Last time, I told you why I'm opposed to the first six questions on November's ballot. But lest you think I can't say yes, here are my positions on the last five statewide questions:

Question 7: Marijuana initiative. This is a do-over. The Marijuana Policy Project came here in 2002 seeking Nevada as its national test case. High-profile accidents involving drugged drivers and stiff opposition from law enforcement sank it.

It's back in revised form. The initiative would permit adults to possess up to one ounce of marijuana. It creates a system for distribution and taxation, with revenue going to the state and for drug treatment programs.

Politicians won't touch this one. In fact, most of them immediately say no when you ask how they're voting on Question 7. Even after medical marijuana passed here, elected officials wouldn't take the steps needed to ensure patients have access to their medicine. They're afraid of looking soft on crime or being at odds with the feds.

We had no problem skirting the federal government on prescription drugs from Canada. And lawmakers who really want to focus on crime should let the police focus on real crime.

I wish the initiative stuck to straight legalization. It also increases penalties for driving under the influence and for furnishing controlled substances to minors -- language designed to prevent criticism of the kind that killed the measure last time.

And while I don't like going that far off subject, I also have no problem increasing penalties for those whose lawbreaking can harm people.

I'd much rather give local cops time for real law enforcement, not enforcing failed U.S. drug policy. That's why I'm voting yes.

Question 8: Sales and Use Tax Exemptions. This is the rare case where an exemption currently allowed will disappear if the initiative fails. But it's not that simple. In addition to the one exemption that is in danger of disappearing, this initiative creates two others.

First, it adds the state portion of sales tax to the exemption currently permitted on the trade-in of a vehicle toward the purchase of another. Currently you can exempt the local portion of the sales tax (in Clark County that's 5.75 percent). This would keep that exemption intact and add the 2 percent from the state. It also contains a little exemption that failed as part of a larger measure two years ago -- one for the sale of farm equipment.

We have no state income tax, so Nevada's sales tax is one of our most stable revenue sources. You start poking holes in it and government will come looking for ways to make up the difference. The holes here are not insignificant. And with educators poised to ask again for $1 billion in money for schools and with a $4 billion future shortfall in transportation project budgets, I don't know how you permit any more exemptions.

The state would lose $19.6 million annually if this passed, resulting in $1.6 million less for local governments and schools. But if voters agree with me and vote no, there would be $51 million more a year.

Question 9: Board of Regents selection. This initiative, placed here by the Legislature, is in response to past drama on the board governing Nevada's system of higher education. The initiative reduces the size of the Board of Regents from 13 members to nine. Six of those would be appointed and three would be elected, one for each congressional district.

The appointment process can be just as ugly as campaign financing. And as much as the Board of Regents has proven a disaster in recent years, I think appointing the members makes them even less accountable for their actions. That's why I'm voting no.

Question 10 allows the Legislature to call itself into special session. They haven't needed much help getting up to Carson City recently. Many legislators have served in more special than regular sessions. In 2001 it was redistricting; in 2002 medical malpractice; in 2003, there were two specials for taxes; and in 2004, it was Controller Kathy Augustine's impeachment.

The fiscal impact of this measure can't be determined because there's no way of knowing how often they'll call themselves to session.

Voters have made it clear they want legislative work done in 120 days every other year. I think the governor should still call the Legislature in when needed and set the tight parameters for their work. That's why I'm voting no.

Question 11 pays legislators for every day of the 120-day session. The Legislature put this on the ballot rather than vote themselves a pay raise.

Lawmakers get $130 per day for the first 60 days of the session and first 20 days of a special session. This would pay them for each day. It also permits $1,060 for allowances such as postage and telephones. Currently your elected lawmakers get the same whopping $60 set forth in 1864.

This will cost taxpayers $554,400 per regular session. It's the right thing to do, and I'm voting yes.

Erin Neff's column runs Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday. She can be reached at 387-2906, or by e-mail at eneff@reviewjournal.com.