Despite the recent chaos, leaders of Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement -- the group behind the ballot question that would legalize the possession of three ounces or less of marijuana -- remain optimistic about Question 9's chances come Election Day.

Billy Rogers, the spokesman and leader of NRLE, said the recent controversy over the endorsement-turned-nonendorsement by the Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs won't hurt the initiative's chances; if anything, he said, it will help it by showing that the police are divided over the initiative.

And at least one of the state's most prominent political scientists agrees -- on that point and several others.

It's been a tough week for supporters of Question 9, which polls show to be a 50-50 proposition in terms of voter support. NCOPS, a police union umbrella organization, came forward Aug. 6 to endorse Question 9, stunning many observers because law enforcement organizations in Nevada had, up until that point, unanimously condemned the ballot question.

Within days, NCOPS was in shambles. Its president and one of its founders, former Metro officer Andy Anderson, resigned after some law enforcement officials freaked out about the endorsement - and after some NCOPS board members came forward claiming that they did not know what they were actually endorsing. NCOPS then reversed itself and announced that it opposed Question 9. Its credibility was badly damaged.

Rogers blamed the flip-flop on "the storm" caused after the Aug. 6 endorsement. He said he first approached Anderson about a month ago through a common friend. They had a lunch, Rogers said, during which Anderson indicated he supported Question 9. Anderson then said he'd take the matter to the NCOPS board.

"We were happy to receive the endorsement and we were pleasantly surprised by it," Rogers said, calling Anderson "courageous" for taking the steps he did.

Of course, all hell soon broke loose.

Despite NCOPS' current opposition to Question 9, Rogers claims that a "silent majority" of police officers in the state support the initiative - not because they are in favor of marijuana use, but because they spend way too much time arresting people for marijuana possession instead of doing more important things.

And, according to a report -- commissioned by the Nevada Division of Investigation for the 2001 Legislature -- Rogers may just have a point.

Eric Herzik, an associate professor and director of graduate studies in political science at the University of Nevada, Reno, was hired by NDI to head up the Nevada Substance Abuse Report. He said that its numbers clearly show what NRLE has been saying all along: Nevada police spend a lot of time on marijuana possession arrests.

The numbers are striking. Herzik said that in 1999 (the latest statistics available when the report was done), Nevada police made 5,406 arrests for marijuana possession. That's more than the number of arrests for the possession of all other drugs combined (3,550).

Herzik also points out that the number of arrests for more dangerous drugs -- like cocaine and methamphetamine -- go up and down depending on the year, but marijuana arrests have consistently been rising. In 1995, only 2,076 arrests were made for marijuana possession. That number nearly tripled in four years.

Herzik -- who said he had not been contacted by Rogers or anyone else from NRLE -- also said he agreed with Rogers that the NCOPS flip-flop won't hurt Question 9's chances.

"[The flip-flop] undercut some of the support for the marijuana initiative," Herzik said. "But voters will see that even the cops are ambivalent about the issue ... It may give the initiative a slight boost."

Herzik agreed with Rogers on one more point: Law enforcement, especially Metro, has been skirting the legal line on getting involved in political campaigns.

Late last week, as the NCOPS debacle played itself out, Metro Detective Todd Raybuck made several television appearances, most notably CNN's "Crossfire" on Aug. 8. With him, he had six ounces of marijuana from the Metro evidence locker - three loose ounces, and three rolled into joints - to make the point that three ounces is not a small amount of marijuana.

This infuriated Rogers (who also appeared on "Crossfire"), who sent a letter to Sheriff Jerry Keller. His beef: By using government resources unavailable to the public (pot from the evidence locker) and speaking out against Question 9 on government time, Raybuck was getting involved in a political campaign on the taxpayers' dime.

"We have to report all of our contributions and expenditures as a political action committee. We aren't allowed to use government resources," Rogers said. "At minimum, [Raybuck's actions] are unfair. At maximum, they're against state law."

Rogers said that aside from the letter to Keller asking him to forbid Raybuck and others from campaigning against Question 9 on work time, he would take no further action.

Raybuck's actions are borderline, if not illegal and unethical, Herzik agreed. He said a law enforcement union or organization taking action during non-work hours is one thing; this is another.

