Month of 01/May/2006 to 31/May/2006

The History Channel is running their documentary series, "Hooked: Illegal Drugs and How They Got That Way," including an episode about marijuana and marijuana prohibition. It includes an informative (and mostly unbiased) look at the origins of marijuana prohibition.

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) head Karen Tandy recently wrote about the supposed harms of marijuana. The arguments used by Administrator Tandy drastically exaggerate the potential dangers of marijuana use, but what else would you expect from a person who has argued in favor of alcohol prohibition? What our society really needs is a factual and reasonable discussion about prohibition and marijuana use -- not more overstated threats from the DEA.

Key quote #1:

Compounding the problem [of widespread marijuana use] is that the marijuana of today is not the marijuana of the baby boomers 30 years ago.

This exaggeration is often cited by prohibitionists as an excuse for keeping marijuana illegal. In fact, the potency of marijuana has not dramatically increased in the last thirty years, and a 2001 study by the Australian government stated that increased marijuana potency has no correlation with greater risks of addiction or increased health issues.

But even if marijuana potency has changed, that doesn't make prohibition any less of a failure. Anyone who wants to use marijuana can do so -- no matter how weak or strong it is. And the criminal market for marijuana continues to finance the activities of violent gangs and drug dealers, who have an exclusive franchise to sell marijuana anywhere, anytime, to people of any age. Taking marijuana out of the criminal market and putting it into a legal, regulated market will allow us to gain some real control over marijuana sales.

Key quote #2:

Marijuana was the second most common illicit drug responsible for drug treatment admissions in 2002 -- outdistancing crack cocaine, the next most prevalent cause.

What Tandy isn't admitting to is the real reason why so many are seeking treatment for marijuana: When given a choice between jail time and treatment, most people choose treatment (surprising, we know). What these numbers really speak to is the enormous number of people being arrested for nonviolent marijuana use. Last year in the U.S., we arrested more than 771,000 people for marijuana offenses -- more people than the populations of Las Vegas and Reno combined -- and 89% of those arrests were for simple possession. If hundreds of thousands are being arrested for marijuana, it's not surprising that the number of people seeking "treatment" for marijuana is also large.

Key quote #3:

Marijuana is a gateway drug. In drug law enforcement, rarely do we meet heroin or cocaine addicts who did not start their drug use with marijuana.

This one isn't new. Our response to proponents of the "gateway theory" remains the same: it's not surprising that those using drugs like heroin or cocaine first used marijuana -- after all, it's the most readily available substance on the criminal market. And they probably started with alcohol and tobacco, which are even more widely available than marijuana. But using marijuana doesn't mean someone will go on to use more dangerous drugs. If that were true, the 100 million Americans who have ever used marijuana would have become hard drug users ... which they clearly haven't, since there aren't 100 million hard drug users in the U.S.

Key quote #4:

Smoking marijuana can cause significant health problems. Marijuana contains more than 400 chemicals, of which 60 are cannabinoids. Smoking a marijuana cigarette deposits about three to five times more tar into the lungs than one filtered tobacco cigarette.

A new study recently revealed that the greatest threat associated with smoking -- lung cancer -- doesn't exist for marijuana users. They have no increased risk of developing lung cancer, according to the study.

Key quote #5:

In addition, smoking marijuana can lead to increased anxiety, panic attacks, depression, social withdrawal, and other mental health problems, particularly for teens. Research shows that kids aged 12 to 17 who smoke marijuana weekly are three times more likely than nonusers to have suicidal thoughts.

Most research indicates that teenagers shouldn't be using marijuana. Sadly, the policy of prohibition supported by Tandy and the DEA has lead to a situation in which 57.5% of high school seniors in Nevada admit to having used marijuana.

Taxing and regulating marijuana, on the other hand, will place marijuana into a tightly controlled market where only those aged 21 and over will be able to legally purchase marijuana.

Administrator Tandy continues to argue for the policy of marijuana prohibition -- despite its spectacular failure. Here in Nevada, we have a solution to the failure of our current marijuana laws: the taxation and regulation of marijuana. It's time to take a sensible approach to dealing with marijuana use. Please help us pass the marijuana initiative on the ballot this fall. Register to vote, volunteer, donate.

In Sunday's Las Vegas Review-Journal, Vin Suprynowicz critiqued the marijuana initiative, and in the process, made some glaringly inaccurate assumptions about both the initiative and our campaign.

First of all, Mr. Suprynowicz accuses us of "duplicity" and "misdirection," which is completely untrue. We have always been straightforward about our goal: to address the failure of our marijuana laws. Anyone who wants to use marijuana can do so, and prohibition has done nothing to eliminate the lucrative criminal market for marijuana. So, instead of letting drug dealers and criminals exclusively profit from the sale of marijuana, we want to put it into a tightly regulated and taxed market and gain some controls over it. That's the campaign in a nutshell, and anyone who talks to us or looks at our Web site will know that.

