FROM OUR READERS: QUESTION 7:
'Drug Dealer Protection Act'
Passage of marijuana initiative would be bad news for Nevada
To the editor:
No community, state or country is better off with increasing the availability of drugs. We need look no farther than the Netherlands and Alaska to see how Nevada could evolve if it legalizes marijuana through Question 7.
Advertisement
Use of marijuana by Alaskan youths is twice the national average. When the Netherlands legalized pot, consumption nearly tripled among 18- to 20-year-olds. These negative impacts have led those governments to revisit and reconsider their liberal drug policies.
When Drug Czar John Walters recently visited our state, the Review-Journal didn't hesitate to say he should have stayed home -- the same message should be sent to Question 7 advocate Neal Levine, whose sole purpose for locating here was to become the pot legalizer for Nevada. Mr. Levine has no ties here other than to attempt to pollute our state with more drugs. His lack of testicular fortitude to pursue legalizing marijuana in his home state -- or repealing federal laws against the drug -- speaks volumes about his perception of Nevada. Mr. Levine needs to pack up his carpet bag of pot mentality and take it elsewhere.
Attempts to legalize marijuana in Nevada are sought and funded by out-of-state interests. The Marijuana Policy Project, headquartered in Washington, D.C., billionaire George Soros and Peter Lewis, owner of Progressive Insurance Co., have joined Mr. Levine in targeting Nevada to become the marijuana experimental petri dish of the nation. If successful, this will be a lucrative endeavor for all of the above.
Question 7 is portrayed as legalizing "small amounts of marijuana" for personal use. Yes, 1 ounce is a small amount compared to a truck load, but it's all relative. One ounce of pot can make approximately 80 average-size marijuana cigarettes. One ounce would be legal for every person 21 years of age and older to use in the "privacy of one's home." This begs the question of how many more infants and young children, who have no control over their environment, will be subjected to secondhand pot smoke in the "privacy" of those homes.
The economic factors of auto and health insurance rates have been ignored by proponents. Nevada pays some of the highest auto and medical insurance rates in the country. Increased risks caused by more marijuana users and impaired drivers equals increased rates. Those increased rates will go straight to everyone's wallet, especially to drivers between the ages of 16 and 25. Pot proponents are misleading voters into thinking our state would realize a financial windfall by taxing marijuana. Taxing will not occur, as marijuana will remain illegal pursuant to federal law.
Alcohol (only) impairs driving and kills and injures 3,000 men, women and children each year on Nevada roadways. The annual cost to Nevada is more than the public health and safety issue it really is. What's more telling than those who are identified as religious leaders who support Question 7, are the religious entities that did not speak in favor of legalizing marijuana, i.e. Mormon bishops, the Las Vegas Central Christian Church pastors and the Las Vegas Second Baptist Church leaders.
Increased DUI penalties as proposed in the Question 7 initiative are superficial and meaningless. They equate to nothing. You don't legalize the drug that's causing the problem to increase DUI penalties. In the words of Forrest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does." In truth, Question 7 eliminates certain critical sections of the DUI statutes.
My group, Stop DUI, is not shy about expressing its views and opinions regarding all entities of the criminal justice system including law enforcement.
As crime victim advocates, if we thought for one nanosecond that police agencies were wasting resources on frivolous matters, we would be voicing those concerns loud and clear.
Legalizing marijuana will eliminate a portion of the adult market, but will certainly create a greater opportunity for drug dealers to focus on our youth to fill the void. Question 7 allows pot shops in our neighborhoods a mere 500 feet from churches and schools. We have more than enough problems keeping the taxed, regulated and controlled drug of alcohol out of the hands of our youth. Legalizing pot will not eliminate use among young people any more than legalizing alcohol eliminated underage drinking. When Prohibition ended, alcohol use increased dramatically. Regular alcohol use is eight times that of marijuana, and a large part of the difference is due to laws that keep pot illegal.
Our good friend, John David Wells, host of the Wells Report, summed up Question 7 in five short words. He labeled it "The Drug Dealer Protection Act." We couldn't agree more.