"Law enforcement is supposed to enforce the law, not make the law," Herzik said. "This is one of those things that is right on the margin."

Raybuck told the Las Vegas Review-Journal that he went on "Crossfire" at the direction of Undersheriff Dick Winget and that the pot was used "for the training and education of the public." Winget told the Las Vegas Sun that they did not seek the attention, but they were simply responding to media requests.

But it's doubtful that Metro would have allowed Rogers to get pot from the locker at the request of the media to educate the public on how much three ounces of weed is. Although it would be fun to see him try.

Nevada now knows what to call it: Question 9.

Now, all the state needs to do is figure out what to make of it.

"It," of course, is the initiative that would amend the state Constitution to legalize three ounces or less of marijuana. And here's what we do know: Since the Secretary of State's Office on July 9 determined the signature drive to get the initiative on the ballot was successful, an increasing number of law-enforcement wonks have been coming forward to claim, essentially, that this initiative is a bad, ugly thing that will result in all sorts of heathen behavior and wanton crime if passed.

The people behind the pot petition have countered that these law enforcement officials are full of it and that Nevadans think cops should be worrying about murderers, not stoners.

And in the middle of the fray are state officials, who are preparing Question 9's ballot language in as fair of a way as possible while bracing for the possibility that the question could put them in blatant violation of federal law, resulting in all sorts of drama.

To top it off, all indications are that the vote is going to be reeeeaaaly close come November.

Gosh. Putting politics and pot together is kind of interesting, ain't it?

Pot's bad. No it's not.

Predictably, Question 9 has the collective underwear of many law enforcers and prosecutors in a bunch.

Two days after the initiative's ballot certification by the secretary of state, Drug Enforcement Administration Director Asa Hutchinson asked a crowd in Reno: If the ballot question is approved, "what kind of tourism will Nevada attract?" Hutchinson apparently forgot that Nevada already attracts tourists who like to gamble and see adult-themed shows and occasionally sneak into a rural county to legally boff a prostitute.

Then, Office of National Drug Policy Director John Walters showed up in Las Vegas and claimed, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, that Question 9 would make Nevada the "vacation spot for drug traffickers." He also claimed that the pot of today is stronger than the pot that Baby Boomers smoked when they were kids. Looking at some of the freaky stuff Boomers came up with in the 1960s, we're skeptical.

This was followed by a vote by the Nevada District Attorney's Association to oppose Question 9, with some folks using the age-old argument that marijuana is a gateway drug to more serious drugs.

Stewart Bell, the Clark County District Attorney who is not running for re-election but is instead running for a District Court seat this year -- and who, it should be noted, did not participate in the Nevada District Attorney's Association vote -- is more reasonable about things.

"We believe that having possession of a small amount of marijuana as a misdemeanor protects the community without treating it more harshly than it deserves," he said, choosing his words carefully since he won't be the D.A. when and if the initiative goes into effect -- although he could be a judge, and judges are not supposed to take public positions on such issues.

"We support the current law," he said.

Billy Rogers, a representative of the pro-pot group Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement (a name that gives some police officers fits), which is funded by the Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project, called these claims by prosecutors and law enforcement officials "disinformation campaigns" and, appropriately, "smoke screens."

"Ultimately, most Nevadans don't think that it's appropriate to waste tax dollars on going after people who possess a small amount of marijuana," said Rogers, who works for the Marijuana Policy Project. "They'd rather the police use their resources on criminals such as murderers and rapists." Where Rogers got the idea that Nevada cops are focusing on catching tokers in favor of catching killers, we aren't sure.

Long story short: Both sides are a little full of it, which is to be expected, seeing as politics is involved.

Stop the madness

Amidst all the rhetoric sits the state, which is in the unenviable (yet somewhat amusing) position of trying to present Question 9 fairly and impartially to the public, even though the whole darned thing is illegal according to federal law.

"We're kind of in a monitoring phase," said Gina Session, a senior deputy attorney general.

The attorney general's office is not taking a position on the issue, although it certainly has some concerns. Tom Sargent, a spokesman for the office, said he personally had some problems with how some of the signature-gatherers for Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement misrepresented the effort as being primarily over medical marijuana. That's not the case; medical marijuana is already legal in the state. While Question 9 does have a medical marijuana element (it would make the state set up a marijuana distribution system for patients), it's only a small part of it.