It's certainly true that one of the benefits of passing the marijuana initiative is that the state can implement an age-specific safeguard (in that only those age 21 and over with proper ID will be permitted to enter a retail establishment), similar to the "We Card" program currently used to cut down on teen cigarette smoking. This program has been credited with drastically reducing teen cigarette smoking in Nevada, and presumably a similar restriction on marijuana sales would similarly reduce teenage marijuana smoking.

Are we arguing that Nevada should pass this initiative because it will automatically eliminate teenage marijuana use? No. We're saying that Nevadans should pass the initiative because our current marijuana laws are a complete failure, and we have a chance to benefit our society with a less harmful, more effective law. If that's not a straight case for freedom, as Mr. Suprynowicz suggests it's not, then we don't know what is.

Additionally, Mr. Suprynowicz takes issue with the initiative for not making taxes in a legal marijuana market "revenue-neutral." But our goal is not cost neutrality, it's addressing our failed marijuana laws. With tax revenues from the sales of marijuana, we will increase funding for drug and alcohol treatment and education. And for that matter, the tax is completely optional: A taxpayer who chooses to purchase marijuana chooses to pay the tax. No taxpayer will be forced to support the market, yet those who do will generate an estimated $28 million in tax revenue for the state -- which benefits everyone.

(On a side note, Mr. Suprynowicz at one point says that the state shouldn't be allowed to earn tax revenue from the legal sale of marijuana. Why not? Because they should be punished for keeping it illegal for 70 years. This doesn't make a lot of sense to us, as that seems like punishing taxpayers for the actions of their government, but then he also sums it up with "bad doggie!" so you can't really blame us for not following his reasoning on that one.)

Mr. Suprynowicz also objects to the difference between entrepreneurs with government contracts and those without. But the initiative does not create a system of government contracting. Rather, the initiative takes marijuana out of the criminal market and puts it into a legal, regulated market. After that, it's a free market in which everyone can compete. Can a libertarian really argue against open competition on the free market?

And finally, Mr. Suprynowicz disagrees when we say that adults who provide marijuana to minors should be punished. If Mr. Supyrnowicz thinks minors ought to be free to consume marijuana, well, he's on his own with that one. We absolutely think that only adults should have access to marijuana, and punishing adults who provide marijuana to children is both correct and necessary.

Mr. Suprynowicz believes that the prohibition of marijuana violates the U.S. Constitution, yet he says that our initiative "isn't a step in the right direction." We think that an initiative that does away with a failed and harmful policy, that permits responsible adult behavior while placing sensible controls on irresponsible actions -- well, that's an initiative that deserves our support. Mr. Suprynowicz shouldn't be surprised when Nevadans make the choice this November to pass the marijuana initiative.

Richard Perkins responded this week to CRCM Campaign Manager Neal Levine's earlier column in the CityLife. Mr. Perkins, Speaker of the Nevada Assembly and Chief of Police for the city of Henderson (two-for-one bonus!), expresses some remarkably hostile sentiments instead of honestly attempting to contradict our points. Speaker Chief accuses Neal of smoking marijuana (which he doesn't), being clueless about Nevada politics (which he isn't), and wanting to harm the people of Nevada (again, no). Somewhere in there Perkins also says he and a lot of other sheriffs don't like the marijuana initiative.

Key quote #1:

Why do all of these law enforcement professionals oppose the ballot question? Because we work every day with criminals and we know the damage marijuana and other drugs do in our society. I have rarely met a heroin, crack or meth addict who didn't start with marijuana.

Take out the word "marijuana," and replace it with the word "alcohol," and Speaker Chief has a much stronger point. An inconvenient fact is that alcohol poisoning is directly responsible for around 20,000 deaths a year in the U.S. alone, while no one has died from a marijuana overdose in all of recorded medical history, worldwide. However, Speaker Chief would rather allow violent gangs and drug dealers to continue to profit from marijuana sales, so he can continue to "work" with them. To each their own ...

Regarding the "gateway myth," check out our previous blog posts refuting that silliness here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Key quote #2:

And the argument that violent criminals don't smoke marijuana is just ludicrous. The deranged gunman who shot Metro Police Sgt. Henry Prendes frequently smoked marijuana and had the drug in his system when he attacked Prendes and other police officers.

We're pretty sure no one said "violent criminals don't smoke marijuana," but nonetheless: Violent criminals should be prosecuted because they are ... well ... violent criminals. Nonviolent marijuana users, on the other hand, shouldn't. Moreover, shame on Speaker Chief for trying to politicize the tragic death of Sgt. Prendes. We're proposing taking marijuana sales out of the criminal market, and he's referring to a tragedy that happened because of the criminal market. Deplorable.

Key quote #3:

Why do Mr. Levine and his rich associates keep coming to Nevada and spending millions trying to get marijuana legalized? Because our open initiative laws give them the best chance to get a ballot question approved. It has nothing to do with any care or concern for our citizens and the well-being of our families.

