Columnist Susan Snyder: Pot proposal stinks up the joint

Friday, Aug. 23, 2002 | 1:48 a.m.

They must think we're dopes.

Who? Those promoting the smoke screen that is Question 9 -- the November ballot initiative that would allow "otherwise law-abiding citizens" to possess three ounces of marijuana.

This has nothing to do with medical marijuana. Those who need that still would have to register with the state. This is about being allowed to possess and use pot -- and its byproducts such as hashish oil -- for fun.

Now, three ounces of pot is a small amount -- at Woodstock. Visualize a one-quart sandwich bag, fat and about two-thirds full. That's three ounces and enough to make about 250 joints, Todd Raybuck, a Metro Police narcotics officer, told a group of community leaders who met Wednesday to learn more about the initiative and the drug.

While we're visualizing, let's think about a dad and his 11-year-old son sitting on the living-room sofa watching a movie and sharing a joint.

Under this initiative you could get away with that, same as you can now get away with giving your kid a sip of your beer, Raybuck and Clark County Prosecutor Gary Booker said. Nothing like helping bad parents be worse ones.

Possession of an ounce (about 80 joints) or less already is a misdemeanor that gets you only a citation. Why not make the "small amount" an ounce?

Smoking marijuana is different from alcohol consumption. Booze is water soluble. It goes into the bloodstream and dissipates over a matter of hours. Marijuana is fat soluble, which means it goes into the fat where it disperses more slowly, Raybuck said.

A person who smokes pot at home on Sunday might not feel high Monday morning, but his judgment can still be clouded or impaired, Raybuck said. No biggie if you work in a record store.

What if you drive a school bus?

If passed, Question 9 would make it unconstitutional for employers to ban employees from smoking pot. You can do whatever is legal on your own time. Why not demand marijuana intoxication tests? There isn't one. Tests only show whether it's in a person's system, Booker said.

He should know. Booker prosecuted Jessica Williams, who smoked pot two hours before she veered off Interstate 15 and killed six kids who were picking up trash. Booker says a driving under the influence conviction was rejected because pot intoxication can't be determined.

Question 9 doesn't provide testing standards. It says you can't drive "dangerously," and then fails to define that. When do we define that and how?

Theoretically, a 21-year-old could drive to Primm, buy enough pot to roll 250 joints and take them back home to California to sell. Don't for a second believe people will not take it out of state. How much will be in the cars clogging I-15 from Las Vegas to the state line each Sunday?

Or maybe visitors will just smoke it in their Las Vegas hotel rooms and be free to drive around until they drive "dangerously."

Taxes and licensing costs probably will be so high that few stores will sell it or few people will be able to afford it -- legally. Who pays for the state-funded growth, regulation and distribution?

The answers to Question 9's unanswered questions don't matter because this isn't up for revision under legislative scrutiny. It's a constitutional amendment, yes or no. Is this the quality of life and governance we want?

Are we dopes?