So writes Jacob Sullum, in Reason's Hit & Run:
[T]he group opposing the [Nevada marijuana legalization] initiative is called the Committee to Keep Nevada Respectable. Gambling, prostitution, and 24-hour liquor sales are one thing, but pot smoking? That would really give the state a licentious reputation.
Sullum's post is actually primarily about a recent survey that shows surprising support for the initiative.
http://www.regulatemarijuana.org
"Someone dishonoring their marriage vows? Not in Las Vegas!"
To what extent can congress punitively strip NV of funds on the basis of this fact? There's nothing in the conditions enumerated in SOUTH DAKOTA v. DOLE, 483 U.S. 203 (1987) that would seem to restrict it (even worse, actually, since SD had the 21st amendment going for it).
I can't find any serious bar to congress passing a law stripping NV of all road and school aid if this passes (better still to pass it before the election).
Christ's Own Justice,
Learned Limb
Of course what are mere facts to a congressional finding
Look at I-80 - it goes through a few small towns in Nevada, but its primary purpose is as a link from California to SLC and on to the northern midwest.
Besides, Nevada is not only landlocked but completely surrounded by the rest of the U.S. Once the Feds impose an air blockade of the state (thus keeping out the tourists who drive a huge chunk of the state's economy), well, so much for secession.