Our initiative is on the ballot because 86,000 Nevadans signed a petition to put it on the ballot. This bureaucrat, who thinks that drug dealers and violent gang members should continue to profit from criminal marijuana sales, is going to lecture us on care and concern for our families???

Key quote #4:

By the way, it's not just law enforcement that opposes the legalization of marijuana. In 2005, Mr. Levine and his supporters tried to get the Nevada Legislature to approve the question. They got a hearing, but not one legislator was willing to support the legislation.

Initiative Law 101 -- How the initiative process works here in Nevada is after the Secretary of State certifies that you have gathered enough signatures to place a measure on the ballot, it is automatically transmitted to the legislature. The legislature then has the opportunity to either enact the initiative, or place it on the ballot.

One would have hoped that Speaker Chief understood how the legislative process worked.

Key quote #5:

Here's the question Nevada's citizens need to be asking when they go to the polls this November: Do you trust the men and women you've elected and hired to protect and defend you and your families, or do you trust hired consultants and big money interests who want to turn your neighborhoods into this country's version of Amsterdam?

First off, the gall of the ultimate political insider, who employs the most expensive political consultants in the state, to call us a "big money interest."

Further, Amsterdam permits marijuana use in public retail shops. If Speaker Chief bothered to read the initiative he is commenting on, he would know that public marijuana use is strictly forbidden.

And while we're discussing Amsterdam, it's probably worth noting that their marijuana teenage use rates are a fraction of ours. What a nightmare!

Key quote #6:

Mr. Levine, for what it matters, the men and women of law enforcement, the ones who deal with criminals every day, will be voting with Commissioner Williams this year and opposing your initiative.

Speaker Chief sure likes to use clearly false, over-the-top generalizations. We're not sure if someone who bombed so spectacularly in the current governor's race is in any position to comment on the likelihood of success of a statewide campaign, but he's entitled to his opinion.

While professional politicians may be unwilling to take a stand for real marijuana reform, there are men and women of law enforcement who see the complete failure of marijuana prohibition every day. They see the unstoppable criminal market funneling money to violent gangs and drug dealers, who sell marijuana anywhere, anytime, to customers of any age. These law enforcement officers just might believe that we desperately need an alternative to our current failed marijuana laws, and they will join the thousands of Nevadans at the polls this November who vote for a real solution: the taxation and regulation of marijuana.

Let's help Speaker Chief realize that it's the people who are in charge in Nevada. Please help us pass the marijuana initiative. Register to vote, volunteer, donate.

According to U.S. Border Patrol, Mexican marijuana "mules" -- men who carry heavy bags of marijuana across long stretches of desert to drop-off points in the U.S. -- are increasing their trips across the border. Why would marijuana traffickers be so worried about getting more marijuana into the U.S.?

Key quote:

Mexico's Attorney General, Daniel Cabeza de Vaca, said cartels are also becoming more reliant on income from marijuana. "We know that marijuana is becoming more and more important (for the cartels) and that cocaine is on it's way down," he said.

The U.S. criminal market for marijuana is directly funding Mexican drug cartels -- and now, it seems that they're depending on that funding even more than before. (Hey, who wouldn't get attached to $8.5 billion a year?) Just think how much money we could take out of the hands of these violent gangs and drug dealers if we removed marijuana from the criminal market. Taxing and regulating marijuana means tax revenue for the state -- not cash for criminals.

Nevada has a chance to make a big dent in the criminal market for marijuana that's flowing into the U.S. from Mexico. It's time to tax and regulate marijuana in our state. Please help us pass the marijuana initiative. Register to vote, volunteer, donate.

Santa Cruz County, California, today announced that an initiative to make marijuana offenses the lowest priority of local law enforcement will be placed on the November ballot.

Columnist Don Erler of the the Fort Worth Star-Telegram says the proposed Mexican legislation to reduce penalties for possession of small amounts of drugs wasn't such a foolish idea. He suggests that the U.S. could benefit from applying a similar policy to marijuana (though not for other drugs) in the same way the Czech Republic permits its citizens to use and possess small amounts of marijuana.

The first reason to change our marijuana laws here in the U.S., according to Erler? The thousands of Americans going to jail for nonviolent marijuana use.

Key quote #1:

According to our FBI's crime statistics, of some 1.75 million American drug arrests in 2004, 82 percent were for possession alone. And 684,319 were for marijuana possession. In his book Smoke and Mirrors, researcher Dan Baum claimed that if marijuana were decriminalized, there would be a 90 percent reduction in drug users.

Secondly, the Czech Republic has not seen an increase in hard drug use since implementing its marijuana policy.

Key quote #2:

Some readers will object that marijuana is a "gateway" drug that "hooks" users, encouraging them to try ever more powerful alternative drugs. But the Institute of Medicine claims that there "is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs."

