In reading Mr. Tucker’s article, I’m compelled to respond to statements and assertions contained therein. He correctly stated that California voters approved possession and cultivation of medical marijuana nearly 14 years ago and cited a recent poll that found the majority of residents support legalization and taxation of same.

The alleged assertion by Law Enforcement that legal and taxed marijuana will strengthen Mexican drug cartels(theirs would allegedly be cheaper than the taxed version) is in my humble opinion, highly unlikely. The Mexicans are into hemp because there is a boatload of money to be made. The risks, costs and profits are high because marijuana and its use are (at the federal level) illegal. To put it in perspective, consider the risks of speeding – a public safety issue that kills thousands each year - versus growing or smoking marijuana at home. You are not likely to be imprisoned up to 25 years, forfeit your land and personal property, legally entangle friend and relatives and lose voting rights for doing 85 in a 60 mph zone – something many of us have done, and probably pretty often.

Just as in prohibition, huge profits were realized by providing the goods while taking the risks. When prohibition ended and alcohol became legal again, the mob moved into different areas. When and if the product is legal, the price will plummet and the “illicit profit” incentive will, shall we say, go up in smoke as the cartels concentrate their efforts elsewhere.

A more serious point is one of priorities. The Attorney General of the US announced a priority shift regarding enforcement of federal marijuana laws. Isn’t it logical to do the same locally where the practice is considered legal? Mariposa’s finest have plenty to do with their valuable time. I acknowledge recent drama regarding theft of personal stashes of marijuana, but let’s think for a minute. Talk of door-to-door raids of personal pot gardens by Mexicans is fear mongering. More to the point, to suggest or imply that marijuana possession is a serious legal problem because it’s subject to theft is preposterous. Does Mr. Tucker propose prohibition of anything else of sufficient value to attract thieves? How about if we outlaw or ‘control’ firearms? Or cars, money, leather jackets, you get the idea. If Mariposa has a problem with theft or armed robbery (of anything) then we should deal with it as such. Period.

Lastly, I am shocked, I say shocked, that some kids get into their parents’ stash. Better that they get into the liquor, medicine or gun cabinets? Or steal the car keys? This is a parenting problem, not a pot problem.

Thanks for the time and space. I eagerly await the next installment.

M. A. Wilcoxen