|
|
| Marijuana Backers Say They Won't Give Up Nevada |
|
Posted by CN Staff on November 08, 2006 at 15:59:28 PT By Sandra Chereb, Associated Press Writer Source: Associated Press 
Nevada -- Backers of a move to legalize small amounts of marijuana in Nevada said they're not dissuaded by its defeat at the polls. If anything, they were encouraged by the support they received from voters and pledged Wednesday to try again.'The reality is, in the history of this country, no pot initiative has gotten the vote total we're going to end up getting,' said Neal Levine, campaign manager for the Committee to Control and Regulate Marijuana. Nevadans can expect the issue to appear again in 2008 or 2010, he said. 'It's 100 percent certainty that we will be back on the ballot,' Levine said. 'We've been working this state for five years, and we're not going anywhere.' Voters rejected Question 7, 56 percent to 44 percent. It passed only in tiny Storey County, by a mere 95 votes of 1,851 cast. But statewide, more than 250,000 people voted in favor of selling legalized marijuana to adults at state-sanctioned pot shops. Vewey Quong, 37, a part-time stage hand at Reno Events Centers, said he voted for it 'just on principle.' 'The state isn't going to enforce it, it is against federal laws,' he said. 'Once the feds say, 'OK, you either crack down marijuana or we cut down your highway funds,' we will see what the state does then,' he said. 'I want to see the government sweat a little bit.' The committee, backed by the Washington, D.C., Marijuana Policy Project, collected 86,000 signatures to get the measure on this year's ballot. Nevadans sanctioned marijuana for medicinal purposes by approving a state constitutional amendment in 1998 and again in 2000. Two years later, voters rejected efforts by national advocates to further decriminalize marijuana by allowing possession of up to 3 ounces of the drug for non-medical use. When that failed, advocates circulated the Question 7 petition, tying legalization of less than 1 ounce to enhanced penalties for driving under the influence. Advocates argued that legalizing marijuana would take profits away from drug dealers, keep it away from children, and allow law enforcement to concentrate on violent crime. What set the Nevada initiative apart from others around the country was its lure of untapped revenues by requiring the state to establish procedures to tax and license growers, distributors and retailers. Opponents, including law enforcement, business and civic groups, said the allure of tax dollars was a mere pipe dream because marijuana would remain illegal under federal law. White House Drug Czar John Walters said the message is getting through that marijuana is a more harmful drug than people realize. 'The results of this election shows that Americans simply do not want more drugs in their communities,' he said in a statement. But the committee's arguments resonated with some voters, and drew some unlikely allies, including a coalition of nearly three dozen clergy who endorsed it on moral grounds. 'Some of us Protestants believe that one of the functions of government is to curb sinful behavior,' the Rev. Ruth Hanusa, chaplain at Campus Christian Association at University of Nevada, Reno, said during the campaign. 'But our marijuana laws are not curbing marijuana use and they are causing more harm than good by filling the pockets of dangerous criminals and ensuring that children have the easiest access of anyone,' she said. Angelica Landeros, 26, a Reno market owner, said she voted for the initiative because of its revenue potential. 'If we can pass it here in Nevada, that's just one more stream of income,' she said. Kevin Johnson, 44, said he didn't think law enforcement was using taxpayer money wisely now to enforce current marijuana laws. 'I'm in favor of it because it also increases the penalties for people who injure or kill somebody if they're driving under the influence,' he said. Connie Avila, a 43-year-old casino worker said she doesn't smoke pot, but she voted yes so that medical users would have a legal way to obtain it. Others, like Corey Jay Johns, were not convinced legalizing marijuana would have any benefit. 'I just don't believe people should have a right to marijuana,' the 31-year-old security guard said. 'You tell your kids it's bad and they should stay away from it, then you are trying to say it is bad for you, but it's OK for me. 'That doesn't settle with me,' he said. Complete Title: Marijuana Backers Say They Won't Give Up Nevada Effort Source: Associated Press (Wire) Related Articles & Web Site: Regulate and Control Marijuana Question 7: 'Drug Dealer Protection Act' Bush Official Speaks Against Question 7 Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help |
 |
| Comment #3 posted by FoM on November 08, 2006 at 16:26:19 PT |
| I know but it still doesn't make any sense to me since very few people would want marijuana associated with gambling and prostitution even though I have no problem what people want to do. [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #2 posted by BGreen on November 08, 2006 at 16:22:51 PT |
| Nevada was the first state to allow two federally prohibited activities, prostitution and gambling, and the State rights of Nevada trumped federal law for years before gambling was allowed anywhere else in the country. Prostitution is, to this day, legal ONLY in some counties in Nevada, despite federal laws prohibibiting this activity. That's why it makes total sense for the same State's rights over federal law priviledge that Nevada has enjoyed to apply to cannabis. The Reverend Bud Green [ Post Comment ] |
| Comment #1 posted by FoM on November 08, 2006 at 16:03:39 PT |
| They must have lots of money to keep doing this year after year. Why is Nevada important to win? I won't go there after just one visit. Once was enough. Why not put money into changing the laws in other states? How much money over these years has been spent on this effort? Is that for the general public to know? [ Post Comment ] |
| Post Comment |  |
 |  |