Petition for redress still ignored after all these years

Forget Social Security; it's marijuana that's the real third rail in American politics.

While politicians are becoming increasingly willing to talk about the reform (or, more realistically, the dismantling) of Social Security, finding one willing to talk about marijuana legalization is much more difficult.

Even when the topic is the more acceptable medical marijuana, elected officials are skittish. They fear being labeled pro-drug during their future campaigns.

They shouldn't be. The voters have already given them permission - not just to talk about it, but to do something about it. But that permission has been ignored for more than a decade.

In 1998 and 2000, voters passed Question 9, which amended the state constitution to provide for medical marijuana in Nevada. Part of that initiative, now embedded in the constitution itself, was this line: "The Legislature shall provide for ... authorization of appropriate methods for supply of the plant to patients authorized to use it."

So not only are the voters not as skittish as their elected leaders on the issue, they flatly ordered the Legislature to provide the plant to patients authorized to have it.

In 2011 Legislature, term-limited state Sen. Mike Schneider introduced a bill that would have allowed certain pharmacies to provide marijuana to duly authorized patients. But that bill died after bouncing around several Senate committees. At least two other similar bills in the Assembly died in committee as well.

What can voters do? After the Legislature refused to act on marijuana - the possession of any amount of which at one time was a felony in this state - they petitioned the government for a redress of grievances. Their petition passed, but their lawmakers have ignored it.

"I haven't personally received encouragement from voters to act upon that portion of the constitution," said Assembly Minority Leader Pat Hickey, R-Reno, one of the few lawmakers brave enough to chat about the issue. Hickey said he sees the wisdom in diverting drug users from Nevada prisons into treatment - so long as they aren't trafficking or committing other related crimes - but not in expanding the medical marijuana program.

And legalizing marijuana outright, both to raise tax money and empty prison cells of non-violent offenders? Hickey says he's against it. "I'm not interested in taking the lead to decriminalize so that we can tax," he said.

Don't look for strong leadership from the political parties, either, unless you're talking about the Libertarians. The Clark County Republican Party's one-page platform (it's the 2010 version; the convention didn't approve an updated platform this year) makes no mention of marijuana.

The Clark County Democratic Party's platform not only embraces the idea of medical marijuana, it also supports the regulation and taxation of marijuana and the decriminalization of all drug use. Too bad no elected officials are going to embrace - let alone campaign on - those planks.

Incoming Senate Democratic leader Mo Denis of Las Vegas says the budget, education and economic development are higher priorities than medical marijuana. "I don't think that's going to be at the top of anybody's agenda," he said.

It appears the only hope that the will of the voters will be recognized rests with the courts; District Judge Donald Mosley held that the state's ridiculous approach to medical marijuana - it's legal, but there's no legal way to purchase it - is unconstitutional. That case is being appealed to the state Supreme Court, which ought to issue a writ of mandate compelling the Legislature to do the job the voters instructed it to do back in 2000.

The final irony that shows how politically sensitive the issue is? Mosley, an elected judge, issued his ruling on his very last day on the bench, just before he retired.

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter (@SteveSebelius) or reach him at (702) 387-5276 or ssebelius@reviewjournal.com.