Were it a gateway drug, we would expect large numbers of Czech arrests for other drug use and considerable drug-related crime. There is neither. Muse cites data showing that the Czechs' overall drug arrest rate is 0.17 percent of our own rate and that the robbery rate is merely 1.37 percent that of the U.S.

Erler even offers that marijuana policies don't have to be revised at the national level.

Key quote #3:

More modest still: Let's allow each state to determine its own policies regarding marijuana.

This proposal mirrors a recent Zogby poll showing that 46% percent of all Americans -- and 55% of those on the West Coast -- support the right of states to tax and regulate marijuana. Could it be that we've hit upon a sensible alternative to our current failed marijuana laws?

In Nevada, we have. Voters in the Silver State will be able to adopt a system of taxation and regulation for marijuana this year, replacing our current policy of prohibition. Please help us pass the marijuana initiative. Register to vote, volunteer, donate.

Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, announced results of a study this week that found no increased risk of lung cancer for marijuana users. Even heavy, long-term users were no more likely to develop lung cancer than those who rarely or never smoked marijuana.

Columnist Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune recently considered the potential impact of Mexico's reduced penalties for possession of small amounts of drugs. He points out that many places in the U.S. have reduced penalties for possession of marijuana, and the sky hasn't fallen yet.

Key quote #1:

As it happens, no fewer than 11 states on this side of the border have made the decision not to bother filling their prisons with recreational potheads. Among them are not only such states as California and Oregon, which you might expect, but states such as North Carolina and Mississippi, which you might not. About 100 million Americans live in places where pot has been decriminalized.

Maybe there are planeloads of college kids who travel to Maine or Minnesota to spend each spring break hitting a bong, but if so, it's a well-kept secret. In fact, the most noticeable thing about states that have decriminalized marijuana is that they're not -- noticeable, that is.

Looking at these places, says University of Maryland economist Peter Reuter, "You can't tell the difference from how many people use marijuana." A 1999 report commissioned by the National Academy of Sciences found "there is little evidence that decriminalization of marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial increase in marijuana use."

It seems states that have implemented reasonable marijuana policies -- that don't involve sending nonviolent users to jail -- are just as "apple-pie" as all the others. In fact, Chapman argues they may actually be better off than their more punitive neighbors.

Key quote #2:

There are some clear advantages, though. By freeing cops from focusing on recreational marijuana users, governments can reallocate more resources to serious crime. One study found that since it began treating pot possession like jaywalking in 1976, California has saved at least $1 billion.

So there are no apparent downsides to reducing penalties for marijuana use, and there are incredible advantages to doing so -- like shifting police priorities toward more dangerous issues, and reaping significant tax benefits. What are we waiting for? A solution that adequately addresses reducing penalties and controlling use and increasing tax income?

Bingo! We've got just the thing here in Nevada. Taxing and regulating marijuana will stop wasting police resources on sending nonviolent marijuana users to jail. But it will also place careful controls on who can sell and use marijuana. Taxing and regulating marijuana removes it from the criminal market, where its sales currently fund the activities of violent gangs and drug dealers. Instead, profits from the sale of marijuana will generate millions of dollars in tax revenue for the state of Nevada. It's a remarkably effective solution.

Please help us pass the marijuana initiative. Register to vote, volunteer, donate.

Officials at the U.S.-Canadian border recently disrupted a marijuana trafficking organization smuggling tons of high-grade Canadian marijuana into the U.S. -- to trade it for cocaine. Beautiful cultural exchange, right? Marijuana prohibition has made it all possible.

Key quote:

The bulk of the charges allege trafficking in and/or exporting hydroponically grown marijuana -- a lucrative export for Canadian drug dealers because of the comparatively harsh U.S. penalties attached to marijuana cultivation.

So the harsh penalties designed to prevent marijuana cultivation in fact lead to a "lucrative" criminal market that attracts imports! As long as prohibition continues, the criminal market will lure those seeking the enormous profits to be made off marijuana. And as long as marijuana sales remain in the criminal market, we have no control over who's selling it and to whom they are selling.

It's time to move past the failed policy of prohibition and tax and regulate marijuana in Nevada. Please help us pass the marijuana initiative. Register to vote, volunteer, donate.

In an ad that appeared in the Las Vegas Review-Journal today, the drug czar's office repeats the same melodramatic and unsubstantiated claim that we've heard for years about a connection between teen marijuana use and mental health. As we blogged back in January, the British government's scientific advisory body recently refuted these claims in no uncertain terms, saying that evidence of a relationship between marijuana use and mental illness is "weak."

And here's a reality check: Taking marijuana out of the criminal market and putting it into a tightly regulated system will be a vast improvement over the current free-for-all in which drug dealers sell to people of all ages -- including teens. Drug dealers don't card.

The Nevada Appeal published a letter from CRCM's Neal Levine denouncing the drug czar's tired policy of prohibition. As we blogged earlier, the drug czar's own numbers demonstrate the incredible profit ($8.5 billion annually!) that the criminal market for marijuana puts into the hands of violent gangs and drug dealers.

