Legalization Initiative: Marijuana Measure Opposed

Legalization Initiative: Marijuana Measure Opposed
Posted by CN Staff on April 11, 2006 at 07:54:52 PT
By Ed Vogel, Review-Journal Capital Bureau
Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal
Carson City -- Nevadans strongly oppose a ballot question to legalize the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana by adults 21 and older, a Review-Journal poll shows.The poll found just 34 percent favor the question placed on this November's election ballot by the Committee to Regulate and Control Marijuana. The measure is opposed by 56 percent of 625 Nevadans who responded to the poll; 10 percent are undecided.
Note: Poll shows 56 percent reject plan.Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal (NV)Author: Ed Vogel, Review-Journal Capital BureauPublished: April 11, 2006Copyright: 2006 Las Vegas Review-JournalWebsite: letters reviewjournal.comRelated Articles & Web Site:Regulate and Control Marijuana Campaign Started Backers Launch Nevada Campaign
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help

Comment #22 posted by Toker00 on April 12, 2006 at 14:44:26 PT
it's that two percent differencial that is deciding. Fifty-one percent to forty-nine. So you could manipulate that final two percent all the way to the end, going back and forth, with the outcome a fifty-fifty chance of it going either way. Wow. You could even save yourself a two percent voter block to cash in at the very last minute. And it could wind up a tie. Not likely, but possible, yes? Yeah that was a bud talking.:) Toke. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #21 posted by riptide on April 12, 2006 at 13:46:04 PT
Majority rules
This is a little off topic so bear with me....A current estimate of the U.S. population is ~298,444,215 people. Its amazing to me that it would take only 51% to strip the rights away from the remaining ~146,237,665 (49%) of us if it were left up to a vote of the general public. 20% of that number is ~59,688,843 people. Now the population of Nevada is of course much smaller than that but the fact remains that when things come down to "majority rules", there is the potential for a sizeable portion of the populace to not be represented. When it comes to taking people's rights away should it be left to majority rules? The point that i am trying to make is that here in "The Land of The Free" it only takes 51% to take someones rights away. And this is a large and diverse society with many people coming from different backgrounds and cultures even considering non-immigrants(just imagine the difference between an inner-city teen and a new england grandmother and a farmer from the grain belt). This just does not seem fair. Its so easy to make something against the rules for so many people.This is a little off topic because this article covers the subject of granting freedoms and not taking them away but i wanted to get some opinions on this.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #20 posted by MikeEEEEE on April 12, 2006 at 05:56:57 PT
"The measure is opposed by 56 percent of 625 Nevadans who responded to the poll; 10 percent are undecided."625 responders is too small a sample. How many readers does this rag have?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #19 posted by whig on April 11, 2006 at 19:21:07 PT
JR Bob Dobbs
Here's our poster boy:
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #18 posted by runderwo on April 11, 2006 at 18:50:40 PT
Bill McClellan
He is awesome. I feel very lucky to have him writing for the closest to home major newspaper, and have sent him positive and food-for-thought comments on at least one occasion.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #17 posted by JR Bob Dobbs on April 11, 2006 at 18:09:35 PT
Our poster boy
I hereby nominate for Drug Reform Poster Child: Al Capone. Images from the era of alcohol prohibition would begin the ads, then around half way they'd switch to more current clips. Make the connections painfully obvious, and point out how drug prohibition has become way worse than alcohol prohibition ever was."Hey, Mr. Capone, the radio's talking about Congress legalizing alcohol!""WHAT?? They'll put me out of business!!"
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #16 posted by Max Flowers on April 11, 2006 at 16:02:45 PT
Nice catch, whig
But it doesn't surprise us, does it? Honesty, candor, truthfulness---now THOSE things would surprise me if I encountered them at this point from any of these people.They'll keep on making up reasons not to release the tape, and I think it's because there's something on there that blows their story. Here's something else to ponder... a new and very dark thought that just came to me. It would not be difficult at all for them to have fabricated their own tape that they would say is the audio from the cockpit recorder. The audio quality on those is never good anyway, so it would be very hard to hear fine details and sniff out that it's fake. They could play it for the victim families and it could be used in federal court, and no one in those settings would think to dispute or doubt it, yet they would refuse to release it because it would not hold up to the scrutiny it would be exposed to out in public. All it would have taken would be for one of the neocons to get to the FAA director or whoever had top physical custody of that box and immediately take it away from them under the authority of "national security". The whole 9/11 drama is really starting to get to me, it's virtually an obsession at this point for me so I may have to let it go for a while. The thing is, it's hard to let go of. I take it really personally, because they killed innocent people and slaughtered them wholesale. The neocons would like me to direct my energy at the apparition of terrorism, and to nurture hate for Arabs, but I see through the deception. The biggest irony for me is that I'm not at all afraid to die as an unlucky victim in some kind of terrorist attack. If that happens, it happens (and it's extremely unlikely). What does frighten me is the knowledge that there are elements within our own government who would orchestrate this kind of thing to advance their sleazy, amoral agenda and leave us in shock and paying the bills for it---and stealing our liberty in the process. Now that's scary.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #15 posted by FoM on April 11, 2006 at 16:00:06 PT
Thank you. I have it posted now.Return of the Potheads:
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #14 posted by Sukoi on April 11, 2006 at 15:47:12 PT
Return of the Potheads
Take a look at this drivel from Nevada: Return of the potheads of the comments are spot on though... (comments are linked at the top of the article)
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #13 posted by whig on April 11, 2006 at 11:04:05 PT
Re: #8
Here's what they're saying today:Meantime, NBC News' Pete Williams reported that because of objections from family members of those who died onboard Flight 93, the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema had ruled that the audiotape of the cockpit voice recorder will not be released after it is played in court for the jury.But back in July of last year, they were saying:Because the government hopes to introduce the calls as evidence at the trial of alleged September 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, those who attended the briefing were required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that prohibits them from discussing the contents of the tapes or the briefings. They were not allowed to make recordings or take notes during the session.(see CNN story linked in my last post)So what the heck? First, the families aren't allowed to discuss the calls because they want to use them at trial, now they're going to use them at trial but not release them because (some of) the families supposedly object?Make up your minds?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #12 posted by whig on April 11, 2006 at 10:54:57 PT
"Mom, this is Mark Bingham. I just want to tell you that I love you. I am on a flight from Newark to San Francisco. There are three guys on board who have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb. You believe me don't you, Mom? I'm calling you from the air phone."
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #11 posted by whig on April 11, 2006 at 10:53:12 PT
I hope you don't think I'm in favor of alcohol prohibition. I'm certainly not, and I don't abstain completely myself. But what is clearly true is that alcohol, when used to excess, has very serious consequences for the individual, and drunk people are also more likely to pose a threat to others.When you compare this with cannabis, the worst you could say is that someone who is high ought not to be driving or operating heavy machinery. Though even in this case, the danger is far overstated and is certainly much less than driving drunk. As well, a person who is unfamiliar with the effects of cannabis might have more problems than someone who was used to the effects. Again, no amount of drinking will reduce the physical and mental impairment which alcohol causes.We don't have to say that alcohol is inherently bad to point out that it can have substantial negative risks and consequences which exceed those of cannabis.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #10 posted by Max Flowers on April 11, 2006 at 10:39:02 PT
(More OT 9/11) - also very suspicious
From,,11069-2128768,00.htmlLee Hanson, the grandfather of Christine Lee Hanson, said that his son Peter called him on September 11 and told him the plane he, his wife, Soo-Kim, and daughter were using to travel to Disneyland had been hijacked.'I think they are going to try to crash this plane into a building,' his father, 73, quoted him as saying. "He said: 'Don't worry Dad. If it happens, it will be quick.'"As we were talking, all of a sudden he stopped and said very softly: 'Oh my God, oh my God, oh my God.'"I looked over at the television set and saw a plane fly into the building," Mr Hanson said, describing how the hijacked jet rammed into the World Trade Center in New York.I also have a big problem with all the alleged cell phone calls by victims on the planes, as many telecommunications experts have stated and independent testing has confirmed that as of September 2001 one could not make a cell phone call from a jet plane going hundreds of miles an hour and tens of thousands of feet in the air (I realize that at the moment of impact the planes were only at about 1,000 feet of altitude, but they were still going hundreds of miles per hour, and there are many calls alleged to have occurred earlier while the planes were at 25,000 to 35,000 feet). They don't work; 9 out of 10 calls won't go through---not to mention lasting many minutes as the alleged victim calls did. These stories defy the reality of cell phone technology (as it was in 2001) and to me are blatant, callous manipulation by *someone*.For more on this, see
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #9 posted by ekim on April 11, 2006 at 10:26:38 PT
Whig prohibition did not work- many imbibe safely
to me it feels like i am narking on someone who may or maynot be causing trouble. I respect your judgement and have learned much from your postings. I hope that when adults have the option to choose we will see less of all the violence combined. I do feel that if we allow a adult to drink than one should be able to use cannabis under the same restrictions.How much it cost taxpayers, the cost to the one arrested, to the family of the person arrested, the courts, jails, police man or woman hours to arrest, the employer for loss of good workers, and the cost of all the drug pee tests.Marijuana Arrests For Year 2004 Most Ever arrested an estimated 771,608 persons for marijuana violations in 2004, the highest annual total ever recorded in the United States, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The total is more than twice the number of Americans arrested for pot violations in 1993 and equates to an arrest every 41 seconds.
 Marijuana Arrests For Year 2003 Hit Record High, FBI Report 1972
 The Consumers Union Report on Licit and Illicit Drugs, by Edward M. Brecher and the Editors of Consumer Reports Magazine
Zip file of the entire report - about 500K
 (Highly Recommended) This is a landmark study, a "must-read", used as a basic textbook at major universities. It presents a comprehensive, fascinating and highly readable overview of the entire drug issue. It is certainly one of the first books which should be read by anyone who wants to know about this subject.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #8 posted by Max Flowers on April 11, 2006 at 10:13:52 PT
(OT 9/11) - very suspicious
From, NBC News' Pete Williams reported that because of objections from family members of those who died onboard Flight 93, the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema had ruled that the audiotape of the cockpit voice recorder will not be released after it is played in court for the jury.Instead, the written transcript will be released to the public. The cockpit tape will be played in court on Tuesday or Wednesday.While I understand that the victim families would be upset at the release, I find that an insufficient reason to deny the rest of the country and the world an opportunity to figure out what really happened to flight 93. I believe that there is evidence on that tape that undermines the scenario that the gov't is pusihing and THAT is why they don't want anyone to hear it. I've read that that CVR audio shows that just before the plane crashed or broke up or whatever, there was the sudden sound of 500-mph wind in the cockpit, which indicates the cockpit had a hole blown in it, which indicates it was shot down by US jets---which would mean they are lying to us about what happened.The judge in question in my opinion has been pressured/influenced by his buddies, the federal authorities, and does not have the right to rule that no one else in the country, i.e. the American People, can hear it and therefore be a lot closer to knowing the truth. 9/11 didn't just happen to the victims---it happened to all of us. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #7 posted by Toker00 on April 11, 2006 at 09:44:42 PT
Or somewhere put
Cannabis makes GOOD SENSE!I'm in a hurry, I'm at lunch, but I am trying.The truth about the deception. Cannabis vs. Alcohol. There's really no comparison. One kills, one doesn't. One infuriates, one doesn't. One causes spousal and child abuse, one doesn't. The one that does is legal, the one that doesn't, isn't. Aren't we suppose to be doing the right thing in America?Wage peace on war. END CANNABIS PROHIBITION NOW!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #6 posted by Toker00 on April 11, 2006 at 09:36:20 PT
Here's an idea.
Show fields of barley and hops, then show a bar scene with a fight and possibly abuse of women and children, some puke, maybe, guns, blood. Show fields of Hemp/Cannabis, then show a coffee shop scene with people smiling and discussing God and creation, then a home scene with children being educated about God, Natural Medicine, being warned about the Decievers of man, and against the Greed and Corruption of Power and Money.Then a SAFER seal of approval at the end. "We are S.A.F.E.R, and we approve of this message." Safer Alternatives For Enjoyable Recreation. Doesn't it make sense, yet?Wage peace on war. END CANNABIS PROHIBITION NOW! 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #5 posted by FoM on April 11, 2006 at 09:23:19 PT
A Question on MSNBC
I can't remember all the questions but the one that was impressive was 50 percent said that marijuana use was not a ethics moral issue. That was the lowest score. Cheating on taxes was about 88 percent that said it was immoral.65 or more percent said excessive drinking was immoral.
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by FoM on April 11, 2006 at 08:47:00 PT
I like what you suggested. 
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by Sam Adams on April 11, 2006 at 08:39:50 PT
careful, your truth is showing
"Olsen, the Police Department's legislative lobbyist, said citizens see that methamphetamine and other serious drugs are ruining lives and they have grown to hate all illegal drugs, including marijuana."Is this reality, or is this your goal? Hatred of illegal drugs is awfully close to hatred of illegal drug USERS, isn't it? It brings up a lot of questions. Has hatred ever helped to solve a problem? Is it a worthy goal? Will it improve society at large? Should women & children being beaten by a drunk man hate him, even though it's a legal drug? Or should the families with a pot-smoking daddy who's an excellent father hate him anyway?Why does the police department need a lobbyist? Why do we all need lobbyists and lawyers for EVERYTHING? How much of our national productivity can we devote to parasitic lawyers, lobbyists, cops, polling organizations, prisons, etc? Do we need to identify certain scapegoat groups on which to focus our hatred to hide the blood-sucking of these political-class blood-suckers? To enable them to keep sucking away until our economy collapses?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by whig on April 11, 2006 at 08:31:55 PT
Why not run an ad on the SAFER alcohol-equivalency comparison?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by ekim on April 11, 2006 at 08:02:58 PT
any suggestions for a 30-second attack commercial
Pete is asking for suggestions on a short 30 second commercial.
our own Kaptain has the electric knife whirling.Monday, April 10, 2006 We're way ahead of the politiciansHere's a big part of our problem.
In this column by Bill McLellan in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, he talks favorably about a visit from LEAP member Howard Woolridge. McLellan, like Woolridge, thinks that all drugs should be legalized and regulated. But what about the politicians?...I wondered if we are about to reach the second phase of this particular fight. That would be getting the politicians on board.
The people are ahead of the pols on this. [...]But what politician dares speak the truth to this issue? I remember when James Gierach ran in the Democratic gubernatorial primary in Illinois in 1994. He was a straight arrow, a former assistant state's attorney from Cook County. He had reached the same conclusion that Woolbridge has reached. Party leaders treated Gierach as if he were a nut. He was not even allowed to participate in the debates, so he crashed them, and the papers, including this one, made his crusade seem like a farce.Even now, when I mention legalization to candidates, they say, "Can you imagine what my opponents would do to me in a 30-second attack commercial?"So the politicians leave the truth to fellows like Woolbridge.... If only politicians could handle the truth! Ah, but I must be some kind of deluded idealist to even imagine such a thing.
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment