Pubdate: Thu, 20 Jul 2000
Source: Las Vegas Weekly (NV)
Copyright: 2000 Radiant City Publications, LLC
Contact:  P.O. Box 230657, Las Vegas, NV 89123-0011
Fax: (702) 990-2424
Website: http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/
Author: Joe Schoenmann, REEFER REBELLION

Nevada currently has the strictest marijuana laws in the U.S. But with a 
new bill on the table and an initiative on the ballot in November, could 
Nevada suddenly become pot central?

A veteran Las Vegas cop in torn jeans and an old AC/DC T-shirt sits with 
his red, silver and blue Bud Light at one of the P.T's Pubs a couple weeks 
back. Just off work, a blackjack dealer next to him loudly collects friends 
to go outside to "smoke a bowl." Barely glancing at them, the cop looks my 
way, taking another swig.

"You think that bothers me, don't you?" he suggests.

"I don't know, I suppose." Another swig, a light belch.

"Not only don't I care. Even if I caught them on the job, I'd probably let 
'em go."

My eyebrows go up. The cop holds court for a minute.

"If I have a kid, 17 or 18, and I find a joint on them, no way I'm going to 
arrest them. I'll give them a little spiel, burn the stuff--make sure they 
see me do it--and send them off," he says. "Because frankly, we don't have 
the time to arrest them, take them 'downtown' and file a report. That's 
what it breaks down to, and that's the absolute truth."

Nevada's pot laws--the harshest in the country--come in handy, he notes 
with a tip of his head and a matter-of-fact nod, only when a known "baddie" 
needs some "twisting."

"Maybe you need to twist some guy's arm, that kind of thing," he says. 
That's rare, too, he continues, because "even the bad guys know you're not 
going to do anything about it."

"Want my opinion?" he says, setting up his finale. "Put the money into 
prevention and treatment, and that's where they'll save lots of lives."

THE JOINT

Stories like this are driving the efforts of Assemblywoman Chris 
Giunchigliani, D-Las Vegas, to push a bill through the state Legislature 
that would decriminalize, or at least de-felonize, minor marijuana use or 
possession. Enacted 27 years ago, the current law makes it a felony to 
possess even a single pot seed. Penalties for a first-timer can be fines of 
up to $5,000 and one to four years in prison. The second time, it's up to 
10 years. And if you're caught a third time, think of it this way: three 
squares a day, conjugal visits for good behavior and drab garb for up to 20 
years.

Though she's still working out the kinks, Giunchigliani (pronounced 
june-killy-ah-nee) says her bill would make a first offense a misdemeanor 
with a fine from between $150 and $500. Offenders would get a ticket, in 
the same way that a traffic scofflaw is ticketed. Then they would be free 
to wander away.

"The bill removes the whole felony, then has three steps," she explains. 
"The first, it's a citation and a fine. The second, it's drug court and a 
fine. The third is another form of rehab with drug court. Fines would be 
split between the drug court and rehabilitation venues."

Here's the kicker: If "Chris G.," as Giunchigliani is known to constituents 
and colleagues, gets her way, Nevada's Old West, hang-'em-high reputation 
could be erased overnight, putting us ahead of the curve. Like every other 
state in the union, pot possession would only be a misdemeanor. But it gets 
better. Most other states still arrests misdemeanor pot offenders. We'd 
just ticket them and let them go. Only 11 other states treat pot smokers 
the same way.

According to Allen St. Pierre, National Organization for the Reform of 
Marijuana Laws (NORML) executive director, "Nevada would be put right smack 
in the middle of those progressive states."

"It's a matter of, where do you want to put your resources?" Chris G. 
explains. "And why do you want to force an entire family, in some 
situations, into a felony, losing their job, losing their family, losing 
everything?"

The cop back at P.T's put it a little more succinctly. "What, you want to 
lock someone up for smoking a joint? Come on. We've got more pressing crap 
to do."

LET'S GET SMAAAAALL

"I'm on drugs. I mean, you know what it is: I love to get small... It's a 
wild, wild drug; very dangerous for kids, though, because they get (long 
pause) REALLY small.

"I know I shouldn't get small when I'm driving, but, uh, I was driving 
around the other day, and a cop pulls me over and he goes, 'Hey, are you 
small?' I said, 'No, I'm tall, I'm tall.' He said, 'I'm going to have to 
measure you.' He's got a little test. It's a balloon--if you can get inside 
of it, they know...you're small. And they can't put you in a regular cell, 
either, because you walk right out."

- -Steve Martin Let's Get Small

Back in college in Wisconsin, it was party chic to talk about "getting 
small." And "head shops," where colorful bongs sold for $10, dotted State 
Street in downtown Madison. Real live hippies still existed, a former 
Vietnam war protester was mayor and marijuana was a definitive part of the 
culture.

Back then, if police nabbed you for smoking pot, the penalty for a first 
offense was a $5 citation, less than most traffic tickets. Then Reagan got 
elected. In short order, he declared the War on Drugs. Police departments 
became flush with federal money. Your-brain-as-fried-eggs got everyone 
worked up. And fines and sentences went through the roof.

Most states tried to keep a lid on the paranoia, to preventing the sweeping 
drug terror from overriding sensibility in state law books. Indeed, even 
today you can visit any other state in the country and light up a joint in 
front of a cop. Though you may be arrested and convicted, you'll still be 
able to vote.

So what happened here?

In his 1985 book, Morals Legislation Without Morality: The Case of Nevada, 
sociologist John F. Galliher theorized that Nevada's draconian pot laws 
were an attempt to recapture its moral virginity. This is the state, after 
all, where more than 30 legal brothels are licensed in rural areas, where 
its largest city thrives almost exclusively upon the sex-crazed fantasies 
of conventioneers, and where "gaming" fuels the state economy. Nevada's 
moral compass was already hopelessly skewed; it couldn't hurt to try to get 
some of it back by coming down hard on drugs.

Galliher dug more deeply, though, and learned that Nevada lawmakers weren't 
necessarily trying to recapture morality for their own salvation: they were 
doing it to ward off what appeared to be growing federal sentiments against 
gambling. Nevada's adherence to strict pot laws were enacted for appearance 
only. Pot users were Nevada's sacrificial lambs.

"A number of people confirmed this," says Galliher, today a professor at 
the University of Missouri at Columbia. "The political leaders back then 
were very worried, because every once in a while someone in Congress would 
raise the issue of legal gambling and reigning in the morality of the 
Nevada Legislature. So there was a real fear--and who's to say that the 
fear was groundless at the time?--that the Feds would somehow outlaw gambling."

Now some 20 years later, Galliher marvels that Nevada's strict marijuana 
laws remain in place. No longer is there a moral incentive, he notes, 
because almost every other state in the country has legalized some form of 
gambling. There's no longer a need to dress up gambling for the gentry in 
Congress.

"Today, that motivation is absolutely groundless," Galliher says. "I think 
there's maybe one or two states that don't allow gambling. We've even got 
river boat gambling down here in Missouri."

THICKER THAN WEEDS

You'd think that with our tough laws, Nevada cops would be arresting people 
willy-nilly for pot possession. And according to statistics gathered by 
NORML, 4,715 people were arrested on marijuana charges in 1997, a 60 
percent increase from 1995. Of those arrests, 3,878, or 82 percent, were in 
Clark County.

The numbers suggest that our prisons should be chock full of pot-inhaling 
college kids, off-duty blackjack dealers, professors, even journalists. 
Right? Not according to the Nevada Department of Prisons. As of last week, 
prison administrators reported all of two people in its system on marijuana 
convictions. Two.

So what happened to the nearly 4,000 arrestees? While police might be 
making the arrests--Clark County's rate of arrest per 100,000 people is 
below the national average--prosecutors don't have the time, inclination or 
desire to prosecute them as felonies. Stewart Bell, Clark County's district 
attorney, admitted that "virtually all" cases of possession for relatively 
small amounts of marijuana are dropped, or negotiated to misdemeanors or 
counseling. A typical sentence is three years probation, some fines and 
community service.

"We have to put it into perspective," says Bell. "With violent crimes that 
we have, this kind of thing pales in comparison. And it pales in comparison 
with people who might be caught with kilos of cocaine. That's a whole 
different ballgame."

Arrestees are also diverted to Drug Court, where they can clear their 
record by completing a program that uses urine tests and counseling to try 
to break a cycle of drug use. Kendis Stake, Drug Court manager for the 8th 
Judicial District, says her court dealt with literally thousands of cases 
in 1999, a great deal of them for marijuana. Though Stake expresses worries 
that a new law might diminish the number of customers in her courtroom, 
drug law gurus say she needn't worry. When other states enacted similar 
laws, not only did the number of people arrested shoot up, but revenues 
started to grow.

"In Nebraska, which was really a leader in this, the number of arrests 
skyrocketed," notes Galliher. "That's because now police, who before might 
not have wanted to ruin a kid's life by arresting them on a felony charge, 
can just hand out a summons like a parking ticket. And man, they could 
write up a lot of people."

Meanwhile, as revenue from those fines comes in, police and the court 
system can focus attention on other matters. "In that sense, you could say 
it's a revenue enhancer," Galliher sums.