Key quote #1:

I agree wholeheartedly with the drug czar that the illegal marijuana market is a dangerous place that funds the activities of dangerous people.

Unfortunately, the drug czar's solution to the problem is to offer more of the same. He simply wants to keep wasting billions of dollars aggressively enforcing our nation's failed marijuana laws.

Translation:

Drug czar: Prohibition has created a billion-dollar criminal market that funds crime and violence, and prohibition will solve the problem!

CRCM: Huh? Don't you think it's time for a real solution to the problems created by prohibition -- not the same ineffective policies that have failed us time and time again?

Drug czar: [Awkward silence.]

Key quote #2:

As Nevadans, we all have an important choice to make this year. We can continue to waste millions of dollars enforcing our failed marijuana policies, or we can take marijuana out of the hands of violent gangs and criminals and place it into a tightly regulated market where it can be controlled and taxed.

No translation necessary on that one.

Please help us pass the marijuana initiative. Register to vote, volunteer, donate.

We just blogged about Karen Tandy, Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, announcing her support for the alcohol prohibition of the 1920s and '30s.

Key Quote:

Use more than tripled when alcohol was legalized. So legalizing drugs is not the answer. Use will increase.

We're not quite sure where Ms. Tandy got her numbers, but we do know that anyone speaking favorably of alcohol prohibition is seriously confused. That policy of prohibition led to increased crime, widespread violence, and general lawlessness ... not exactly a period we should look to for guidance on successful social policies.

Here are a couple of tidbits from a detailed policy analysis by Assistant Professor Mark Thornton of Auburn University on behalf of the Cato Institute, a non-profit policy research foundation:

Repeal of Prohibition dramatically reduced crime, including organized crime, and corruption. Jobs were created, and new voluntary efforts, such as Alcoholics Anonymous, which was begun in 1934, succeeded in helping alcoholics. Those lessons can be applied to the current crisis in drug prohibition and the problems of drug abuse. ... In summary, Prohibition did not achieve its goals. Instead, it added to the problems it was intended to solve and supplanted other ways of addressing problems. The only beneficiaries of Prohibition were bootleggers, crime bosses, and the forces of big government. ...

Ms. Tandy apparently needs to further study her American history in order to understand the utter failure of America's past attempt at alcohol prohibition. If she looks more closely at its repeal, she'll see that it led to a sharp drop in crime and profits for criminals. The parallels are obvious. Today, marijuana prohibition leads to exactly the same problems that once arose from alcohol prohibition: increased crime, widespread violence, and general lawlessness. And removing marijuana from the criminal market will reduce profits to violent criminals while instituting greater control over its use and sale. That's one lesson we should learn from prohibition.

More than 70 years after alcohol prohibition was repealed, the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Karen Tandy, is still arguing its merits.

A writer at the Pasadena City College Courier says that taking marijuana out of the criminal market would reduce the income and influence of gangs in Southern California.

Key quote:

The gangs that operate on the streets of Compton or East Los Angeles would be crippled if they could no longer sell illegal marijuana ... If the government were to sanction and control the distribution of marijuana, they would seriously damage the influence and power most gangs have over their community. Although they will still have cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine to sell, marijuana can be taxed, diverting extra funding to help do away with more harmful drugs.

The same holds true for gangs operating here in Nevada: If we remove marijuana from the criminal market, we'll divert a major source of their income. Make no mistake -- gangs rely on profits from marijuana like movie theaters make money off $8.00 popcorn. Taxing and regulating marijuana will take money out of the hands of violent gangs and put it toward priorities like funding alcohol and drug treatment, fixing roads, and improving education.

Please help us pass the marijuana initiative. Register to vote, volunteer, donate.

Officials in the Australian government this week announced that they are seeking to create a uniform set of laws to crack down on cannabis use. Currently, different Australian states and territories have individual laws governing marijuana -- including some that have removed criminal penalties for personal use. The Parliamentary Secretary for Health intends to change that by getting the states and territories to agree to a single approach: prohibition.

Australia could stand to take another look at the history of prohibition. Quick summary: It doesn't work. Alcohol prohibition in the United States led to a flourishing criminal market, an increase in crime and violence, and widespread lawlessness amongst average citizens. Sound familiar? Marijuana prohibition yields the same dangerous results, whether halfway around the world or here in Nevada. Unfortunately, that seems a lesson Australia will have to learn for itself ... and one the U.S. hasn't quite mastered, either.

It's time to tax and regulate marijuana in Nevada. Please help us pass this important initiative. Register to vote, volunteer, donate.

Journalist Froma Harrop demonstrates the utter absurdity of the American war on marijuana in a recent column. From taxpayer burden to government propaganda to overcrowded jails, the war on marijuana has caused nothing but trouble.

Key quote #1:

The American people are clearly not ready to decriminalize cocaine, heroine [sic] or other hard drugs, but they’re well on their way to easing up on marijuana. A Zogby poll found that nearly half of Americans now want pot legal and regulated, like alcohol. Few buy into the “demon drug� propaganda anymore, and for a simple reason: Several countries have decriminalized marijuana with little effect on public health.

Americans could save a ton of money doing the same. The taxpayers spend almost $8 billion a year enforcing the ban on marijuana, according to a report by visiting Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron. State and local governments consume about $5 billion of the total.

The war on pot fills our jails. America arrests 755,000 people every year for marijuana infractions — the vast majority for possession, not dealing. An estimated 80,000 people now sit behind bars on marijuana offenses.

Seems pretty straightforward to us: Why expend so many resources to put so many people in jail -- for a substance that's less dangerous than alcohol? It's a situation crying out for a sensible solution. Fortunately, Harrop has found it.

Key quote #2:

Miron’s Harvard study looked beyond what the public pays to enforce the marijuana laws. It also investigated how much money would roll in if marijuana were legal and taxed like alcohol. The answer was over $6 billion in annual tax revenues. Do the math: If government stopped outlawing marijuana and started taxing it, its coffers would be $14 billion richer every year.

Say! Taking marijuana out of the criminal market and taxing it sounds pretty good. Luckily for us here in Nevada, we have an opportunity to do just that. And how much do we stand to earn? A 2002 UNLV study concluded that a taxed and regulated market for marijuana in Nevada would generate $28.6 million in annual tax revenue (and that's a conservative estimate).

Nevada is ready to tax and regulate marijuana. Please help us pass the marijuana initiative. Register to vote, volunteer, donate.

A candidate for sheriff of Washoe County came out against the marijuana initiative. Unfortunately, Undersheriff Mike Haley doesn't seem too well-informed on the issue.

Key quote:

"Today's marijuana is much more addictive and we don't want to add another substance to a nation that already has trouble with the substances that are legal," he said. "If this becomes legal Nevada will become a haven for (drug) activity."

Ah yes, the old "this is not your father's marijuana" line. This is yet another urban legend spread by marijuana prohibitionists. The sad truth for Undersheriff Haley is that marijuana potency has not dramatically increased in the last few decades. Furthermore, according to a study by the Australian government in 2001, increased marijuana potency has no correlation with greater risks of addiction or increased health issues.

Undersheriff Haley also claims that Nevada will "become a haven for (drug) activity" if the initiative passes. News flash! The sale and use of marijuana is already rampant in Nevada, with no regulations on who is selling or using it. The flourishing criminal market is putting money into the hands of violent gangs and drug dealers while allowing Nevadans no control over the use of marijuana in our communities. In contrast, the marijuana initiative will take marijuana out of the criminal market and place it into a strictly regulated and taxed market that can actually control marijuana's availability, while doubling penalties on adults who give or sell marijuana to minors and doubling the maximum penalty for anyone who kills someone while driving under the influence of marijuana, alcohol or any drug.

Surely that's something a future sheriff of Washoe County could agree with?

In a disappointing reversal, the unconstitutional bill attempting to re-criminalize possession of marijuana in Alaska squeaked through the Alaska House of Representatives and will be signed into law by its main proponent, Governor Frank Murkowski. Originally aimed at fighting methamphetamine abuse, the bill encountered opposition in the House after the state Senate tacked on a marijuana re-criminalization provision at the governor's urging. Unfortunately, after intense legislative arm-twisting by Governor Murkowski and his cronies, a slight majority of House members succumbed to pressure and concurred with the Senate version.

Key quote:

House Minority Leader Ethan Berkowitz, D-Anchorage, said he believed the only reason the vote was reversed was because of pressure on lawmakers by the governor's office for Murkowski's priority bill.

"To me, this shows how distorted this process has become," Berkowitz said. "If I wake up in the morning and there's snow on the ground, I don't have to see the snow falling to know that it has snowed. It's what you call circumstantial evidence."

This bill is a blatant attempt by the governor to aggressively steamroll the will of the people -- a recent poll showed 56% of Alaskans oppose Murkowski's bill -- and override Alaskans' constitutionally guaranteed right to privacy.

Now, just to recap, Governor Murkowski's two-year crusade to re-criminalize marijuana has disregarded the constitution, circumvented the legislative process, and ignored the science about marijuana ... and all to what end? An unconstitutional law so police can have an excuse to illegally kick down the doors of nonviolent marijuana users.

A legal challenge is sure to ensue. It shouldn't take long for Alaska's courts to put this measure where it belongs: in the garbage.

A recent study shows that anti-marijuana ads aimed at teenagers create the opposite of their intended effect: After viewing the ads, teens expressed more favorable views of marijuana and stronger intentions to use it. Researchers thought this might be due to general teenage rebelliousness, so they tested another group of teens by showing them anti-tobacco ads; this group did not have the same contrary reaction as those who watched the anti-marijuana ads.

So the federal government's anti-marijuana advertisements, on which they spend millions of dollars every year in their efforts to reduce marijuana use ... well, it seems they just don't work. We're shocked. Completely shocked.

OK, we're not really surprised at all. When more teenagers are smoking marijuana than cigarettes, and 58% of high school seniors in Nevada admit to having used marijuana, it's clear that the government's efforts to prevent marijuana use have failed. And yet they want to stick with the same ineffectual policy of prohibition. (Maybe they've got some sweet ads in queue.)

It's time for a change. We can keep trying prohibition -- a system in which marijuana sales are controlled by drug dealers who don't card their clients -- or we can put marijuana into a tightly regulated and taxed market and gain control over its use. It doesn't take a 100 million-dollar ad campaign to know which direction makes more sense.

Please help us pass the marijuana initiative. Register to vote, volunteer, donate.

A student at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism recently published a piece on efforts to remove criminal penalties for marijuana use, including Nevada's ballot initiative to tax and regulate marijuana. In the article, CRCM's Neal Levine provides insight into Nevadans' support for a sensible means of controlling marijuana use.

Unfortunately, there is one fellow who seems to prefer prohibition.

Key quote:

“What community has been made better by legalizing drugs?�? said David Kallas, executive director of the Las Vegas Police Protective Association. “We truly believe that if they legalize it, the proliferation will be greater.�?

So what level of proliferation would that be, exactly? Greater than in a free-for-all market where anyone who wants marijuana can get it? Greater than under a system where marijuana sales are controlled by violent gangs and dealers (you know, the folks who never ever card their customers)? Call us skeptical, but widespread availability seems ... well, widespread. At least that's the case here in Nevada, where nearly 58% of high school seniors have used marijuana. Compare this to Holland -- which "legalized" marijuana -- where 28% of teens have used it.

Unlike the profits made by marijuana traffickers -- which rank in the billions each year -- Detective Kallas' logic just doesn't add up.

We need a sensible solution ... not more of the same failed laws. Let's take marijuana sales out of the criminal market and put them into a tightly regulated market, where we can put sensible safeguards in place that truly control marijuana's availability.

Please support the marijuana initiative. Register to vote, volunteer, donate.

Clark County Sheriff Bill Young has announced that he won't seek re-election this fall.

The White House drug czar released data last week that demonstrates the accuracy of CRCM's mission to take marijuana out of the hands of criminals and place it into a tightly controlled and regulated market in Nevada.

Key quote:

According to an ONDCP market analysis estimate, Mexican traffickers receive more than $13.8 billion from illicit-drug sales to the United States. The majority of that income comes from marijuana sales, which accounts for 61 percent of that income, or $8.5 billion, eclipsing the potential revenue from cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine combined. ...

Director Walters said, “.... When Americans spend money on illegal drugs, they are providing financial support to groups that use violence and terror as a way of doing business."

Incredible! The criminal market is generating $8.5 billion in marijuana sales ... and all that money is flowing directly into the hands of drug traffickers. As Director Walters says, these groups "use violence and terror as a way of doing business."

Funny -- that's what we've been saying all along. We don't know how much of that $8.5 billion comes out of Nevada, but our proximity to the U.S.-Mexico border guarantees a steady flow of marijuana from drug traffickers. Why should Nevada permit a free-for-all illegal marijuana market with no controls to continue? It's time to take marijuana out of the hands of criminals and place it into a tightly controlled market.

We need your help to make this happen. Please help us pass the marijuana initiative. Register to vote, volunteer, donate.

Have you checked out our News page recently? We make it easy for you to keep up on all the latest news about the marijuana campaign and related events. Bonus: We've just added one of our favorite clips from a Reno station story that ran earlier this year.

Erin Neff published a column in the Las Vegas Review-Journal on Thursday endorsing the marijuana initiative and featuring CRCM's own Neal Levine on the senselessness of prohibition.

Key quote #1:

“The criminal market can’t compete with a legal, regulated market,�? Levine said. “I don’t see people on the corner selling alcohol.�?

Ms. Neff also points to the uproar over recent Mexican legislation removing penalties for personal possession of drugs ... and the drug czar's silence on the matter.

Key quote #2:

Looking for some answers north of the border, I went to the Web site of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Nothing. So-called drug czar John P. Walters had not posted a statement on this issue.

Somehow, a move in Nevada to legalize possession of a measly ounce of pot for use by adults in our homes is far more critical to U.S. drug control policy. The drug czar's Web site blog section has a post featuring a recent commentary by Guy Farmer of Carson City that appeared in the Nevada Appeal. Farmer, a retired U.S. Foreign Service operative, penned a piece assailing the Nevada initiative, which qualified for November's ballot.

There's nothing on the blog about Mexico, though.

The consistent theme of U.S. drug policy can be summed up neatly by Mr. Mackey of "South Park": "Drugs are bad, mm'kay?"

