburn for an example.
It is already readily available.
There are some good studies that demonstrate no difference in injury rates between those who test positive and negative for marijuana. That does not mean the same as quality of work performance, of course.
At least Nevada will bring the debate out into the open, in a place where pot can be compared with prostitution and gambling as a subject for federal regulation.
I had Wickard in mind in my original post (#2). The logic in Wickard was that growing wheat on your field and feeding it to your chicken affected interstate prices, because if you didn't grow the wheat you might have bought some, thus affecting prices. (Pretty ridiculous, but that's what they said.) But even that broad an interpretation could be argued not to apply to an outright prohibition: if nevadan's grow and sell within the state, it doesn't affect any prices in any legal interstate transaction, or any legal transactions in any other state for that matter. I can imagine that the current court, which is trying to be vaguely federalist, could conceivably buy that argument (although i wouldn't hold my breath.)
That is a very silly assertion. I smoked my fair share when I was a teen, then I got over it and served for 6 years. You really need some more accurate data on the effects of marijuana.
Congress doens't take a rational look at anything anymore, but I agree it would be a good idea even if they take an inrrational look at our freedom destroying drug laws.
What about those random drug tests at major employers? Will evidence of a recent trip to Las Vegas serve as an excuse?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.