Prosecutor: Nevada marijuana measure would undercut DUI cases

Wednesday, July 31, 2002 | 11:22 a.m.

LAS VEGAS - A Clark County prosecutor is warning that a November ballot initiative legalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana would be "a gigantic step backward in public safety," and would undercut driving under the influence cases in Nevada.

Deputy Clark County District Attorney Bruce Nelson, a top driving and traffic case prosecutor in Las Vegas, focused on the wording "driving dangerously" in the proposed law. He said it conflicts with the state's current driving under the influence statute.

"None of our present misdemeanor DUI drug statutes require the state to prove a person is driving dangerously while under the influence," Nelson told reporters in Las Vegas on Tuesday, "so all of our present laws would conflict with the marijuana initiative."

The main proponent of the initiative dismissed Nelson's argument a "smoke screen" to try to sway people to oppose the measure.

"There is nothing in this initiative that prevents the prosecution of people driving under the influence of marijuana," said Billy Rogers, of Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement.

Nevada voters are being asked to decide whether the state should legalize the possession of up to 3 ounces of marijuana.

Until last year, Nevada had the strictest marijuana law in the nation. It made smoking a single marijuana cigarette a felony, punishable by a a year or more in prison. Now, possession of an ounce or less of marijuana is a misdemeanor.

The initiative would tax marijuana like cigarettes and other tobacco products, and allow it to be sold only in state-licensed shops. Public use would be banned and driving under the influence would be illegal. Minors would be prohibited from possessing the drug, and private individuals would not be allowed to sell it.

If the initiative passes, voters would have to approve it again in 2004 to change the state constitution.

Nelson said he was particularly concerned about a provision of the initiative nullifying any conflicting statute or regulation.

"Unfortunately, with the law, one word can screw it all up," he said.