Court still political when it comes to taxes

I’m puzzled about your June 29 editorial, which praises the Nevada Supreme Court for making “strides” in becoming a less political body. I see no progress at all.

In 2003, the court reached a low point when it ruled that the two-thirds legislative majority requirement for tax hikes could be ignored when inconvenient. Recently, the court came up with a flimsy excuse to keep a commerce tax repeal referendum off this fall’s voting ballot.

So I guess the court is ready to deliver justice for all, unless it gets in the way of tax increases.

Mike Mathews

Las Vegas

Big Brother

In his July 2 letter to the editor, Brian Gardner stated that it is a sad state of affairs when the Review-Journal’s front page features women rejoicing over a U.S. Supreme Court decision on abortion.

In my opinion, the courts have no business telling a woman what she can and can’t do with her body in regard to abortion. This is between her, her family and her doctor. The Bible does not play a role — or it shouldn’t, as the Bible is not law, the law is. You can scream all day long about what the Bible says, but in the end, it doesn’t count.

It is a sad state of affairs when the U.S. government over-regulates public activity. Just recently in the Review-Journal I read a wire service story reporting the government in Arizona shot down a bill stating you couldn’t go hiking on hot days. Really? Where does Big Brother’s reach end?

Scott Hippert

Las Vegas

Dangerous drug

Steve Sebelius’s July 1 column (“Asking the right question on marijuana”) correctly reported on Gov. Brian Sandoval’s opposition to the legalization of marijuana in Nevada; noted that more young people would likely try the drug if it were legalized; acknowledged that workplace issues would increase; and admitted that a “black market” would still exist after legalization.

On those points we agree.

However, Mr. Sebelius’s conclusion frames a “seminal issue” narrowly for voters, focusing on his belief in the right of someone to use marijuana in a “free society.” He reaches that result without any regard to the effect of legalization on others.

The evidence is clear that marijuana is not safe. With marijuana’s new high potency levels — it’s up to seven times more potent than it was in the 1970s — about one in six marijuana users who starts as a teenager becomes physically dependent. And, increasingly, medical studies show a strong correlation between regular marijuana use and severe mental health issues.

Who pays for needed drug treatment facilities and mental health programs?

There are also serious implications for public safety. In the year after marijuana was legalized in Colorado, marijuana-related emergency room visits increased nearly 30 percent, as did traffic deaths and impaired driving arrests. Who pays these costs and who suffers from these deaths and injuries?

These are just the economic impacts. They do not include the human cost to the user’s own family and to others. Both the economic and human costs need to be considered in re-framing a fair “seminal question” from Mr. Sebelius on marijuana legalization.

Jim Hartman

Genoa

The writer is president of Nevadans for Responsible Drug Policy.