Voters approaching the statewide questions on the Nov. 7 ballot should have an easy time remembering how to vote: No, no and no.
No. 1 asks Nevada residents to amend the state's constitution to allow the investment of state money in private companies.
While proponents argue that it will give the state some flexibility to attract jobs, we're steadfastly opposed to the use of the state's money for private industry.
If it's a sound investment, then let a bank put up the capital. The state's elected officials shouldn't even be asked to make those kinds of decisions.
No. 2 seeks to amend the constitution to recognize "only a marriage between male and female person."
Why are we voting on this? State law already defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, and federal law prevents states from being forced to recognize same-sex marriages in other states.
The only purpose of this campaign has been to muster anti-gay sentiment, and we think it has actually done the opposite. Perhaps Nevada needs to deal with this issue, but the best message voters can give to this approach is to turn it down soundly.
Question No. 9 marks the return of the "medical marijuana" issue and may well be approved by voters again.
Neverthless, we continue to urge a no vote. If Question 9 is approved, it's going to create conflicts between Nevada and federal law, just as medical marijuana has done in California.
While the anecdotal evidence of marijuana's benefits to relieve pain in cancer victims, for example, is plentiful, the scientific evidence is not. If the scientific case is proven, the federal Food and Drug Administration can allow doctors to prescribe it.
A Nevada amendment that allows marijuana use "upon advice of a physician" and calls for "appropriate methods of supply" is just too loosely worded to make us believe it isn't a back-door way to ease Nevada's tough pot laws.
When it comes to statewide ballot questions, just say no.
