LETTERS: Governor urges ‘no’ vote on legal pot
I oppose Question 2, the measure on the ballot to approve recreational use and possession of certain amounts of marijuana.
Historically, in response to criminal justice and health issues, Nevadans have given marijuana policy a thoughtful and careful examination. Policymakers have reduced penalties for possession of small quantities of the drug and built a framework for legal distribution of medical marijuana to patients who have a recommendation from a licensed physician.
Now, Question 2 asks Nevadans to legalize marijuana for recreational use. We should vote no on Question 2 for many reasons.
First, legalizing the sale of marijuana for recreational use will harm children, affect public safety and increase government spending on social services. We have learned from the experience in other states that have legalized marijuana that we will likely see more abuse of the drug by teenagers, a substantial increase in emergency room visits for small children who have accidentally ingested the drug, increased traffic accidents and fatalities, and an even greater strain on our government social service agencies.
Second, as we grow out of the Great Recession, it is critical that there be a dependable work-force. If Question 2 passes, there could be a negative perception for businesses who are considering moving to or expanding in Nevada because of concerns recreational marijuana would raise regarding their workforce.
Finally, there is a tremendous grassroots effort rejecting this measure. Law enforcement, the medical community, chambers of commerce, the tourism industry, educators and the faith-based community have all joined together to oppose Question 2. For these reasons, I ask you to consider these issues and join me in voting “no” on Question 2.
Brian Sandoval
Carson City
The writer is Nevada’s governor.
Road tax
The government and union people who favor county ballot Question 5 that would raise the gasoline tax are once again citing all the buzz words and phrases: public safety, fixing our roads, jobs and building the infrastructure. If this is so important, why are we using the room tax to build a football stadium? That would require millions more just for infrastructure. It would create massive traffic jams that would require millions more to fix.
I’ve heard this tune before. In the 1990s they used the same reasoning regarding bond issues for the schools. After all it was only a few more cents added on to your tax bill. We homeowners finally caught on. No matter how much we spent, the school test scores continued to drop. We’re now in last place. Not bad for spending hundreds of millions of dollars.
Instead of increasing our county gas tax to almost a dollar a gallon, how about using the room tax for roads? Why are we using it to expand the convention center and building a football stadium? Both of these things can be done with private funds. It almost seems as if they want only to spend your money.
Forrest A. Henry
North Las Vegas
Power play
The Review-Journal’s endorsement of state ballot Question 3 regarding the power industry is flawed in may ways. The voters are being asked to approve a measure that the Legislature has yet to write. This is a pig in a poke.
The airline industry was deregulated and that has been a mess. New York deregulated and customers wound up paying electric costs 70 percent above the national average. Texas customers wound up paying 15 percent higher after deregulation. In Connecticut, customers had uncontrollable price jumps.
This measure should not be passed. You cannot close the barn door once the horses are gone.
Robert Shapiro
North Las Vegas
Ad blackout
If there were a way for early voters to no longer be exposed to political commercials, Nevada’s registered voters would be 100 percent accounted for. Figure a way so that when the voter pushes the “accept” button, their home TV automatically becomes exempt to all political commercials through Election Day. Voila — 100 percent voter participation.
June A. Flaherty
Las Vegas
