We at Various Things & Stuff are not lawyers. In fact, we don’t even play lawyers on TV. But even we are suspicious of Attorney General George Chanos’ legal opinion that the importation of prescription drugs from Canada is illegal.

It seems to us that Chanos relies on a highly technical interpretation of the law, known as Senate Bill 5, which stipulates that the state can maintain a website that shows Nevadans how to buy cheaper prescription drugs from Canadian pharmacies that have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

According to the Chanos opinion, that means the drugs “for which application has been properly made and which have successfully passed the FDA review process and have been awarded approval by the FDA.” Clear so far? Because here’s where it gets messy:

Chanos, relying apparently upon a legal interpretation sought from the FDA by pharmaceutical companies, maintains that FDA approval extends even to the packaging and labeling of the drugs, not just to the chemical compounds that make up the drugs. Since Canadian drugs may differ in packaging, they’re no longer “FDA-approved” drugs, or so the line of Chanos reasoning goes.

Objection, your honor! That appears to be bullshit to us! (We know, that’s not a formal legal objection, but still.)

And we at Various Things & Stuff can produce witnesses — courtesy of the Review-Journal, who agree with us: One’s a doctor. One’s a lawyer. And both are lawmakers who helped pass the bill.

“This does a great disservice to people on fixed incomes and low to moderate incomes to get the drugs they need for basic survival,” says state Sen. (and Dr.) Joe Heck, a Las Vegas Republican. “It truly takes the drugs out of the people’s possession out of a technicality and not because it is in the best interests of public health.”

“My opinion is that ultimately common sense is going to prevail over special interests. There is not reason why this program should not go forward,” says Assembly Majority Leader (and attorney) Barbara Buckley, a Las Vegas Democrat.

Want more? Staff lawyers also agree that “FDA approved” should refer only to the chemical compound of the drug, and not necessarily the packaging. (Disclaimers: First, staff lawyers to the Legislature are often wrong, since they pretty much say whatever lawmakers want them to say. Second, just because the FDA approves a drug doesn’t make it safe anyway, as users of Vioxx would attest, if they were still alive and not dead due to heart problems allegedly caused by the drug.)

But Chanos, channeling pharmaceutical companies, is steadfast in his views: “I am absolutely convinced there is no question that we have arrived at the correct conclusion. I am fully comfortable with our legal analysis,” he said.

Oh, c’mon, Mr. Attorney General: There’s certainly a question about whether you’re right or not, and we highly suspect that you’re not.

In any case, as Buckley notes (in not so many words) an AG opinion and $4 will get you a nice venti latte at Starbucks. That’s why she’s going to encourage the state Pharmacy Board to ignore Chanos’ view, adopt her view and authorize the program anyway.

But isn’t this the same board that struggled with whether pharmacists should be able to say no to needy patients who were asking for birth control, morning-after or other controversial medications, right here in Nevada? Will that board really have the temerity to stand up and ignore the AG on a matter of international concern?

We hope so: Because not only do we have a Republican doctor, a Democratic lawyer and staff legal opinions on our side, we also have the weight of common sense. Now, in Legal World, where gravity is always in flux, common sense often has a molecular weight of zero. But in the real world, it sometimes makes all the difference.

And speaking of the real world, we sure wonder how much Chanos — appointed by Gov. Kenny Guinn to fill the term of former AG Brian Sandoval, who’s now a federal judge — has taken in from pharmaceutical companies for his 2006 bid for office? Can’t wait until next month when those reports come out.

Not that contributions would influence an elected official or anything. No, those donations are given simply to ensure good government. Hey, maybe we really are lawyers!

The question of whether to raise the gambling tax on casinos — and by how much — is a legitimate one. At 6.75 percent, the top tier of Nevada’s gambling tax is the lowest in the world, even after getting a slight half-point boost in the 2003 Legislature.

But a legitimate debate will most definitely not flow from the efforts of Republican phone-banker Tony Dane, who tried to file an initiative to raise the top tier of the tax to 18.25 percent on Tuesday. (True to form, Dane failed to read the instructions, and was turned away since the first legal day to file petitions isn’t until Jan. 3.)

Dane, up to this point a tax-fighter, wants the proceeds of the higher tax to pay the property taxes of every single-family homeowner in Nevada. He estimates his measure will raise $800 million, although on this, like so many other things, Dane is probably wrong.

Of course, gambling industry folks object: Higher taxes will prompt casinos to cancel new projects, they say, also noting that casinos already pay a big share of the state budget via the gambling, payroll, property, sales, alcohol, cigarette and entertainment taxes. All very true.

Also true is the argument that casinos made in 2003, when advocating for the gross receipts tax on business: Nevada’s non-gambling businesses pay nothing in the way of a revenue tax, which allows them to shirk their fair share of the state’s taxation burden.

Alas, none of these issues matter to Dane, who in our view is concerned primarily with getting his name and picture in the paper. (You don’t think the Review-Journal just bumped into Dane down at the county Government Center, do you?) Dane complains that casino companies are investing outside Nevada, automating functions and laying people off, and he’s mad at casinos for advocating for taxes in 2003.

Memo to Dane: The gross receipts tax proposal the casinos advocated in 2003 lasted about 17 minutes in the Legislature before it was rejected, in favor of a proposal cobbled together at the last minute that centered on the payroll tax. Casinos didn’t want that beast any more than the rest of us. And they got their own taxes raised in the process.

There is a legitimate debate to be had over the fairness of the current tax scheme, whether the gambling industry should pay a little more, whether non-gambling businesses should pay a lot more and the like. But it won’t come from Dane’s latest, clownish attempt at publicity.

So, the casino industry can rest easy. Don’t forget that Dane is one of the super-geniuses behind the 45-minute, unlamented tenure of ex-Las Vegas Councilwoman Janet Moncrief. He’s the guy who found a loser by the name of “David Parks” to challenge the real Assemblyman David Parks, until the fake Parks got tossed from the ballot on residency grounds. He made a point to get arrested while circulating petitions in 2004 on behalf of Assemblywoman Sharron Angle, R-Reno, more to get in the paper than to stand for the First Amendment. And Dane, who objects to gay people, was behind one of the ugliest political mailers in state history, too.

Heck, we can’t think of a single thing he’s done successfully. In fact, if casinos could accept bets on Dane’s inevitable failure, we’d take that action, and contribute a little tax money to Nevada in the process.