Interview with Neal Levine, Campaign Manager for Yes on Question 7
I have plenty of my own thoughts on Question 7, but I wanted to give people an opportunity to get the thoughts of an expert on the matter. The following is my interview with Neal Levine. I would also like to thank Mr. Levine, who took time out of his busy schedule to speak with me. I would also like to thank the Anon Guy for the 10 question interview idea. You can visit the Yes on Question 7 website here.
1. A lot of people think this is about a bunch of pot heads trying
tolegitimize their drug culture. What do you say to that?
I think that's both derogatory and silly. I don't personally use marijuana, I'm happily married to a wonderful woman who happens to be an RN and detests all drug use, and we're both proud parents of an amazing son. Not exactly the poster child for the "drug culture." I just happen to believe that our marijuana policy is awful. It's a tremendous waste of resources, and it puts a lot of people into the criminal justice system that probably don't need to be there. Last year in Nevada, almost 10,000 violent crimes (nearly two-thirds of all violent crimes) went unsolved. Meanwhile, Nevada spent $42 million on marijuana prohibition and arrested nearly 5,000 people for the simple possession of marijuana. Meanwhile, marijuana use continues unabated, and all of the money goes to violent gangs and drug dealer. I think that's outrageous. Question 7 is a sensible, moderate proposal that replaces a very bad policy with a pragmatic one.
2. Todd Raybuck, your biggest opponent and a Las Vegas police officer, says the passing of question 7 will embolden drug dealers. I know you don't agree. Can you tell me why?
I don't agree because I have yet to see one example of where a criminal market is able to successfully compete against a legally regulated one. I don't see people selling beer on street corners.
3. Marijuana is still against federal law. Some people think if question 7 passes, it will just open marijuana smokers up to harrassment from the federal government, like what has happened in California with medical marijuana. Do you anticipate this and do you have a plan in place to counter it?
I can't imagine a scenario where the feds would be harassing individualNevadans. They just don't have the manpower. Ninety-nine percent of allmarijuana arrests happen at the state and local level, which is why medical marijuana laws have been effective in protecting patients fromarrest. You mention California, but Proposition 215 -- that state'smedical marijuana law -- passed a decade ago and there are hundreds ofmedical marijuana dispensaries up and operating there today. The feds have not stomped them out, and they were powerless to stop the law from going into effect.
Regardless, it is fully within our state's right to adopt our own marijuana laws. When Nevada was voting on a medical marijuana law in 1998 and 2000, the federal government threatened to shut down the program if it passed. Almost six years later, Nevada's medical marijuana program is alive and well and serving over 1,500 patients -- and the federal government hasn't interfered yet. Nor has the federal government acted to stop the Nevada Board of Pharmacy's Canadian Drug Program, which clearly violates federal law.
Quite frankly, considering the fact that Washington can only check 5% ofthe containers coming into this country, cannot secure our borders, oreven clean up after a hurricane, I would hope they have better things to do than go after Nevadans abiding by state law.
4. If question 7 passes, Nevada will be the first state to legalize marijuana. Therefore, we don't have much evidence to predict how legalization will truely play out.There are other countries which have legalized marijuana. Do you have some statistics or evidence from othercountries showing changes in crime rates, total number of users, and suchafter legalization?
We're not talking about free-for-all marijuana availability -- the free-for-all is what's happening right now in the criminal market in Nevada. Question 7 proposes a system of strict regulation, control, and taxation, to take marijuana out of the hands of violent gangs and drugdealers and focus our law enforcement resources on violent crimes instead.
Contrary to the opposition's claims, this is not a radical concept: Twelve states, including Nevada, have passed laws to reduce criminal penalties onthe use of marijuana. Nevada and ten other states have also passed laws to make marijuana medically available to seriously ill people who have the approval of their doctors.
As for statistics, let's talk about Nevada: under the current system of marijuana prohibition, the White House Office of National Drug ControlPolicy states that nearly half of Nevada's high school seniors admit tohaving tried marijuana, while one in five admit to using it habitually. In contrast, in The Netherlands -- a nation that has reformed its marijuana laws -- only 28% of teens have tried it, according to the Center for DrugResearch. In 2004, the United Kingdom dramatically eased penalties on marijuana use, and this year the nation recorded its lowest percentage of marijuana use in a decade -- including among 16- to 24-year-olds.
5. Many people say that marijuana is a gateway drug and question 7 will open the flood gates of new drug users. Do you agree? Why or why not?
The "gateway theory" is just a myth made up by prohibitionists to attempt to justify why something that is safer than alcohol is illegal. Let's lookat the numbers: The 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health estimatesthat the number of Americans who have used marijuana is between 95 and 100 million. If the "gateway theory" were true, we would have tens of millions of cocaine and heroin users in our country. However, according tothe U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 5.3 million people haveused cocaine and 2.78 million have used heroin. An Institute of Medicine report from 1999 -- funded by the federal government --found, "There is no evidence that marijuana serves as a stepping stone on the basis of its particular physiological effect ... It does not appear to be a gateway drug to the extent that it is the cause or even that it is the most significant predictor of serious drug abuse." And according to a recentstudy commissioned by the British Parliament, "the gateway theory haslittle evidence to support it despite copious research."
To put it another way, if you tell me a heroin or meth addict has used marijuana, that's not surprising. But the vast majority of people who use marijuana simply do not move on to harder drugs. That's a cold, hard fact.That's another reason why I say that "gateway" is a myth. Lots of peoplehave lots of personal experience with a loved one who has fallen into thecycle of addiction, so "gateway" can seem true to them on a person level. But addiction is a very complicated thing, with lots of contributing factors. It is not nearly as black and white as proponents of the "gateway theory" would have us believe.
Regarding Question 7 specifically, 50% of the tax revenue generated by the initiative is dedicated to drug and alcohol education and treatment,Question 7 doubles the penalty to anyone who gives or sells marijuana to aminor and institute a strict "We Card" system, where anyone under the age of 21 is not allowed into any establishment that sells marijuana, muchless buy it. Marijuana sales are also specifically forbidden in any place that sells alcohol or permits gaming, and for good measure, Question 7 specifically bans the sale of marijuana in grocery stores, convenience stores and night clubs. This is far more pragmatic than the current free-for-all, criminal market for marijuana in Nevada.
6. How much tax revenue do you project question 7 will bring to Nevada?
Question 7 requires that adults who use marijuana legally in the
privacy of their homes obtain it from legally regulated businesses,
thereby generating tax revenues for the state instead of profits for drug dealers.
According to a study released by the University of Nevada at Las Vegas in 2002, regulating marijuana in our state would generate at least $28.6 million in annual tax revenues. Question 7 earmarks half of this money for drug and alcohol education and rehabilitation programs, which currently receive only $13.5 million annually from the state's general fund.
7. Will question 7 encourage more kids to try marijuana?
Question 7 does not make it easier for teens to get marijuana, and it does not send the wrong message to children. It’s a fact that our current laws don’t work. Right now, anyone who wants marijuana can get it -- no matter how young they are. Under the current system of prohibition, 86% of high school seniors admit to the federal government that they find marijuana easy to obtain... a figure that has remained nearly constant over the past 30 years. Like I've said, here in Nevada, nearly half of high school seniors admit to having tried marijuana, and one in five admit to using it habitually.
Under Question 7, we'll know who is selling marijuana and whom they’reselling it to. You’d haveto be an adult aged 21 or older with a valid ID to even enter retail establishments that sell marijuana. Also, Question 7 would prohibit any establishment from being within 500 feet of a school --and it doubles the penalty for giving or selling marijuana to a minor. According to former Attorney General Brian Sandoval, the State of Nevadahas undeniably succeeded in reducing teen smoking through the "We Card"program. There is no reason to think that a similar -- and even more restrictive -- program for marijuana would not have similar success. Drug dealers don’t card.
8. If question 7 passes, do you expect a lengthy court battle?
The people of Nevada are wholly within their right to pass this law, and both candidates for state Attorney General -- Don Chairez and Catherine Cortez Masto -- have stated that they'll support and enforce the will ofNevada's voters if that will is ever challenged.
9. There has recently been a shift in support for legalization among conservatives. More and more conservatives are begining to support legalization? To what do you attribute this shift?
We're a non-partisan campaign and we're proud to have support from throughout the political spectrum, but many conservatives are especially angry at the cost of marijuana prohibition and the lack of results in the war on marijuana. A 2005 study endorsed by Milton Friedman, a recognized conservative, and more than 530 other distinguished economists found that our nation spends $7.7 billion annually on marijuana prohibition.
Here in Nevada, we're spending $42 million to arrest nearly 5,000 people for the simple possession of marijuana, while two-thirds of our state's most violent crimes are going unsolved. Yet the U.S. Justice Department's 2006 National Drug Threat Assessment report states that "marijuana availability is high and stable or increasing slightly." Our marijuana laws don't work, and Question 7 is a sensible alternative that people of all walks of life in Nevada are supporting.
10. Is there anything I missed you would like to add?
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the initiative, and I urge the people of Nevada to fix our state's broken marijuana laws by voting yes on Question 7 on November 7.
posted by Todd Zuccato @ 9:04 AM
5 comments
