Scroll to the very bottom. http://sos.state.nv.us/nvelect....33 It passed with 65.2% of the vote. 381,947 votes in all. Be happy people, there is hope for all of us in the states!
2." target="_blank">http://www.nrle.org/initiative.html 2. The use or possession of three ounces or less of marijuana by a person who has attained the age of 21 years is not cause for arrest, civil or criminal penalty, or seizure or forfeiture of assets. (2) A person who has attained the age of 21 years may purchase marijuana from licensed establishments. Basically the parts which apply to medical users mean that the government has to help them out. I guess recreational users are on their own (no free pot from the gov), but hey at least it will be legal! This is extremely encouraging... (Edited by CobraII at 11:27 pm on Nov. 5, 2002)
After reading this I wouldnt want to get busted for weed till 2005 in Vegas. A proscuter could still bring charges for possesion up till 2005. 6. Any statute or regulation inconsistent with this section is null and void after January 1, 2005.
Awesome! the U.S. has finally taken its first steps towards a more liberal laws on marijuana, i hope more states will soon follow. i am so happy right now
Ya, I am hoping it will have a domino effect... to where other states will adopt the same kind of tolerance.
i guess that will depend on how the new laws will effect Nevada, if its for the better i am sure that other states will consider it
hey guys ive heard on the news and also read on the high times site that it did not pass in fact heres the article from high times... In a sharp rebuff of the drug-reform movement, Nevada voters refused Tuesday to make their state the first to legalize possession of marijuana, and reform measures also failed in Ohio and Arizona. Federal and state law enforcement officials opposed the Nevada measure, which would have legalized possession of up to 3 ounces of pot. The Arizona proposal would have downgraded marijuana possession to the equivalent of a traffic violation, while the Ohio measure would have forced judges to order treatment instead of jail for many drug offenders. The results in Nevada, Arizona and Ohio were a blow for a national alliance of drug reformers, including billionaire New York financier George Soros. In recent elections, voters in several states had approved use of marijuana for medical purposes, and treatment-instead-of-jail proposals were approved in Arizona in 1996 and California two years ago. But in Ohio, Gov. Robert Taft and most of the criminal justice establishment campaigned vigorously against the proposal. In Nevada, authorities warned that legalizing pot could wreak havoc, and some voters agreed. "It would be a mess," said Peaches Johnson of Las Vegas. "It's permission to get high." In South Dakota, voters heeded the urgings of politicians and judges, and defeated a proposal -- backed by drug reformers and others -- that would have allowed defendants to tell juries they could disregard a law if they don't like it.
BALLOT QUESTION 9 Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to allow the possession and use of a plant of the genus Cannabis (marijuana) for the treatment or alleviation of certain illnesses upon advice of a physician, to require parental consent for such use by minors, and to authorize appropriate methods of supply to patients authorized to use it? % of Vote Total Votes YES 65.2% 381947 NO 34.5% 202211 So what the hell is this??? Propaganda? False info? This is pulled directly from http://sos.state.nv.us/nvelect....gid=133 WTF is going on??? (Edited by FatNasty at 1:03 pm on Nov. 6, 2002)
well best i can figure is that they both are right if you read the ballot and salt lake trib the ballot says for doctors to prescribe cannabis meaning you would have to have a prescription for it and the salt lake trib talks about the possesion of 3 oz or less which would have went for ne one on the street which did not pass so it probably never got on the ballot ... thats all i can figure
So if question 9 is on med. pot, then what ballot pertains to the 3 oz. or less law, and why doesn't it show up on that site? (Edited by FatNasty at 1:29 pm on Nov. 6, 2002)
ok heres what i found on the nevada ballot it reads nuthin like the one he posted reads Question 9 - Amendment to the Nevada Constitution [Regulation of Marijuana] Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to allow the use and possession of three ounces or less of marijuana by persons aged 21 years or older, to require the Legislature to provide or maintain penalties for using, distributing, selling or possessing marijuana under certain circumstances, and to provide a system of regulation for the cultivation, taxation, sale and distribution of marijuana? Vote: YES or NO More Information: Ballot Questions [Official Washoe County site] Initiative Petition (PDF file requires Adobe Acrobat Reader) Pro/Con: A Guide to Drug-Related State Ballot Initiatives Pro/Con: Zepher: Pot in my Backyard [univ. of Nevada, Reno, Reynolds School of Journalism] Pro: Cannabis News: Nevada should Back Question 9 Pro: Nevadans for Responsible Law Enforcement Con: Nevada Attorney General Against Question 9 Con: DEA Speaks Out Against Legalization this info was taken from this site http://nevadavotes.unr.edu/races/state/ballotquestions.html
