cannabisnews.com: No Risk in Voting 'Yes' on 9 





No Risk in Voting 'Yes' on 9 
Posted by CN Staff on October 17, 2002 at 09:31:46 PT
Guest Column
Source: Reno News & Review 
So you feel you've been bullied by both sides of the Question 9 debate. The big drums of the war-on-drug mongers beat out their reefer madness nonsense on one side. The drooling drug legalization crowd led us on about making marijuana more accessible to those with a legitimate medical need. The pro-pot folks just want what they've always wanted--legal weed. So what's a person in the middle of all this to do?
Well, registered voters, you've got two choices. You can vote no on Question 9, and the debate ends. That's it. It's over. Or you can vote yes and let the discussion--and perhaps an honest search for answers--continue for another two years. Remember, even if Question 9 wins a vote of the people this time around, it has to come back for another vote in 2004. The initiative doesn't go to the state legislature for action until after it passes a second time. Two years would give us time to deal with plenty of unanswered questions. What are the real dangers of legalized marijuana? How would such a thing change your life? How would the federal government react to Nevada's decision not to prosecute folks with three ounces or less of pot? How many fewer individuals would be in Nevada prisons today if that pot had been legal? OK, we can answer that last question. Nevada has three individuals currently in prison solely for possessing marijuana, according to Fritz Schlottman, a research analyst for the Nevada Department of Corrections. But local police officers have arrested, searched, harassed, given police records to, fined and placed on probation many individuals who possess small amounts of weed. Not all pot smokers are the burned-out dregs of society you catch sight of sleeping in the park during the day. Some are actually successful professionals. Is pot a gateway drug? For some people, it is. So is alcohol, which is legal. So is tobacco, which is more addictive than heroin. Would some kind of government regulation benefit users of pot? That doesn't seem unlikely. Legalized brothels in Nevada, where working girls undergo routine medical check-ups for sexually transmitted diseases, are arguably safer places to buy sex than the average AIDS-infested street corner. Does legalized prostitution make selling sex OK? Not for many people--who don't go to brothels. Legalizing small amounts of pot would make it possible for small dealers and moderate users to obtain dope without dealing with the seedy underworld of illegal drug cartels. With the right kind of creative business plan, tourism could conceivably benefit. Nevada has historically been on the cutting edge of sin in the United States--divorce, legal gambling, prostitution--why not pot? Voting no on 9 ends it here. A yes vote gives us two more years to think about our fears and about the possibilities. An anti-drug pamphlet used in Washoe County School's substance abuse classes has a list of reasons why a person shouldn't smoke pot. The first reason offered: "It is illegal." What happens if it's not? Source: Reno News & Review (NV)Published: October 17, 2002 Copyright: 2002, Chico Community Publishing, Inc.Contact: renoletters newsreview.comWebsite: http://www.newsreview.com/issues/reno/Related Articles & Web Sites:NRLEhttp://www.nrle.org/Marijuana Policy Projecthttp://www.mpp.org/Pro-Pot Forces Smoking Oppositionhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14464.shtmlNevada's Unfortunate Drug Initiative http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14463.shtmlQuestion 9: Figures Hazy, Ad Sayshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14460.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #6 posted by DdC on October 17, 2002 at 13:01:25 PT
You mean when Wally D.E.A.th spends $20 billion...
Someone might earn the $20 billion a year, and pay taxes on it? You mean someone might be profitting on marijuana remaining illegal? Would that be ethical and moral? Would they stop profitting if it was really in the best interest of the people? ¶8) Sure they would...Would we be better with the past prohibitions of abortions, booze, voting and integration? Or maybe we should just herd the potheads to reservations?Peace, Love and Liberty or the Moneygrubbing D.E.A.th!...DdCProhibition Inc.
http://boards.marihemp.com/boards/politics/media/37/37825.gif
Welcome to Reality
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Sam Adams on October 17, 2002 at 12:48:51 PT
not quite there yet
Sorry folks, but this man or woman is perpetuating some pretty harsh stereotypes:"Not all pot smokers are the burned-out dregs of society you catch sight of sleeping in the park during the day. Some are actually successful professionals."In my entire life, I've NEVER seen any homeless person or bum smoking cannabis. Not ONCE. Most are hard-core alcoholics, or heroin addicts. Anyone who's ever walked the streets of any urban area knows this.I don't think the average person, if asked, would think that the people arguing in favor are question 9 are drooling or wild in any way. In fact, what is the author's intent here? Is Billy Rogers, Chris Guinchiani, or the ex-state cop spokeserson, unprofessional in any way? No. This article is tantamount to accusing them of being some kind of maniacs. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Delariand on October 17, 2002 at 11:55:19 PT
Wow...
Now why can't we have more articles like this? I'm going to send this author the nicest hand-written letter of thanks... No propaganda from either side, no bull, just raising the kind of questions that need to be raised. If every voter in the country read this article, and found out the answers to these questions for themselves, pot prohibition and the money-grubbing politicians who support it would be ousted in no time.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by pokesmotter on October 17, 2002 at 11:50:47 PT:
good article
i enjoyed this very much. i could tell reading it that the author may not be pro-pot as of now, but at least wants to discuss--keyword: discuss--possibilities of question 9. The first step as he said is passing it, then the dabate has two years, and in 2004 hopefully more informed voters will make their voice heard nation wide. and i think it will strike fear in our government leaders.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by malleus on October 17, 2002 at 11:16:12 PT
He may make sense, but does he have to be 
so insulting?"Drooling drug legalization crowd". Excuse me, but I have no trouble at all controlling my saliva output, whereas some adrenaline stoked cop screaming epithets and demands at sick people as he holds them at gunpoint and raids their medicine garden definitely does. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by druid on October 17, 2002 at 09:36:30 PT:
Great Question
An anti-drug pamphlet used in Washoe County School's substance abuse classes has a list of reasons why a person shouldn't smoke pot. The first reason offered: "It is illegal." What happens if it's not?
Is this the first article to put it this way? That is a no vote means it's over done end of discussion but a yes vote would allow time for valid research and debate to begin. I don't recall anyone taking this view before but it sure does make a lot of sense!
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment