Ack! The graphic is messing up the layout of your site. I'm distressed when large-ish images destroy layout! DISTRESS!!!

Also, you should link the image to the site, I was utterly confused when I clicked on it and went nowhere.

Utterly.

i was scoping out the page - why does the initiative basically limit the legal amount you can have to an ounce?

Hey, real question here: legalizing marijuana under Nevada law does nothing to change the federal government's laws on controlled substances, correct? So, even if this were to pass, you could still be arrested and charged on possession under federal statute, if not on state statute, right? I suppose the state can tell its employees not to bother arresting people with pot, but it's not like you'd be able to set up a marijuana storefront, because the federal agents would shut you down. Right?

Maybe I'm not entirely clear on the point... is this meant as more of a symbolic gesture, or will this make clear changes in the way the state will approach drug users and how drug users can behave within the state?

What are the polling numbers like? Does this look like it has a chance of passing?

Any comments I make here represent my own views, and not necessarily of the campaign.

1) 1oz. -- I wasn't part of CRCM when the initiative was crafted, but my guess is that the limit was put in place so that the distribution of marijuana can be controlled. Part of the initiative is to limit the distribution and sale of marijuana to licensed establishments (which can't be convenience stores, casinos, gas stations, etc.). If people could possess as much marijuana as they wanted, it would be much easier to go around the legal places of distribution.

2) MPP's answer is pretty good: http://www.mpp.org/raich/. I'm also under the impression that a very small (~1%?) percentage of marijuana arrests involves federal authorities. Do you think the federal government is going to spend millions of dollars to increase federal enforcement to go after casual users of marijuana in Nevada? Stores are a different ball game, yes, but I'm pretty sure the medical marijuana establishments in California are still all in business, even after Gonzales v. Raich. There's still a risk, sure, but many people believe very strongly in the kind of marijuana policy we're talking about, and are willing to take risks to further the policy.

Also, feel free to take these questions to the CRCM blog. You might get responses from more knowledgable people.

when using firefox v. 1.0(.0) from a computer running redhat 9, I can't see that page. I don't know how much you care about the fringe group of linux users who use outdated redhat with outdated firefox, but there ya go.

You can't see anything or it displays improperly? I'm quite surprised, since Firefox 1.0 is mostly standard compliant.

i get an empty frame. when i look at the site with firefox 1.5 on mac running tiger, there is an empty frame for a second or two and then the page loads all at once.

by the way, does the penalty doubling for dui apply to alcohol only, alcohol and marijuana, or just marijuana? And in the latter two cases, is there a reliable way to gauge the level of intoxication of marijuana? Or even a proposed legal limit?

ah, sounds like forwarding isn't working for some reason. try www.regulatemarijuana.org/home.

it applies to all DUI, i believe. there are reliable ways to guage marijuana toxicity, but they aren't as easy as a breathalizer test. i'm unsure about legal limits.

here's something to think about: is there a reliable way to detect if someone is driving after downing half of a bottle of prescription medicine? what about after staying awake for over 50 hours?

"ah, sounds like forwarding isn’t working for some reason. try www.regulatemarijuana.org/home."

Except, you know, without that period in there. Try this: www.regulatemarijuana.org/home/

Har har, I got it wrong too.

One more time:

http://www.regulatemarijuana.org/home/