But now that the question is on the ballot, that's moot.

"It would be unbecoming for us to sound off too early on whether this is a good law or a bad law," Sargent said, adding that the office could lobby the Legislature one way or another if the amendment is passed this year and in 2004, making it part of the state Constitution. If that happens, the 2005 Legislature would be mandated to make the appropriate changes to state law.

For now, the state's job is to make sure that the ballot language for Question 9 is as fair and noncontroversial as possible. Susan Morandi, a deputy secretary of state for elections, is finishing up a draft of that language. After her office signs off on the language, she said, the attorney general's office will take a gander. Any suggestions will be sent back to the Secretary of State's office, which will finalize the language and then send it to the county clerks to place on the November ballot. The language should be finalized by the first week of August, she said.

"It's very important to be able to make the language understandable and accurate so citizens are fully able to understand what [the initiative] is going to do," Morandi said.

This is important -- and potentially controversial. The language on several recent initiatives, including the medical marijuana initiative (in 1998 and 2000) and the so-called "Protection of Marriage" initiative (in 2000 and this year) has been called into question for fairness.

The Secretary of State's Office also went the extra mile to help fairly educate the public on the issue, recently holding televised public forums in Las Vegas and Reno (on July 23 and July 22 respectively).

Beyond the question language, the state's role now can be summed up in one word: wait. Wait and see if Question 9 passes. Wait and see what the federal law is in 2005, when the Legislature will have to deal with it if it does pass. (There are some whispers in Congress to make marijuana laws more of a state issue than a federal issue.)

"Lots of questions are unanswerable until this is passed, if it's passed," Morandi said.

It's gonna be close

All indications are that Question 9's fate will come down to the wire. A recent Las Vegas Review-Journal/Mason-Dixon poll showed that 44 percent of those queried supported the question, while 46 were opposed. The remainder was undecided.

That's close, folks.

Rogers, of Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement, thinks those results were a bit off. He accurately points out that the pollsters only mentioned that "possession of 3 ounces or less of marijuana by a person aged 21 or older [would not be] a cause for arrest," and that it did not mention that it would be illegal in public, to minors, and so on.

"We're doing much better than an even race right now," Rogers said, predicting that Question 9 would pass. He also promised that his group would "educate the public" on the issue between now and November. How, exactly, that "education" will be done will be determined closer to Labor Day, he said. Bet on an advertising/media campaign.

But there are also some problems that could hinder Question 9. One surfaced this week, when a group of Clark County prosecutors came forward to say the initiative could weaken DUI prosecutions, because the proposed amendment says that "driving dangerously" while under the influence of marijuana would be illegal. That one word, "dangerously," could let stoned drivers off the hook if they were pulled over for something non-dangerous, the prosecutors claim. And make no mistake about it -- one or two faulty words in a law can indeed create crippling loopholes.

Another potential Achilles' heel for Question 9 is the three-ounce provision. While Rogers has been brilliant at claiming that three ounces is a "small amount" of marijuana -- newspapers and TV, for the most part, have ignorantly gone along with this -- that's debatable. By Rogers' own admission, that's the equivalent of three to four packs of cigarettes, or 60-80 joints. (Some say that three ounces could make even more joints than that.) Considering that only the biggest stoners use pot more than once or twice a day, this is enough for weeks -- or even months -- for virtually all potheads.

When asked why the line was drawn at three ounces, Rogers said that's often the standard used by law enforcement on what is a small amount of pot (although an informal CityLife poll of stoners disagreed). However, in Nevada, that line has been set at one ounce.

In any case, the next three months are going to be quite interesting in the state. Expect a ton of rhetoric from both sides -- and expect a nailbiter come Election Day.

Over the last month and a half, they�ve been seemingly everywhere -- libraries, the DMV, meetings, etc. -- with their petitions and pens. This small army of clipboard-holding minions, some paid and some volunteers, has one goal: The legalization of marijuana in Nevada.

Not just medical marijuana -- that�s already legal as the result of a constitutional amendment overwhelmingly approved by voters in 1998 and 2000. This is the legalization of the use and possession of three ounces or less of marijuana by anybody 21 or older.

