Call it Operation Desert Smoke, aka the war to legalize marijuana in Nevada. A war, pardon the cliché, for hearts and minds. A battle of words, concepts and alliances built on common values. A war in which the Internet, as history's most potent vehicle for disseminating "facts" – true or otherwise – has become a significant weapon.

"Information is always the enemy of stupidity and prejudice," says Bruce Mirken, director of communications for the Marijuana Policy Project, which is providing organizational support and funding for the Nevada initiative. "The Net has played a substantial role in undermining (marijuana) prohibition."

"Is it possible that glittering websites offering what may be very biased perspectives regarding marijuana are having an impact on the decriminalization/legalization movement? Sure," retorts Howard Simon, deputy director of public affairs for the Partnership for a Drug-Free America. "Is it certain that's the cause? No. There was a widespread decriminalization movement in the 1970s which led to several states reducing penalties associated with marijuana.... It would be hard to argue that had anything to do with the Internet.

"Still, one can't discount the possible influence of the Internet in spreading a pro-drug message – or the 'nothing's working in the fight against drugs' message that too often goes hand in hand with it. Of course, that latter message isn't biased; it's just wrong."

Anti-marijuana crusaders in the Illinois legislature are so convinced that the Internet is impeding noxious-weed-abatement efforts they've twice introduced bills to make it illegal to transmit information about marijuana over the Net. Had it not been defeated, the 2002 bill would have criminalized posting information about using or growing marijuana to websites, newsgroups, message boards, mailing lists and chat rooms.

Make no mistake, the measure on Nevada's November ballot is more about what Simon would call legalization than decriminalization. Decriminalization measures aim at reducing penalties or exempting a "special-interest" group from current laws. The Nevada bill would treat marijuana in much the same way as tobacco and alcohol. Possession (of up to three ounces) and use would be legal for adults, but not minors. Driving under the influence would be illegal and, as is increasingly the case with tobacco, smoking pot in most public places would be prohibited.

Most important, the initiative, which would have to be passed twice in two general elections to amend the state's constitution, would direct the legislature to establish a system for the sale and taxation of marijuana. This would make Nevada the only state giving black-thumbed citizens the same legal access to getting high as world-class gardeners.

Surprisingly, this ultra-radical (or, according to its supporters, ultra-rational) proposal is supported by the state's largest newspaper, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and the state's largest law-enforcement organization, the Nevada Conference of Police and Sheriffs.

With the most recent polls indicating the vote would end in a draw if held today, the MPP's Mirken is looking toward the Internet to help persuade "undecideds."

"When you are in opposition to a dominant policy, it forces you to be more creative," he says. "The Internet allows us to do huge amounts of grassroots organizing instantly, a key advantage as we head toward November."

Prior to 2000, Nevadans could draw a multi-year prison sentence for possession of one marijuana cigarette. Voters passed a medical-marijuana decriminalization bill in 2000, and the 2001 legislature eliminated incarceration as a penalty for possession of less than one ounce by first- or second-time adult offenders.