cannabisnews.com: Three Ounces? Well, How About Just Two-and-a-Half? Three Ounces? Well, How About Just Two-and-a-Half? Posted by CN Staff on September 29, 2002 at 08:33:28 PT By Steve Sebelius, Political Columnist Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal Have you heard the latest -- and lamest -- line going around on the lips of would-be public servants when they're asked about Question 9, the ballot initiative that would legalize up to 3 ounces of marijuana? "That's a lot of pot," they say, shaking their heads solemnly. What a joke. Do they really expect us to believe that had the limit been set at only 2.5 ounces, or maybe 1.75 ounces, they would be supporting it? Oh, 3 ounces is way too much, but if they dialed it back just a little we'd be able to go along with the idea. The reality is, medical marijuana is about as far as most politicians are willing to go when it comes to the Kind, Green Bud. It's amazing that the Legislature voted to make possession of 1 ounce or less a misdemeanor. What the politicians are really afraid of is being seen as pro-legalization, and that Question 9 is a first step toward making marijuana legal no matter how much you have. And you know what? They're right. This is the first step toward legalization. And instead of taking a couple baby steps down the road, we ought to be sliding behind the wheel of the new Jaguar S-Type (the one with the 390 horsepower V-8) and putting the pedal to the metal. So there's your answer, politicians: Organizers figured it would go over better with the public if they said "3 ounces" instead of "300,000 metric tons." Now that could get downright unwieldy. • And another thing: Could the opponents be any more disingenuous when they fight the initiative than by pointing out its financial backers are from out of state? Oh, the horror. They say when the finger points at the moon, the idiot looks at the finger. That's another way of saying, who cares if the proponents come from out of state? We should be debating the merits of the proposal, not the merits of the proposers. (In reaction, proponents have started gathering some actual Nevadans -- such as Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani and former police union chief Andy Anderson -- to buttress their local cred.) • The funniest development of the week (which, actually, isn't funny at all) was the rapidity with which Oscar's River was transformed into a public bath for the homeless. The ribbon on the revamped Lewis Street Corridor was no sooner cut than a homeless man was found bathing in the pond, nicknamed in the fine tradition of self-effacement for Mayor Oscar Goodman. The incident caused a few red faces and mayoral ire, and was grist for pundits (including yours truly). But once the laughter dies, we should once more confront the appalling lack of appropriate shelter space for the city's less fortunate. Perhaps if there were more shelters where the poor could shower downtown, they wouldn't turn to despoiling the brook meant to calm harried office workers. Then again, there's a subtle irony in the incident. Unwittingly and unwillingly, Goodman has done more for the homeless by opening Oscar's River than he has during the rest of his term. • The headline in Friday's Review-Journal read "GOP wants donations investigated," but it may just as easily have said "GOP wants to win." Much like the dust-up between would-be AGs John Hunt and Brian Sandoval, Republican lawyers have sent the Federal Election Commission a letter long on allegations but short on actual proof, charging that Dario Herrera's congressional campaign may have received illegal contributions from developer John Rhodes. (It seems Rhodes and a number of his employees both rich and poor all gave to Herrera.) It's undeniable that Rhodes wants to buy influence with politicians. But it's also undeniable that, at least thus far, there's no solid evidence his contributions were made illegally. But like the Sandoval complaint that makes similar allegations, a letter asks for an investigation, and an investigation leads to a headline, and a headline leads to a TV ad. Where's the proof? That will have to wait for another day, preferably one higher in number than 5 in the month of November. Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist. His column runs Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday. Newshawk: BGreenSource: Las Vegas Review-Journal (NV)Author: Steve Sebelius, Review-Journal Political ColumnistPublished: Sunday, September 29, 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/Question 9 Opponents Rally Against Marijuana http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14278.shtmlAmsterdam of the Westhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14268.shtmlOne Puff At A Time - Economist UKhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14262.shtmlDiscussion About Pot Initiative Becomes Heated http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14259.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #2 posted by malleus on September 30, 2002 at 05:39:08 PT CE, they'd gripe if it WAS for MMJ They are against all cannabis usage; this just gives them something else to pee-and-moan about. The prohibs have a very limited number of lies to tell anymore about cannabis, and of those they have left, they would never stand up in a court of law if the process of 'discovery' were pursued to the fullest.If Nevada passes this, the prohibs will get even shriller and more irrational. It will only serve to show the public that they are the crazy ones, here. [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by CorvallisEric on September 29, 2002 at 15:59:52 PT Really good point about the amount being irrelevant. I'll bet the same people would find another excuse if the limit was 1/10 ounce. It's interesting, though, that many Nevada prohibitionists claim to have no objection to medical use. Is that because Measure 9 doesn't primarily deal with medical use or because of Nevada's overwhelming vote for medical use? [ Post Comment ] Post Comment