cannabisnews.com: Attorney General Opposes Question on Marijuana





Attorney General Opposes Question on Marijuana
Posted by CN Staff on October 18, 2002 at 08:38:37 PT
By Ed Vogel, Review-Journal Capital Bureau
Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal 
Ending months of silence on the issue, Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa announced Thursday that her office opposes the ballot question to legalize marijuana. Del Papa said if Question 9 receives voter approval, more Nevada children would gain access to marijuana and the state would be in conflict with federal anti-marijuana laws. A statement released by the office also said the following: 
• The measure would "effectively overrule" Nevada's possession with intent to sell statute and "give street dealers the liberty to possess for sale a significant amount of the drug." Unless the seller is caught in the act, prosecution of drug dealers with three ounces or less would be "effectively precluded." • Nevada could not administer a state-run system to supply marijuana without incurring "possible civil liability on a large scale." The state, particularly if it generates tax revenue, could open itself to lawsuits filed by victims of intoxicated drivers and product liability lawsuits filed by smokers who develop lung cancer. Del Papa and Chief Deputy Attorney General Gerald Gardner cited what happened in Alaska in 1975 as a reason why Nevadans should oppose the question, which would allow adults to possess 3 ounces or less of marijuana. They said marijuana use by teenagers in Alaska grew to double the national rate when adults were allowed to use the drug without criminal penalties. Alaska voters decided to recriminalize marijuana in 1990. The attorney general said Nevada prisons are not overrun with people convicted of marijuana possession offenses. She said only two people are incarcerated for possession offenses: one who was judged a habitual criminal and one who repeatedly failed drug treatment programs. She said a television advertisement by Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement, which is backing the question, implies her office supports Question 9. The ad is "misleading, even deceptive," Del Papa said. The organization gathered 110,000 signatures on petitions to place Question 9 before voters. The ballot measure must pass in November and again in 2004 before marijuana use would be legal in the state. Billy Rogers, leader of Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement, said the advertisement "could not have been more clear." The ad said the secretary of state and attorney general offices wrote the explanation for Question 9 on election ballots. A voice then read the ballot question. A small disclaimer at the start of the ad said Question 9 did not necessarily have the support of Del Papa and the secretary of the state. "We quoted directly from the official explanation," Rogers said. "We sent them a copy of the ad three weeks ago. This is the first I heard they have a problem with it." He questioned the accuracy of the attorney general's statements about marijuana use in Alaska and said Question 9 opponents have made mistakes during the campaign. The drug was recriminalized by Alaska voters in 1990, but a judge threw out the election results. The state currently has minor penalties for people people who possess pot. Alaska voters in 2000 defeated a ballot question, similar to Question 9, that would have made marijuana possession legal for adults. Rogers said for Del Papa's office to suggest Nevada would incur civil liability for sale of marijuana is ludicrous. He said the state "never has had to pay a penny in damages for licensing 7-Elevens and other retail stores to sell cigarettes." "There is certainly no reason to expect it would incur liability for licensing establishments to sell small amounts of marijuana," he said. He ridiculed Del Papa's argument that passage would free drug dealers from consequences. "Marijuana will be sold in a regulated marketplace that will put drug dealers out of business," he said. "When Prohibition ended, the bootleggers were put out of business. The same thing will happen with Question 9. In a regulated marketplace, marijuana will be much less available to children, and marijuana use will go down."Note: Children's drug use would increase, state official says.Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal (NV)Author: Ed Vogel, Review-Journal Capital BureauPublished: Friday, October 18, 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/Proposed Marijuana Tax Prompts Debatehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14485.shtmlAn 'Out-of-State' Campaign http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14448.shtmlQuestion 9 Backers Speak Outhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14431.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #1 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on October 18, 2002 at 14:42:31 PT
LTE
Sirs,  Nevada Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa listed two major concerns she has with regards to Question 9 in your article, but the article only listed a response to one of them by the backers of Question 9. The unanswered allegation was:"Nevada could not administer a state-run system to supply marijuana without incurring 'possible civil liability on a large scale.' The state, particularly if it generates tax revenue, could open itself to lawsuits filed by victims of intoxicated drivers and product liability lawsuits filed by smokers who develop lung cancer."  Regarding drivers who are under the influence, the recent Canadian Senate Committee report concluded that "cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving." Drivers using cannabis pose nowhere near the danger that drunk drivers do, yet we do not see the state being sued because it taxes liquor sales, nor responsible adults being arrested for merely possessing alcohol.  I'd like to ask Mrs. Del Papa if she knows of any cases of lung cancer caused by smoking only marijuana. There are no known cases of marijuana being the cause of death. Marijuana prohibition, perhaps - there's a long list of names of the victims of prohibition. The plant itself does not cause cancer.  If Question 9 becomes law, the biggest lawsuit potential comes from people who have had their lives ruined due to our failed social experiment known as the drug war. Once prohibition is over, these people will be free to sue the people who ruined their lives. How many people would have reason to sue Mrs. Del Papa?
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment