cannabisnews.com: Marijuana Initiative Promise High Adventure 





Marijuana Initiative Promise High Adventure 
Posted by CN Staff on August 28, 2002 at 08:43:33 PT
By John L. Smith
Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal 
At last, a downtown redevelopment project guaranteed to go up in smoke. Finally, a major cash crop for Winnemucca. And did I mention a new location for the state capital? It's a long way from becoming part of the state's constitution, but would decriminalizing adult use of marijuana in Nevada actually generate millions in tax revenues and provide a boost to our roadkill-flat economy?
Proponents of Question 9 on the November ballot sure think so. Of course, they're not ready to float any firm figures yet. Those will be provided in the Nevadans For Responsible Law Enforcement's official study, which is due out in late September. But, obviously, the pro-pot coalition isn't shy about discussing the potential fiscal euphoria associated with marijuana decriminalization. "We've argued for a long time that it makes more sense to tax and regulate marijuana than to arrest up to 750,000 a year (nationwide) for possession of marijuana," NRLE campaign manager Billy Rogers says. "We're committed to ensuring that the harm associated with marijuana is reduced. We believe the greatest harm associated with marijuana is the threat of jail." But what about the tax revenue benefits? It's been a successful argument for legalized gambling since 1931. One recent thumbnail projection estimated 150,000 regular marijuana users in Nevada with potential tax revenues generated at $200 million a year. Critics say that $200 million figure is as high as Question 9's advocates. But whatever the number, the bottom line translates into a sizable contribution to our state's flagging coffers. The plan's opponents also contend that decriminalizing marijuana not only will be bad for the state's already dog-eared image, but will endanger the health and safety of the state's young people and residents of poor neighborhoods. Rogers does his best to counter such arguments. Interestingly, Question 9 proponents say their surveys indicate a majority of voters under 60 endorsing the prospect of decriminalized adult use. That sentiment appears to cross party, political and social lines. "If voters understand exactly what's in this initiative, we're going to win this election," Rogers says. Those who dream of decriminalizing marijuana see a far more positive potential for pot, including the eventual acceptance of hemp cafes and the possibility of the state growing and selling the stuff. If placed downtown on Fremont Street, such cafes would be a sure-fire draw for tourists and locals. Talk about giving people a reason to return to downtown. It might be the first redevelopment project to bring a smile to the faces of thousands of visitors. Then there's the possibility of the state of Nevada getting into the pot growing business. Given the state government's traditional inefficiencies and bureaucratic shortcomings, the price of a single pack might run into the thousands. Obviously, there are a lot of questions left unanswered about Question 9. After substantial confusion and no small amount of political maneuvering, law enforcement groups have criticized it even though they acknowledge that busts of small-time pot users waste thousands of personnel hours each year and result in relatively few convictions. Nor is the proliferation of pot smoke imminent. If approved in November, Question 9 must come back before the voters in 2004 before moving on to the Legislature and eventually into the constitution. That allows for time to market decriminalization and to answer a few questions: For starters, someone surely will want to change the state motto from "Battle Born" to "Battle Born, But Generally Mellow ... and Given to Late-Night Cravings." Will neophyte tourists rush to central Nevada's Big Smoky Valley? Will the ghost town of Potts find a sudden revival? Will small-town Nevada get into the act by producing brands with catchy names such as "Acapulco Goldfield" and "Beowawe Wowie?" Of course, there's one Nevada town that wouldn't require a name change. Undoubtedly, it would be a favorite for the site of the new state capital. Weed Heights. John L. Smith's column appears Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. Complete Title: Ramifications of Marijuana Initiative Promise High Adventure Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal (NV)Author: John L. SmithPublished: Wednesday, August 28, 2002Copyright: 2002 Las Vegas Review-JournalContact: letters lvrj.comWebsite: http://www.lvrj.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:NRLEhttp://www.nrle.org/Marijuana Policy Projecthttp://www.mpp.org/Vegas Measure Gambles on Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13896.shtmlNevada Ballot Question Would Make Pot Legal http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13892.shtmlNevada Voters Decide on Legalizing Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13884.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #4 posted by Jose Melendez on August 28, 2002 at 17:47:25 PT
Arrest Prohibition
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n1600/a09.html Newshawk: Dale Gieringer Pubdate: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 Source: Chico News & Review, The (CA) Copyright: 2002 Chico Community Publishing, Inc. Contact: chicoletters@newsreview.com Website: http://www.newsreview.