So the drug czar ignores the fact that a neighbor of the U.S. is attempting to address the issue of prohibition -- of all drugs, no less. Instead, his office is spending federal resources combatting an ounce of marijuana in Nevada.

Ms. Neff argues that our initiative offers a sensible alternative to current policies. Kudos to her commonsense ideas. Maybe she can give some tips to Walters?

Guy Farmer published another piece in Sunday's Nevada Appeal, this time about the marijuana initiative and its intricate relationship with the Seattle rave scene. (Those wishing to contribute to the "Buy Guy Farmer an Atlas" fund should click here.)

Mr. Farmer's new article is as disingenuous as his earlier editorial against the marijuana initiative. He specifically mentions the campaign to tax and regulate marijuana, but then proceeds to talk about the murder of six people by a disturbed teen and the use of Ecstasy in the Seattle rave scene. Multiple murders and Ecstasy have nothing to do with Nevada's marijuana initiative, of course, but why let facts get in the way of a good old fashioned tirade. After all, if he can convince Nevadans that voting for the marijuana initiative is voting for mass murder, he won't have to debate the actual merits of the initiative.

Unfortunately for Mr. Farmer, Nevadans are smarter than that. We see that our marijuana laws just don't work, and that a thriving criminal market is putting money into the hands of drug dealers and violent gangs. We're ready for a change. The marijuana initiative will remove marijuana from the criminal market and put it in a tightly regulated and taxed market -- taking money out of the hands of drug dealers and violent gangs and generating millions of dollars in tax revenue for Nevada. Even Mr. Farmer can't seem to argue with that.

Please help us pass the marijuana initiative. Register to vote, volunteer, donate.

A recent Anchorage Daily News editorial criticized the methamphetamine-marijuana bill and its handling by the Alaska Senate.

Key quote:

What should have been a simple bill to help control Alaska's methamphetamine epidemic has provoked a battle that is distracting lawmakers from more important business.

On one side is the Alaska House, which passed a sensible meth-control bill. On the other side is the Alaska Senate, which hijacked the bill for its own purposes. Senate leaders used the bill to launch another attack on the privacy rights that allow Alaska adults to possess small amounts of marijuana in their own homes. The House refused to go along with the controversial and expensive effort to recriminalize possession of any amount of marijuana by adults. A majority of the House wanted a bill to fight crystal meth, not take on a constitutional battle over marijuana possession.

The Daily News' recommendation? Drop the fight to recriminalize marijuana and allow legislators to focus on real problems. We couldn't agree more. It's time for Governor Murkowski and his cohorts in the Alaska Senate to let this bill die once and for all. They may still try a last-ditch effort to pass the bill before the session ends next week, and the governor is even threatening to insert the bill into a special session. But in the words of self-help books everywhere -- it's time to let it go.

UNLV Professor Randall Shelden has a great piece in this week's CityLife about myths surrounding drug use. The first myth he addresses? That marijuana is a gateway drug.

Key quote:

Numerous studies have shown the majority of those who use marijuana do not in fact "progress" to harder drugs. Most people who have this belief base it upon confusion between cause and effect. Since most of those who use the hard drugs (e.g., cocaine, heroin) at one time also used marijuana, it is easy to believe that the latter caused the former .... Some studies have shown that the two drugs that most often precede marijuana are tobacco and alcohol, so if anything, these are your true "gateway" drugs. And they're both perfectly legal.

Ah, a rational voice in the debate over marijuana. We could use more of those -- why not get involved and voice your support? Please help us pass the marijuana initiative. Register to vote, volunteer, donate.

The Mexican Congress passed a bill last week to remove criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana and other drugs for personal use. Pointing to the hundreds of people killed this year in battles between drug traffickers and police, a presidential spokesman said the legislation was a crime-fighting measure. Clearly, governments everywhere are struggling to deal with the crime and violence created by prohibition -- and Mexico in particular is fighting a losing battle against the huge amount of marijuana being trafficked into the U.S. via border crossings and tunnels.

While we don't support their position on removing penalties for possession of all drugs, we do think the Mexican government is taking a step in the right direction by permitting adults to possess small amounts of marijuana without the threat of arrest and imprisonment. However, they aren't addressing the other half of the problem created by prohibition: the criminal market. Drug dealers and criminals will still make money from the sale of marijuana, even if their customers can legally possess it. Unfortunately, Mexico's recent legislation will take them only halfway to a solution to prohibition ... which is a bit like building half a dam to stop a flood.

Nevada's marijuana initiative is a far more sensible proposal that addresses both sides of the situation: the use and sale of marijuana. The initiative will take the sale of marijuana out of the criminal market and place it into a tightly regulated and taxed market, which both allows responsible use and does not fund the activities of violent gangs and drug dealers. It's the only real way to gain control over marijuana use in our communities. Register to vote, volunteer, donate.