In other words, it could be 4:20 in Nevada 24/7 if this amendment gets enough signatures to make the ballot, and is then approved by voters this year and in 2004.

The folks behind this movement, a newly formed political action committee called Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement, were tight-lipped about their efforts before the June 18 signature submission deadline. Gail Tuzzolo, a paid political consultant heading up the PAC, said the group was too focused on getting enough signatures to talk to the media.

�We�re sort of doing our news blackout,� Tuzzolo said. �We�re not talking to the press. We�re working on getting all the signatures in.�

Bruce Mirken, the director of communications of the Marijuana Policy Project (the Washington, D.C.-based group behind Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement), was also quiet about the campaign.

�We�re in the process of getting signatures,� he said. �We�ll have a lot to say when it gets on the ballot. ... We�re not seeking coverage right now, because we�re seeking signatures.�

In defense of these folks, they did have their hands full. The group had to turn in at least 61,336 voters to the secretary of state -- that�s 10 percent of the total number of votes cast in the 2000 statewide election. Additionally, signatures representing 10 percent of the total of 2000 votes from 13 of the state�s 17 counties had to be be included. The group had only been collecting signatures since May 9. That�s a lot of John Hancocks in a short amount of time, and the group estimated they�ll need about 110,000 total signatures for enough of them to be valid.

Well, on June 18 that the group announced that it had filed more than 107,000 petition signatures with the state�s 17 county clerks. The group claimed it got more than 10 percent in 15 of the 17 counties, although the group submitted signatures in all 17 counties.

In other words, it could be close.

�We�re confident that we�ve collected enough signatures to qualify this initiative for the November ballot,� said NRLE spokesman Billy Rogers in a news release.

So now here�s what happens: The various counties will go through a signature verification process, and then report the results to the Secretary of State. This must be done by Aug. 7, according to the Secretary of State. If there are enough signatures, it will be placed on the general election ballot. If it passes, it will appear on the ballot again in 2004 (constitutional amendments must pass voters twice).

This process, of course, does not count potential court battles that could throw a wrench in things.

NRLE seems confident that the initiative, if presented to voters, will pass.

"Most Nevadans believe that people should not be arrested for possessing small amounts of marijuana," said Rogers in the release. "This initiative will allow the police to spend more time going after murderers, rapists and other violent criminals, rather than wasting valuable resources hunting down tens of thousands of nonviolent marijuana users."

So, what does this all mean? Let�s break it down. The initiative, if successful, would amend the Nevada Constitution to say the following:

� That the use or possession of three ounces or less of weed by anybody 21 or older would not be a �cause for arrest, civil or criminal penalty, or seizure or forfeiture of assets.� In other words, pot would be legal in the eyes of the state constitution.

� The state would have to develop �a system of regulation, designed to curb the unlawful production of marijuana, for the cultivation, taxation, sale, and distribution of marijuana ...�

� Advertising of pot would be illegal.

� Weed would be taxed similar to tobacco and cigarettes.

� It could not be used in cars or public places, and you could not be �driving dangerously� or operating heavy machinery while under the influence.

Of course, marijuana would still be illegal under federal law, opening a very interesting can of worms.

NRLE is painting the initiative primarily as something to help out medical marijuana users by instituting a system for distribution, and by making it so sick patients wouldn�t need a doctor�s permission to get the marijuana (many doctors have been weary to sign off on marijuana use, fearing the feds).

The petition drive comes two years after voters approved medical marijuana, and just months after the 2001 Legislature chilled out what was one of the nation�s toughest marijuana laws. Before, marijuana possession was a felony; now, in small amounts, it is simply a misdemeanor.

All of this is very interesting, but why Nevada? The Marijuana Policy Project has been willing to pay $1-$2 per signature and shell out big bucks for a consultant to get this measure on the ballot. Sure, Nevada�s relatively small size makes it easier to do this here than in, say, California. And it would set a nice precedent; if this ballot initiative passes muster, Nevada would become the first state to effectively give the finger to the feds in terms of marijuana laws. But beyond that, why choose Nevada for this groundbreaking move?

And what will the consequences be? Considering that George W. Bush and John Ashcroft are in office, what would they do to Nevada if this makes it through?

It�s all fun to speculate about, assuming the petition drive is successful. And that�s a moderately big �if� at this point.