And what self-respecting, penny-pinching, politician-of-the-people could 
argue with bottom-line logic like that?

RAGGIO LIGHTENS UP

A couple state legislators clucked last week at the prospect of yet another 
attempt by Chris G. to get that darned marijuana law passed. It failed in 
1999 and it's going to fail again, they predicted.

"It's going to go right down party lines," says Assemblywoman Sandra 
Tiffany, R-Henderson. "It doesn't have a chance."

Giunchigliani, though, thinks that this time around she's got an ace up her 
sleeve. Not only is the Nevada Supreme Court on her side, but by the time 
the February 2001 legislative session rolls around, will already have 
likely voted to legalize marijuana use for medical reasons.

First, the Supreme Court. Last month, it was reported that a judicial 
commission of the court will recommend an easing of the state's marijuana 
laws. The commission is expected to recommend in September that offenders 
be fined something around $1,000 and receive a maximum six-month jail sentence.

Then, in November, voters are expected to approve the creation of a state 
system of regulating and distributing marijuana for use by seriously ill 
people. The same measure passed overwhelmingly, 59 to 41 percent, in 1998, 
but state law require two votes before a ballot initiative becomes law.

Chris G. says she is also getting more pledges of support from district 
attorneys and judges around the state. "They're saying we should do this, 
that it's long over due."

Even Clark County's chief prosecutor can't see a real problem with changing 
the law. "Honestly, I don't think it will make much of a difference," says 
Bell.

What about Metropolitan Police Department Sheriff Jerry Keller? Though he 
ripped medical marijuana two years ago as a "complete scam," he's 
relatively puppy-like on decriminalization. Says Lt. Mark Joseph, 
department spokesman: "We enforce the laws, we don't make the laws. We'll 
have to see how it's played out in the Legislature."

And how about Oscar Goodman, the mayor of Las Vegas and heir to the 
governor's mansion? In a rare show of wimpiness, Goodman last week refused 
to provide his opinion of Chris G.'s bill, closing his eyes, shaking his 
head wildly, and saying "No, no, no, no!" as a reporter repeatedly asked 
the question in the cramped space of a City Hall elevator. Though the mayor 
promised to provide a more rational response later, he did not return 
repeated calls to his office.

The opinions of state lawmakers are mixed. Assemblyman Richard Perkins, who 
is also a Henderson police captain, likes the idea but knows "there will be 
concerns about not wanting to come off as though they are soft on crime."

Assemblywoman Barbara Buckley, D-Las Vegas, foresees another legislative 
death: "It's not going to get any further than it did last year. Opponents 
still see it as being soft on crime."

Yeah, OK. But what does someone who really matters say? How about Sen. 
William Raggio, R-Reno, the Majority Floor Leader and the guiding light by 
whom so many other legislators blindly follow? The 73-year-old Raggio noted 
that he is a former prosecutor and not one to look too sympathetically upon 
those who break the law. As a matter of fact, he has never broken laws 
regarding the particular drug in question: never smoked a bowl, shared a 
bong or rolled a joint. "Guess I was born to early," he admits.

But while he might not be willing to learn some knew joint rolling tricks, 
Raggio at least has the guts to say he's willing to listen. "As a former 
prosecutor, I have not previously supported reducing the penalty," he adds, 
"but I don't know if we're talking about a small amount of marijuana or 
not. That might change my opinion, I don't know. But, oh, I think so, I 
want to leave the door open."

Wait a second, what are you saying?

"But I don't want to send the wrong message, a message that somehow it's OK 
to use marijuana," he adds, not quickly, but slowly and deliberately. "But 
I think I'll defer on this to prosecutors on this. I just don't want to 
send the wrong message."

A NEW MESSAGE

In a few months, we'll all know the fate of Chris G.'s "pot bill." If it 
fails, as some of her stalwart colleagues predict, there may be solution: 
Simply enforce the current law. Start arresting all those doctors, 
professors, journalists, politicians, lawyers and yes, even cops and prison 
guards, who use the drug recreationally to unwind from the rigors of life 
in this scalding, overcrowded desert hellhole. Do that, then see the eyes 
open, listen to the cries of injustice and watch as the law quickly changes.

As UNR political science professor and ACLU of Nevada board president 
Richard Siegel points out, an awful lot of people don't need the stricter 
enforcement to know the current law is as used up as a dead roach.

"People are saying they aren't particularly concerned with marijuana, and 
the babyboomers are the majority of those people," he figures. "They grew 
up with marijuana and, though they may not want their kids to smoke it, 
they don't see this as a criminal offense."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D