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/559 Author: Laura Smith  UP IN SMOKE Federal Government Clashes With County Over Small Medical Marijuana Garden SMOKED OUT: Diane Monson, who holds a doctor's recommendation to use marijuana for back spasms, read the text of Prop. 215 to federal drug agents as they hacked her six marijuana plants from the ground last week. Don't tread on me: Congressman Barney Frank ( D-MA ) introduced legislation last year that would repeal federal laws that restrict the states' rights to allow medical marijuana use. The legislation would also reclassify marijuana from a Schedule 1 narcotic to a Schedule II drug, a change that would recognize that there are valid medical uses for marijuana. The bill is still being discussed. When the federal drug agents asked Diane Monson where her marijuana plants were last week, she didn't hesitate to tell them. Why should she? She had a doctor's recommendation to smoke pot ( to relieve chronic back spasms ), and, with just six marijuana plants growing in her yard, was well within Butte County's guidelines for medicinal possession. Monson never had a problem before. She's a peaceful person and was making, of all things, a batch of granola when the police arrived. But she only thought she was safe. As it turns out, the Butte County sheriff's deputies who searched her Oroville foothills house last Thursday really didn't have a problem with her small crop. But the federal drug agents who assisted them certainly did. And that's where the problem came up. "If the [feds] weren't there, we'd have left the plants," said Sheriff's Lt. Jerry Smith. "We're not out to bother with small medicinal grows like that." Even so, and against the pleadings of Butte County District Attorney Mike Ramsey, the federal Drug Enforcement Agency agents ripped Monson's plants out of the ground. The sheriff's deputies, Monson said, gave her five minutes to harvest what she could of the plants before the DEA agents took them. As the feds hacked the plants from the ground, Monson said she read them the entire text of Prop. 215. "I thought they might need to hear it," she said. "I couldn't believe they were taking the plants. I mean, this is just so against what the will of the people of the state of California is. I wasn't doing anything against the law." Monson is right--partially. She wasn't doing anything against state law, but her small marijuana garden was completely illegal in the eyes of the federal government. And increasingly, if you get busted on marijuana charges--whether medical cultivation or medical possession--depends on who does the bust. If it's the county, at least in Butte County and you're growing fewer than six plants, you're most likely in the clear. But if it's the feds, you're in trouble. In a way, Monson is lucky. Because she had only six plants, she probably won't face any federal charges. So why seize the plants in the first place, especially since she's a medicinal user? That's the question DA Ramsey asked of U.S. Attorney John K. Vincent, who authorized the seizure. "I was using words like 'wrong headed' and 'stupid' and 'high handed,' when I was talking to [Vincent] about it," Ramsey said. "I was very angry about it, when [Monson] was squarely within 215." Ramsey was notified of the bust while the sheriff's deputies and DEA agents were already at Monson's house. They were there because Monson and her husband were the original owners of and held the note on a Berry Creek house where sheriff's deputies found a large, sophisticated marijuana grow this spring. The buyers of the home made their payments on time every month, Monson said, and they never suspected that anything illegal was going on in the house. Because of the size of the Berry Creek grow, the federal government is prosecuting the case ( there've been two arrests ), and that's why the DEA agents accompanied the sheriff's deputies to Monson's house for a search. When he was notified of the search, Ramsey acknowledges that he pleaded with the feds to leave the plants alone. Monson wasn't breaking state law, he said, so why bother? "I was told that [the federal government's] policy is to not recognize any medical excuse for marijuana," Ramsey said. "... I was very angry that they were going to [take the plants] and questioned the necessity of it. I told him this was going to bring bad publicity, and [Vincent] said he'd take the heat, but the plants needed to be taken and destroyed." Vincent didn't return phone calls asking for comment. California isn't the only state trying to make sense of dichotomous state and federal marijuana laws. Twelve states ( California among them ) have reduced penalties for possessing a small amount of marijuana to mere fines, and this fall Nevadans will decide at the polls if they want to legalize and tax marijuana. Clearly, the states are becoming more lax about marijuana, but the federal government seems determined to maintain its illegality. The resulting confusion about jurisdiction has all but turned Prop. 215 into a Trojan horse. When county law enforcement officers are prevented from arresting growers who use Prop. 215 as a defense, all they have to do is call in the DEA. The tension between state and federal law is almost sure to lead to a legal showdown sometime in the future, but in Butte County it appears to have begun already. Ramsey denied that there are more federal agents in Butte County than ever but acknowledged that he's "having discussions" with them about already-blurry jurisdictional boundaries. "They'll probably be around less now," Ramsey said. "Because I'm pissed." Want to do something about it? From: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/offices/Contact U.S. Attorney John K. Vincent501 "I" Street, Suite 10-100, Sacramento 95814-2322Phone (916)554-2700 Fax: (916)554-2900 Web Site: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/cae/home/ | Press Releases: http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/cae/text_version/text_pressindex.htm Phone (559)498-7272 Fax: (559)498-7432
More: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22U.S.+Attorney%22%22John+K.++Vincent%22+&btnG=Google+Search
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by FoM on August 28, 2002 at 16:51:32 PT
Thanks Knox42897 it's up to 67 Percent Now
This November, how will you vote on Question #9, dealing with the legalization of some amounts of marijuana for private use, not just for medical purposes. 
Thank you for participating in our poll. Here are the 
results so far. 
Yes for legalization! 67%  
Nope to dope! 30%  
Don't know yet 2%  
Will not vote 1%  
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by knox42897 on August 28, 2002 at 16:29:05 PT:
polls
There is poll survey on the web page: www.LVNORML.com, sroll down on the opening page and it saysTAKE THE CHANNEL 8 INITIATIVE WEB POLL AT KLASTV.comhttp://www.klastv.com/Global/story.asp?S=868267&nav=168XAHvmso far we are winningit with 66%, I think we win this no problem.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by The GCW on August 28, 2002 at 11:35:29 PT
Keep in mind
citizens, (good citizens) are already using cannabis.Always have and always will.So the issue is, take advantage of what is there and can not be changed.Resistance/prohibition will never work. =-=-=-=-=-
& has anyone seen updated polls?
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment