cannabisnews.com: Legalizing Marijuana: Five Major Sticking Points
Legalizing Marijuana: Five Major Sticking Points
Posted by CN Staff on September 22, 2002 at 08:16:40 PT
By Steve Kanigher
Source: Las Vegas Sun
Question 9 on the November general election ballot asks Nevadans whether they want to amend the state constitution to legalize possession by adults of up to 3 ounces of marijuana for private use.There are five major areas of disagreement between proponents and opponents regarding the initiative and its potential impacts.
1. Does it cover only marijuana or does it also legalize hashish and other by-products?Question 9 defines marijuana as a plant "of the genus Cannabis or its product." Proponents interpret that to mean only the leafy substance or residue, such as that left in a pipe. Opponents interpret "its product" to include hashish, which they say contains 10 times the amount of THC found in marijuana.Billy Rogers, brought in by the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington to run the Question 9 campaign, said the intent of the initiative was to cover only marijuana."It doesn't say hashish and hashish is not covered by this," Rogers said. "It's clear that it's talking about the plant. If there is any question about this, the Legislature has the authority under this initiative to determine what a 'product' is."Webster's Dictionary defines hashish as the concentrated resin from the flowering tops of the female hemp plant, known as Cannabis sativa. Hashish can be smoked, chewed or drunk for its intoxicating effect, according to the dictionary.Chief Deputy District Attorney Gary Booker, head of the vehicular crimes unit, said he believes hashish would be legal under Question 9 and that three ounces would be enough to last a year."Question 9 says marijuana and its products and hashish is a product," Booker said. "The active ingredients are so high that someone who uses hashish would be high as a kite."Question 9 opponents point to federal studies that show that teenagers who smoke marijuana are many times as likely to move onto harder drugs as adults than if they don't smoke marijuana. A federal study released last month ranked Nevada as tied for seventh in the nation with an estimated 7 percent of youths aged 12 to 17 who tried marijuana for the first time in 1999 or 2000."There are allegedly 3,000 new marijuana smokers per day in this country and three-quarters are under age 18," Metro narcotics detective Todd Raybuck said. "Youths who smoke marijuana are 85 times more likely to use cocaine than nonsmokers."But Rogers said he doesn't buy the "gateway drug" argument. He said 80 million Americans have tried marijuana and that there are an estimated 11 million current marijuana smokers, including 110,000 to 150,000 in Nevada."Don't you think that if their argument was the case that there would be 80 million cocaine and heroin addicts?" Rogers said. "Their argument is insulting to the 80 million people who have tried marijuana. There's no doubt addiction is a problem in this country but for people to say that marijuana is the cause of addiction to cocaine and heroin ignores the complexities of addiction and ignores the struggles of people who go through addiction."2. Does the initiative nullify existing penalties for motorists caught driving under the influence of marijuana?The initiative directs the Legislature to establish penalties for users of marijuana who were "driving dangerously." Proponents say this provision would ensure that motorists under the influence of marijuana would be penalized for such driving. But opponents say that phrase is vague and would exclude some motorists who would be convicted of DUI under existing laws.Booker said "driving dangerously" leaves too much for interpretation and cannot be enforced."There is no definition for 'driving dangerously' in Nevada law," he said.Under current law, motorists can be charged with driving under the influence even if they were stopped by police for other reasons, such as a malfunctioning taillight. But Booker said that if a motorist under the influence of marijuana is stopped for reasons other than "driving dangerously," it is possible under Question 9 that he would not be cited for DUI.His concern is that marijuana-related DUIs are on the rise -- he said they make up as much as 20 percent of all DUIs in Clark County -- and that three of the most publicized DUI fatality cases he has worked in the past two years involved motorists who had marijuana in their system.He said those cases included Jessica Williams, who was sentenced to 18 to 48 years in prison for killing six teenagers along Interstate 15; Juanita Kim McDonald, who was sentenced to four to 20 years in prison for killing a pedestrian and injuring four others along the Las Vegas Strip, and John Simbrat, who was charged with the Aug. 9 traffic death of Las Vegas Sun Vice President and Associate Editor Sandy Thompson on Interstate 215."Marijuana is more insidious than alcohol in that you cannot see the symptoms," Booker said. "It has a hallucinogenic effect whereas alcohol affects motor skills. With marijuana you think the road is going left when it is going straight. With alcohol you know it is going straight but you just can't stay on it."My fear with Question 9 is that our DUI rate would go right through the roof."Rogers said his organization takes DUIs seriously and supports severe punishment for such drivers."Under our initiative you're allowed to smoke in the privacy of your home," Rogers said. "If you walk out and drive a car and kill a person, you will go to prison and you should go to prison for a long time. This initiative would do nothing to prevent Gary Booker from putting someone in prison for a long time if they're found guilty."But Rogers took offense that Question 9 foes are using the Simbrat case and others to attack marijuana use."It's shameful that opponents would take a tragedy and try to exploit it for political purposes," Rogers said. "If they were sincere, why not try to ban the sale of alcohol?"Another concern Booker has is the provision of the initiative stating that "any statute or regulation inconsistent with this section is null and void after Jan. 1, 2005." Booker said he believes that would eliminate Nevada's current marijuana DUI law, which is triggered by 2 nanograms of marijuana per milliliter in the blood or 5 nanograms of the by-products known as metabolites.Rogers disagreed, armed with a legal opinion from Las Vegas attorney JoNell Thomas who concluded that existing DUI laws would not be nullified by Question 9. Thomas informed Rogers that "the plain language of the ballot question makes it clear that the Legislature must punish those who drive under the influence of marijuana.""It is absurd to suggest we want people to drive under the influence of marijuana," Rogers said. "That goes beyond the scope of what this does."While Rogers insisted that Question 9 would not change existing marijuana DUI laws, he said wasn't convinced that someone would still be "under the influence" of marijuana based on the quantities in the blood that trigger Nevada's existing law."At 2 nanograms you're talking about someone who smoked 30 days ago or 15 days ago and it would still be in their system but they certainly wouldn't be under the influence," he said.3. Does Question 9 give users of medical marijuana new benefits or, rather, does it discriminate against those Nevadans?Question 9 proponents state in fliers that the initiative would give seriously ill people "easy access" to medical marijuana. But foes say that is misleading because qualified Nevadans already have that access."I don't think people understand that," said Sandy Heverly of Las Vegas, STOP DUI executive director. "They've been purposely deceived by this group that it will help people for medicinal purposes but we already legalized that two years ago."As of last week, 211 Nevadans were registered through the state Agriculture Division to use marijuana for medicinal purposes. The law allows those registered to possess up to one ounce of marijuana and own three mature marijuana plants and four immature plants.Question 9 foes say the initiative would discriminate against medical marijuana patients because they would still have to register with the state, whereas all other adults would be able to possess marijuana without registration. But Rogers said the difference is that medical marijuana patients will still be allowed to grow plants -- and therefore register with the state for that reason -- whereas all other adults would be prohibited from growing plants.Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, D-Las Vegas, a consultant to Rogers, said another advantage of Question 9 -- and one of the main reasons she supports the initiative -- is that it is designed to allow the state to sell marijuana to qualified patients at below retail prices. She said that provision would help low-income patients who now find growing their own plants cost-prohibitive."This reduces the difficulty of having to grow it," Giunchigliani said. "They are expensive to grow and some people are having to access it illegally. It could cost a lot of money to obtain the equipment such as the lights and the seeds as well. What we want to do is fix the problem for the medically needy."4. Do police spend too much time making arrests in relatively trivial marijuana possession cases? Conversely, is Question 9 enforceable if it becomes law?Proponents of Question 9 say police spend too much time arresting individuals for marijuana offenses and could better use their resources elsewhere. Opponents say the amount of time police spend on marijuana arrests is exaggerated.A bone of contention is the argument from proponents that 3,742 people were arrested in Nevada for "small amounts" of marijuana in 2000, according to FBI statistics."We estimate that law enforcement officers were off the street for 10,000 hours arresting people for small amounts of marijuana," Rogers said. "There is no argument officers could have spent more time on the street protecting us from violent criminals."Rogers' statistics contrast greatly with Raybuck's, who said that the FBI figures also included individuals who were arrested for other crimes. Raybuck said that Metro booked into jail only 50 people in the first half of this year on a sole charge of possession of marijuana of any amount. He said he didn't have available the latest number of arrests for multiple crimes that included marijuana among the charges, nor the number of citations issued under the new misdemeanor possession law."It looks like they've got something to hide," Rogers said.But Raybuck said he wouldn't be surprised if the new misdemeanor possession law reduced the number of marijuana arrests, since all the arrests cited by Rogers for 2000 would have been felonies.Booker also said that Metro often won't bother to even issue citations for marijuana possession if, for instance, police respond to a domestic dispute and happen to spot a few marijuana cigarettes in the residence. In those cases, Booker said police often will either confiscate the marijuana or have the individual flush it down the toilet."We're not spending a lot of resources on this," Booker said of marijuana arrests. "That's a lie."The intent of Question 9 is to restrict use of marijuana to one's private residence, Rogers said. He said the initiative would allow people to possess marijuana in most public places -- including in their car or while walking home from a store where they purchased marijuana. Possession at schools, jails and prisons would be banned, he said.But Raybuck said the initiative would be difficult to enforce for an officer driving along the street."How do you tell if someone is smoking a marijuana cigarette or a regular cigarette?" Raybuck said. "What type of harassment complaints will we face if we stop someone with a lit piece of paper in their mouth and it turns out to be a regular cigarette?"5. Will Question 9 eliminate the black market in marijuana, or will it actually make it more likely that a black market will thrive?Question 9 proponents say the marijuana initiative will reduce, if not eliminate, the black market because licensed retailers will be able to sell marijuana cheaper than the estimated $100 to $700 per ounce that is now fetched illegally. Opponents say the black market will continue to thrive to peddle to children.Rogers pointed to the end of Prohibition, which legalized alcohol and put bootleggers out of business. He said the same should happen to the illicit marijuana trade."In a regulated marketplace, where anyone who sells marijuana to a minor would go to prison, the availability of marijuana for children and the use of marijuana by children will decrease," Rogers said.He cited a Columbia University study that found that it was three times as easy for children to score marijuana than to obtain beer. He attributed that to laws over the past 20 years that have cracked down on underage drinking."You have strong enforcement and underage use of beer and alcohol went down," he said.But Raybuck painted the opposite picture. He said that children who see adults smoking marijuana at home are more likely to want to imitate that habit. And that, in turn, will keep the black market thriving."We know that a lot of young people don't want to wait to be adults to engage in activities meant for adults," Raybuck said. "It would lead to more drug use among children and more crime in Nevada. If the majority of new users are underage and can't purchase marijuana legally, the black market would still exist to supply that demand."Legal sellers would have to register with the state and pay taxes. They would also have overhead for employees and utility bills. If you sell on the black market, you don't have to pay taxes or overhead. So what incentive is there to go into legal business when you can still sell it on the black market?"Source: Las Vegas Sun (NV)Author: Steve Kanigher Published: September 22, 2002Copyright: 2002 Las Vegas Sun, Inc.Contact: letters lasvegassun.comWebsite: http://www.lasvegassun.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:NRLEhttp://www.nrle.org/Marijuana Policy Projecthttp://www.mpp.org/Legalizing Marijuana: Nevada's Smoke Signal http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14203.shtmlPot Initiative Leader Challenges Drug Czarhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14179.shtmlDrug Czar Plans Nevada Visit To Fight Pot Questionhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14162.shtmlGoing to Pot: Nevada Plan to Legalize Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14104.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help
Comment #14 posted by krutch on September 23, 2002 at 13:31:00 PT:
Moronic Assumption
"...children who see adults smoking marijuana at home are more likely to want to imitate that habit. And that, in turn, will keep the black market thriving."Did this happen with Alcohol? Did kids keep the black market thriving when prohibition was repealed? I don't think so. It is very difficult to find moonshine.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #13 posted by DANA on September 23, 2002 at 02:27:12 PT
Bogus Bunko Whoppers
I really fry when I hear such bunk as;""There are allegedly 3,000 new marijuana smokers per day in this country and three-quarters are under age 18," Metro
narcotics detective Todd Raybuck said. "Youths who smoke marijuana are 85 times more likely to use cocaine than
nonsmokers.""..............
..It really gets me when narco-porkers like Raybuck,spew forth absurd numbers as if they were somehow actual,verifiable statistics!Granted,he did qualify with,"...'allegedly' 3,000 new marijuana smokers per day ...",but this type of rubbish,heresay numbers,end up being extremely damaging to our cause....Even though a simpleton could recognize these type of fabricated statistics,are not based on any facts,,most people who would read this,will be left with the impression that there are 3000 new Marijuana smokers per day.....And then,, if you ask one of these loudmouths to give the source of their numbers,,they will tell you to look it up in the SAMSHA website,or ondcp,,or some "American Families" survey,,ALL of which are easily rigged,and manipulated to arrive at the desired numbers.For some strange reason,people blindly trust government "statistics"...People just assume,that the government does accurate,and verifiable research to arrive at a number...Actually,the government can cook the books,and twist the facts and figures quite easily..
..It should be obvious,that such things as .."3000 new Marijuana users per day..",is absolutely BOGUS!..complete heresay.,,and then,,in the next sentence,some jackass like Raybuck will claim that there is no scientific proof that Marijuana is safe......
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #12 posted by Phasetheory on September 23, 2002 at 00:43:20 PT
Idiots
"So what incentive is there to go into legal business when you can still sell it on the black market?" "NONE, the black market would have to sell it for less for it to exist and guess what? It couldn't! " "My fear with Question 9 is that our DUI rate would go right through the roof." "That's only if the amount of people who use marijuana increases, and every study shows that that wouldn't happen. However, what will be interesting when this legislation passes, I hope, the police will discover that people drive safer under the influence of marijuana, than sober. There have been actual studies that support this.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #11 posted by idbsne1 on September 22, 2002 at 15:36:40 PT
Patrick...
Chris Giunchigliani is an angel. She is fighting sooo hard for the rights of individuals in Nevada. I have had the honor of speaking to her through email. She was prompt and answered all my questions regarding the medical MJ program in Nevada. My main concern was "how would we get the medicine?" I am a California patient, but when Nevada passed their MJ law, it was official...done by the State Legislature. With the DEA busting our clubs, I thought there might be hope in Nevada. But Chris informed me that there were to be no dispenseries... just that patients would be allowed to grow. What about patients who cannot do this? This was the big problem. She said the only way to get the law in, was to eliminate the possibility of dipenseries.Sunlight might be free...but there is a WHOLE LOT MORE WORK INVOLVED. Sometimes one can get lucky and just throw a seed into the ground and get a plant. But if you do indoor... it is much more time consuming and expensive, but necessary, to keep privacy. Most patients CANNOT do this.Chris is a warrior for us...a fine politician... for the people. Lets give her our support. Thanks.idbsne1
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #10 posted by karkulus on September 22, 2002 at 15:23:52 PT
How About Seperate Lanes?
We could make separate lanes on the highways(with barriers in-between),"FOR DRINKERS", and "FOR POT SMOKERS"...then let's see which one has more accidents!! I wonder who will win??
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #9 posted by FoM on September 22, 2002 at 13:37:02 PT
jvthc
Who are you talking too?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #8 posted by jvthc on September 22, 2002 at 13:16:31 PT:
There Is one!
Jose Menendez:There is one! There is a cigarette, marketed as a tobacco substitute without nicotine, made of various herbs (non hallucinogenic) which happen to smell so suspicious that even those experienced with marijuana will wonder just "what is that smell." I know a woman who smokes them instead of cigarettes. Her car smells just like the inside of a bong!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #6 posted by Patrick on September 22, 2002 at 09:52:29 PT
And another thing…
"But Raybuck painted the opposite picture. He said that children who see adults smoking marijuana at home are more likely to want to imitate that habit. And that, in turn, will keep the black market thriving."Oh really? If I could grow my herbs without fear of prosecution and so could everyone else that wanted some, there would not be a black market for cannabis. Children should be taught moderation in all things by their parents not by my tax-paid law enforcement officer.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #5 posted by markjc on September 22, 2002 at 09:51:31 PT:
um no.
"With marijuana you think the road is going left when it is going straight. With alcohol you know it is going straight but you just can't stay on it."hes trying to make marijuana seem like lsd or something. hes trying to make the statement that marijuana intoxicates you more than someone who is drunk. that is a full blown lie.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #4 posted by Sam Adams on September 22, 2002 at 09:25:07 PT
more good stuff!
I think this is actually an example of good media. Two very LONG articles (they actually have faith that their readers are morons with a 30-second attention span, bravo!), and they painstakenly collected statements from each side on several specific issues. Don't see that very often.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #3 posted by DdC on September 22, 2002 at 09:01:04 PT
¶8)
I thought for a long time, (still do in some cases)...that the wod junkies were all just mean, evil, rotton money grubbing fascist bastards, but now I'm thinking you're probably right...They're just MORONS!!!Peace, Love and Liberty or the Merchants of D.E.A.th!DdC
D.E.A.th Deceptions
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #2 posted by Patrick on September 22, 2002 at 08:56:18 PT
Growing plants can be cost prohibitive?
She said that provision would help low-income patients who now find growing their own plants cost-prohibitive. What does Mother Nature charge for photosynthesis? Last time I checked plants grow freely. Now you have the certain people in government, we all know their names, that by their prohibitionist cannabis plant phobia attitude we all pay a portion in taxes to lock people up for growing and consuming a plant. Locking people up for growing plants is the REAL CRIME!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #1 posted by JHarshaw on September 22, 2002 at 08:50:22 PT
Morons
"So what incentive is there to go into
legal business when you can still sell it on the black market?"How about staying out of jail? Sounds like a good incentive to me!
[ Post Comment ]
Post Comment