Panel calls for softer laws on pot possession

A Nevada panel headed by Chief Justice Bob Rose is going to recommend reduced penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana and being under the influence of drugs.

The Judicial Assessment Commission of the Nevada Supreme Court made the same recommendation five years ago, but the Legislature didn't buy it.

Nevada has one of the nation's toughest laws on marijuana possession, making it a felony punishable by prison time. The recommendation from the commission is to make it a misdemeanor, which carries a maximum of six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

The recommendation is to bring Nevada law ''in line with the other 49'' states - ''a more realistic penalty,'' Rose said.

Rose said Tuesday the 40-member commission's final report will be out in September. Half of the commission members are judges and lawyers, the other half lay persons.

Judicial officials point out that many cases of possession of 4 ounces or less of marijuana are reduced to misdemeanors in Clark and Washoe counties but are prosecuted to the fullest extent in rural Nevada.

The commission also recommended the penalty for a person who uses or is under the influence of a controlled substance be lowered from a felony to a misdemeanor. Under current law, a person who drives while under the influence of drugs is charged with a misdemeanor. But people who walk down the street while high on drugs can be charged with a felony.

The commission also recommended minor traffic offenses be decriminalized from misdemeanors to civil offenses. That would clear the court calendars to hear more serious offenses, the panel reasoned.

The commission also plans to encourage Gov. Kenny Guinn to pump more money into mental health programs. Commission members reason that mentally ill people are clogging the courts, because Nevada does not have an adequate mental health system to deal with them.

The panel also suggested a major change in the way Nevada elects judges. Vacant judicial seats would be filled by a regular election. But sitting judges would face re-election with no opponents. Voters would simply decide whether to retain or bounce the judges from office. All judges now can face opponents in every election.