Marijuana reform unlikely in Nevada

ON NOVEMBER 7, the state of Nevada will have the opportunity to pass a ballot measure legalizing the sale of marijuana at government-regulated locations.

The measure would also allow for the possession of up to an ounce of the drug for residents over the age of 21.

The measure, entitled Question #7, is being pushed by The Committee to Regulate and Control Marijuana, which views Nevada as the one state where the legalization of marijuana has a legitimate chance of occurring.

At first glance, Nevada does seem to be the most logical choice in testing out such a drastic measure.

In a state where almost everything else, including gambling and prostitution, is legal, it almost seems as though Question #7 is certain to be answered with a resounding “Yes!”
I wouldn’t bet on it, though.

Even in a state known for the sinful pleasures it offers, I can almost guarantee that a measure calling for the legalization of marijuana will not be passing anytime soon.

Lest we forget, this is America — land of the free, home of the over-enforcement of marijuana restrictions.

The number of American citizens who are misinformed about the drug and view it as akin to the likes of heroin and cocaine undoubtedly outnumber the people who recognize the logic of decriminalizing the sale and possession of small amounts of marijuana. Consider, if you will, the benefits that Nevada’s Question #7 has to offer.

Financially, this measure would generate a hefty amount of tax revenue for the state of Nevada.

Question #7 calls for a $45 tax on each ounce of marijuana purchased, which, according to a 2002 study conducted by the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, would create an estimated $28.6 million per year.

Aside from the obvious fiscal gain, the measure could be beneficial in decreasing drug use amongst youths.

If Question #7 is passed, the sale of marijuana is to be conducted only at government-licensed locations to customers over the age of 21. By carefully regulating marijuana’s sale, it becomes increasingly difficult for teenagers to come into possession of the drug.

The ballot measure is seeking to destroy the heart of marijuana’s criminality, which lies in the drug pushers who are only out for profit and who therefore are willing to sell to anybody, including your twelve-year-old sister.

Question #7 will call for a drastic increase in punishment for anybody other than licensed vendors caught selling marijuana. Harsh penalties are also in store for the purchasers.

The fear of imprisonment for purchasing from an unlicensed seller, coupled with the fact that, if you are of age, there is absolutely no reason to do so, could effectively result in the elimination of marijuana dealers.

This would allow law enforcement to focus more time and effort on the crack down of sellers of hard drugs and various other violent criminals.

Whether legal or illegal, the percentage of the population who choose to smoke marijuana is going to remain constant.

The passing of Question #7 is not going to inspire large numbers of people who previously had no desire to smoke marijuana to suddenly do so simply because they “can.”

Because that constant marijuana market is always going to exist, it only seems sensible for a government to actively regulate it (with the safety of its citizens in mind) instead of wasting time, money and jail space in trying unsuccessfully to prevent it altogether.

Rather than being seen as weak for “giving in” to the legalization of marijuana, a government should be applauded for stepping in and at least taking control of a problem, which has no other clear answer.

Until a state takes the bold leap of decriminalizing marijuana, the effects of such an act can only be debated on paper.

Change results from action, and when it comes to controversial issues such as this, we must consider the whole picture and then be mature enough to take the most logical step, regardless of how taboo we have been brainwashed into believing that step to be.

Comment on this story in the Opinion forum >>