Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 14:49:21 -0700
From: lvnorml@hotmail.com ("LVNORML")
Subject: Ramifications of marijuana initiative promise high adventure

Wednesday, August 28, 2002
Copyright =A9 Las Vegas Review-Journal 

COLUMN: John L. Smith
Ramifications of marijuana initiative promise high adventure 





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 nd 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. 
E-mail him at Smith@reviewjournal.com or call 383-0295.