NO ON MEASURE B

To the Editor:

Whoever designed Measure B did an excellent job of sparking
divisiveness among progressives in Mendocino County, and this fact
alone makes me wary. While we clearly have a marijuana problem in need
of remedy, Measure B is not the answer. I think many well-intentioned
citizens are misinformed about its probable effects and are pro-B
because of unrealistic expectations.

For example, Phil Baldwin recently wrote a letter lamenting adolescent
marijuana use. Phil is a person whose opinion I respect and I
basically agreed with everything he wrote, except his conclusion: Yes
on B. Certainly marijuana has an adverse effect on teenagers. Smoking
pot makes most people lethargic and for teenagers, this can be
disastrous. But how will Measure B impact teenage marijuana
consumption? I was a student at Ukiah High before Measure G passed and
marijuana was easier to come by than condoms, say, or alcohol or the
perfect prom dress. Teenage substance abuse is one of myriad important
issues that Measure B does not address.

Measure B is being touted as a re-criminalization' of marijuana which,
theoretically, will diminish state and federal heat while at the same
time allowing local law enforcement to crack down on growers. It's
hard to ignore the fact that big-time growers have become a problem in
our county. They deplete natural resources, draw unwanted attention to
our community and don't pay taxes to support our libraries and
schools. Moreover, they propagate a culture that glorifies easy'
illegal money and makes citizens hard at work at normal' jobs feel
gypped. It's high time' we did something about it, but Measure B will
not deter large-scale commercial growers.

Measure B makes no special effort to hinder big-time operations: their
legal status will not be altered by its passage. Measure B focuses on
the difference between six and 25 plants, thereby re-criminalizing
small-scale farmers who we decided as a community (when we
overwhelmingly approved Measure G) aren't deserving of criminal
status. In fact, deterring small personal and medical-use growers will
only drive prices up for commercial growers in blatant violation of
the law. Growers with less than 25 plants aren't polluting our
environment, hiring slews of trimmers from LA or guarding their
patches with guns. They aren't making a fortune, either. (Try growing
10 plants and making enough money to support your family, buy a new
truck and fly to Mexico for the winter. )

In short, