POLICE HOUNDED PAIR OF SMALL-TIMERS

Editor, I must respectfully disagree with the views expressed in your
recent editorial ("Duo precipitated deadly standoff," Sept. 6) that Tom
Crosslin and Rolland Rohm were responsible for "escalate(ing) tensions"
that led to the fatal confrontation with law enforcement.

Considering only the campground owners' final moments in their standoff
with dozens of FBI sharpshooters is as myopic as the police combing through
the charred rubble looking for clues which might somehow explain or justify
the killings.

No one can deny that the root cause of the confrontation was an
extraordinary three-year effort by the Cass County prosecutor and law
enforcement at all levels of government to eradicate music festivals at the
campground, confiscate Crosslin's property, seize Rohm's 13-year-old son
and incarcerate these otherwise good citizens for long prison terms.

Essentially, the charges against these men boiled down to the allegations
that some patrons allegedly smoked marijuana at their festivals, and the
owners themselves allegedly were seen smoking pot and grew some pot plants?
While these activities are indeed illegal, given our Draconian mandatory
minimum sentences for drug offenses and "presumed guilty" civil asset
forfeiture laws, the punishments are certainly not trivial. Fair reporting
requires recognizing that had these men surrendered peaceably, they would
most likely have been summarily deprived of their property, families and
freedom because of the mechanical operation of our drug laws and their
absurdly disproportionate and unfair punishments.

So looking at the bigger picture, there is certainly an issue of whether
prosecutors and law enforcement have been provoking the situation for a
long time. Pot smoking is common at outdoor music concerts, but I don't see
the authorities trying to seize or shut down venues owned by corporate
owners. So it seems that two "little guys" here, and outspoken ones at
that, were unfairly singled out for application of laws designed to apply
to "drug kingpins" and organized crime.

Your editorial concludes that if both men had just surrendered peaceably,
they would have avoided their own tragic deaths. Does it follow that you
would have found the other punishments, which surely would have been meted
out had these men shown up in court, just and reasonable, given all the
circumstances? Is there an other side to this story you're missing?

Jack R. Lebowitz
Queensbury, N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

NO PROFITS MEANS NO LEGALIZATION

Editor,

Cannabis has no lethal dose and its pharmacological effects have never
caused a single death in more than 5,000 years of recorded history.

The (unseen) driving force against medical (or unrestricted adult)
legalization of cannabis is the fact that cannabis can't be patented. This
precludes the need for big business to be involved and that fact makes
cannabis commercially unattractive to the pharmaceutical, tobacco and
alcohol industries and their lobbies. It seems that if it can't be
profitized successfully, the government can't justify legalization even for
the sick and dying.

Furthermore, the war on cannabis drives the war on drugs. Without cannabis
prohibition, the drug war would be reduced to a pillow fight. This is the
politics and the economics of cannabis prohibition.

Maybe the corrupt politicians and media are required to adhere to the party
line of cannabis prohibition because law enforcement, customs, the prison
and military industrial complex, the drug testing industry, the "drug
treatment" industry, the INS, the CIA, the FBI, the DEA, the politicians
themselves et al, can't live without the budget justification, not to
mention the invisible profits, bribery, corruption and forfeiture benefits
that prohibition affords them. The drug war also promotes, justifies and
perpetuates racist enforcement policies and is diminishing many freedoms
and liberties that are supposed to be inalienable according to the
Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Myron Von Hollingsworth
Fort Worth, Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------------

WELCOME TO AMERICA'S SICK POLICE STATE

Editor, This is a nation of laws, but we find that places such as Arizona,
California or Oregon, free states all, better not pass laws that do not
meet the great white father's conditions.

Those conditions are, sometimes, quite arbitrary, if not unconstitutional.
Take the drug-forfeiture laws, for example. The Herald-Palladium ran an
editorial much to that effect - that we are no longer safe in our homes or
persons if a well-trained dog (coached?) sniffs drugs on our money, our
vehicle, or anything near us. It has become a money machine for the police.
They do not even need a warrant or reasonable suspicion to steal our
property. If you do fight back, the officer of the court (lawyer) costs
more than you may recover.

Of course, dead men tell no tales and life is hard to recover.

Gerald V. Dwan
St. Joseph
-------------------------------------------------------------------

PERSONAL HAD VENDETTA IN SHOOTING DEATHS

Editor, Alcohol is legal, "pot" is not. Yet, how many domestic violence
calls come in from pot-smoking? How many barroom brawls are over pot? How
many car accidents are due to pot-smoking? Alcohol takes thousands of lives
every day, yet it's socially acceptable.

Seventy-five FBI agents, 35 state troopers, 35 sheriff's deputies, all for
two men.

Why? This was a personal vendetta, a war on pot, and nothing more. Why is
it being kept from the public how many times these two men were shot? Could
it be that the "good guys" got trigger happy? Maybe if they had smoked some
pot, it would have been handled peacefully, with smiles on their faces. I
am ashamed and disgraced for what has happened.

My condolences to the families of these two men, and to Rainbow Farm. I am
sorry for what the authorities have taken from them.

Kim Davis,
Stevensville