and yet a very detaialed version long but may explain whats goin on QUESTION NO. 9 Amendment to the Nevada Constitution An Initiative relating to the use and possession of up to three ounces of marijuana, the distribution of marijuana, and other matters related thereto. CONDENSATION (ballot question) Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to allow the use and possession of three ounces or less of marijuana by persons aged 21 years or older, to require the Legislature to provide or maintain penalties for using, distributing, selling or possessing marijuana under certain circumstances, and to provide a system of regulation for the cultivation, taxation, sale and distribution of marijuana? Yes¡¡¡¡¡¡õ No¡¡¡¡¡.¡õ EXPLANATION The proposed amendment to the Nevada Constitution would amend sections of the Nevada Constitution that currently authorize the use of marijuana for medical purposes. The proposed amendment would allow any persons who has attained the age of 21 years to use or possess three ounces or less of marijuana without being subject to arrest, civil or criminal penalty or seizure, or forfeiture of assets. The constitutional amendment also requires the Legislature to provide or maintain penalties for driving dangerously or operating heavy machinery while under the influence of marijuana; for distributing or selling marijuana to persons under age 21 years; for persons under the age of 21 years using and possessing marijuana; for using marijuana in a vehicle or public place; and for distributing, selling, using or possessing marijuana on the premises of a jail, prison, or public school. The proposal also requires establishment of a system of regulation for the cultivation, taxation, sale and distribution of marijuana, including the distribution of marijuana at low cost to those medically authorized to use it. Under this system, all advertising of marijuana is prohibited. The purchase of marijuana from licensed establishments is authorized under this proposal. The transportation of marijuana in or out of state is prohibited unless federal law permits such transport. The license fees and taxes at wholesale are proposed to be the same as those for cigarettes and tobacco related products, respectively. The retail sales tax for marijuana is proposed to be the same as those of other products generally. ARGUMENTS FOR PASSAGE Proponents of the proposal argue that it is a waste of tax dollars to arrest people for small amounts of marijuana, and, if passed, this proposal will allow law enforcement and the courts to focus resources on more serious crimes. Proponents further argue that marijuana has fewer harmful side effects than alcohol and tobacco, which are already legal and regulated by the state. Proponents argue that the system of regulation and taxation required by the proposed amendment could potentially generate substantial tax revenues for the state of Nevada, including additional tax dollars to cover the costs to establish the program. In addition, state control of distribution may replace the current illegal market for marijuana. Medical marijuana is legal now in Nevada and this proposed constitutional amendment would require the Legislature to authorize appropriate methods of supply and distribution of marijuana for medical purposes at a low cost to patients authorized to use or possess it. Proponents argue that this would allow seriously ill patients who may not otherwise be able to afford medical marijuana to enjoy the medical benefits of marijuana. Finally, proponents argue that the requirement that penalties still be imposed for the irresponsible use of marijuana, such as in vehicles or public places or by those under the age of 21 years, including the distribution or sale to such minors, strikes the appropriate balance between legalization and prohibition. A "Yes" vote would amend the Nevada Constitution to allow the legal use and possession of three ounces or less of marijuana by persons 21 years of age or older, while requiring penalties for misuse and the establishment of a system of regulation, for the cultivation, taxation, sale, and distribution. ARGUMENTS AGAINST PASSAGE Opponents of the proposal argue that marijuana is a "gateway" drug. Decriminalization will increase the number of marijuana users who will likely move on to "harder drugs" like heroine or cocaine. Opponents argue that it is not appropriate to amend the Nevada Constitution to create a right to use and possess marijuana and note that Nevada law already allows for the medical use of marijuana. Opponents argue that any savings resulting from the refocusing of law enforcement resources will be outweighed by increased health costs similar to those resulting from tobacco use. The increased tax revenues for the state will similarly be outweighed by the cost to establish and run another state agency to regulate the cultivation, sale, taxation and distribution of marijuana to authorized persons. According to opponents, decriminalizing possession and use of three ounces or less serves no purpose other than to further a political agenda to legalize all drugs. Opponents argue that decriminalization will lead to more crime, more substance abuse and more citizens of this state who are addicted to marijuana and other controlled substances. Because of this increased negative effect, the tourism industry in Nevada will be negatively impacted, as Nevada will become the nation¡¯s marketplace for drug sale and usage. In addition, opponents argue that because production and distribution of marijuana would still be illegal under current federal law, effective regulation will be impossible to enact and enforce. A "No" vote would not amend the Nevada Constitution to allow the legal use and possession of three ounces or less of marijuana by persons 21 years of age or older, nor require penalties for misuse or the establishment of a system of regulation for the cultivation, taxation, sale, and distribution. FISCAL NOTE Financial Impact¡ªNo adverse fiscal impact. FULL TEXT OF THE MEASURE Section 1. Section 38 of Article 4 of the Constitution of the State of Nevada is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 38. Use of [plant of genus Cannabis] marijuana for medical purposes [.] and regulation of marijuana. 1. As used in this section, "marijuana" means a plant of the genus Cannabis or its product. 2. The use or possession of three ounces or less of marijuana by a person who has attained the age of 21 years is not cause for arrest, civil or criminal penalty, or seizure or forfeiture of assets. 3. The legislature shall provide or maintain penalties for: (a) Driving dangerously, or operating heavy machinery, while under the influence of marijuana. (b) The distribution or sale of marijuana to, and the possession or use of marijuana by, persons who have not attained the age of 21 years. © The smoking of marijuana in a vehicle or public place, including a publicly operated carrier of passengers, a public park, or a place where gaming is permitted. (d) The distribution, sale, possession, or use of marijuana on the premises of a jail, prison, or public school. [1] 4. The legislature shall provide by law for: (a) The use of marijuana by a patient, upon the advice of his physician, [of a plant of the genus Cannabis] for the treatment or alleviation of cancer, glaucoma, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome; severe, persistent nausea [of] or cachexia resulting from these or other chronic or debilitating medical conditions; epilepsy and other disorders characterized by seizure; multiple sclerosis and other disorders characterized by muscular spasticity; or other conditions approved pursuant to law for such treatment. (b) Restriction of the medical use of [the plant] marijuana by a minor to require diagnosis and written authorization by a physician, parental consent, and parental control of the acquisition and use of [the plant] marijuana. © Protection of [the plant] marijuana and property related to its use from forfeiture except upon conviction or plea of guilty or nolo contendere for possession or use not authorized by or pursuant to this section. (d) A registry of patients, and their attendants, who are authorized to use [the plant] marijuana for a medical purpose, to which law enforcement officers may resort to verify a claim of authorization and which is otherwise confidential. (e) Authorization of appropriate methods for supply of [the plant] marijuana to patients authorized to use it [.] and for the distribution of marijuana at low cost to those patients. (f) A system of regulation, designed to curb the unlawful production of or trafficking in marijuana, for the cultivation, taxation, sale, and distribution of marijuana to persons authorized under this section to use or possess it, under which: (1) All advertising of marijuana through television, radio, newspapers, magazines, or billboards is prohibited. (2) A person who has attained the age of 21 years may purchase marijuana from licensed establishments. (3) The license fees at wholesale and retail are the same for marijuana as for cigarettes, the tax for sale at wholesale are the same for marijuana as for tobacco products other than cigarettes, and the tax for sale of marijuana at retail is the same as the combined taxes on sales at retail of other products generally. (4) The transport of marijuana into or out of this state is prohibited unless federal law permits such transport. [2] 5. This section does not [: (a) Authorize the use or possession of the plant for a purpose other than medical or use for a medical purpose in public. (b)] require reimbursement by an insurer for medical use of [the plant] marijuana or accommodation of [medical] any use, possession, or being under the influence of marijuana in a place of employment. 6. Any statute or regulation inconsistent with this section is null and void after January 1, 2005.
ok heres the deal for all you that think the voters won on the question # 9 yesterday ... they did not win the stuff that is posted this here BALLOT QUESTION 9 Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to allow the possession and use of a plant of the genus Cannabis (marijuana) for the treatment or alleviation of certain illnesses upon advice of a physician, to require parental consent for such use by minors, and to authorize appropriate methods of supply to patients authorized to use it? % of Vote Total Votes YES 65.2% 381947 NO 34.5% 202211 taken from this site if all you will look at the top of the page u will see that this vote was taken in the year 2000 .... 2 years ago it did get passed legalized mary jane use for people with prescriptions ok http://sos.state.nv.us/nvelect....gid=133 now the other post i made shows what was on the ballot for this year AND IT DID NOT GET VOTED ITN IT DIDNT PASS SO ITS STILL LEGAL FOR PEOPLE WITH PRESCRIPTIONS TO USE MARY JANE BUT THE ONE THAT WAS ONE THE BALLOT THIS YEAR WAS FOR NE ONE OVER THE AGE OF 21 TO BE ABLE TO BUY POT LEGALLY SO I HOPE THIS CLARIFIES ALL THESE DESCREPENCIES
didnt pass (Edited" target="_blank">http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho....(Edited by The Dawg at 3:14 pm on Nov. 6, 2002)
BULL. ****. They are talking about exit polls and that bullshit. Take a look at the OFFICIAL RESULTS and think for yourself. It says it passed by 65.2% It does not list all the details, go here: I" target="_blank">http://www.nrle.org/initiative.html I think they may be doing some sort of cover up. Look here: http://sos.state.nv.us/nvelect....gid=133 OFFICIAL RESULTS Then look here: http://sos.state.nv.us/statefed.html UNofficial results WHAT THE ****!!!!!!!!!
