Letters for October 17, 2002

Question 2 signs reflect hatred
Re “New Signs for Bigots” [RN&R Letters, Oct. 10]:

Question 2’s proposal for the “protection of marriage” is the most laughable deception I’ve seen for quite sometime. Although I admit that “protect marriage” has an amazing and ennobling feeling, I’m glad to know [letter-writer] Danielle feels the same irritation I do when I see those signs (even the Spanish ones!) They are nothing but a constant reminder of the socialized hatred being spread across our roads and establishments. This is to say nothing of marriage already being an breech of separation of church and state! Anyone who believes that he or she is “protecting” marriage by voting for Question 2 should think about all the people who happily live in and support the great state of Nevada, yet are being deprived of a right all tax-paying citizens deserve—the right to legally love another consenting adult, regardless of gender. How could so many so easily dismiss the rights of thousands of people, based solely upon religious principle alone? If everyone wants to so desperately “protect marriage,” why not outlaw divorce?

Curtis D. Splan
via e-mail

Reading Q-9’s fine print
Re: “Got Pot?” [RN&R, Oct. 3]:

After reading the article on Question 9, I realized that it was time to take a stance on this issue. This was a result of two things. One was the frustrating style the author used in the article to make his points. After reading the article, I recognized that not having a position on this issue is the frustrating part about it. If only I had the actual measure to help me make a stand. Thankfully the RN&R printed the actual text of the proposed measure at the end of the article. Reading this led me to form my opinion.

As I understand it, people 21 or over with a medical prescription to possess marijuana will be protected from legal penalty (Article 4, Section 38.1). Penalties still apply to those who legally possess marijuana but drive under the influence (4.38.3.a), distribute to minors (4.38.3.b), smoke marijuana in public (4.38.3.c), or distribute, sell or possess on the property of a school or jail/prison (4.38.3.d). What I do not see is a penalty for adults who legally possess marijuana and who distribute to other adults for non-medical use. A section in the current state constitution adresses this (4.38.2.a) but Q-9 proposes that this be stricken (4.38.5.a). If this is the case, legal possessors of marijuana can become a new wave of drug dealers. I cannot support this measure as it currently stands. If this should change, then I would be willing to give my vote to help those who suffer from diseases.

I thank the RN&R for printing the measure and the author for candidly presenting what has been a very confusing issue for me as well.

Chad Shenk

Just say ‘no’ to Q-9
Re: “Got Pot?” [RN&R, Oct. 3]:

The paid lobbyist from Washington, DC, would like the public to believe that those opposed to Question 9 are resorting to lies. NOT TRUE. The petition that brought us to this point was conceived in lies, and the proponents continue to distort, hoping to make the people of Nevada believe that there is no harm in legalizing three ounces of marijuana.

Gary Booker was not replaced as a spokesperson. He’s still speaking out, but he has grown weary of making appearances with Billy Rogers who cites figures as though he has memorized a lot of statistics. His figures don’t make sense, and he can’t prove what he is saying. He just hopes people will believe him.

Rogers likes to concentrate on medical marijuana—not legalization of three ounces. I am a recovering cancer patient. If I were on my death bed, in severe pain, I would NOT WANT to smoke marijuana to relieve that pain. I would not be so selfish as to want something made legal which will cause great harm to young people and others who become addicts.

Question 9 is not about medical marijuana, which was legalized in Nevada in 2000. It’s about legalizing three ounces of marijuana, which will make available large supplies into each home.

The adverse ramifications to legalizing marijuana are horrendous—from law enforcement to health and safety of all the people of Nevada. Please don’t be deceived by the distortions of those people who wish to thrust this nightmare upon the state.Betty Kruk

Carson City

Best of boo-boo

Editor’s note: The winner of the Best Sports Book category should have been listed as the Cal-Neva/Virginian, 140 N. Virginia St., 323-1046. Congratulations on the win, Cal-Neva.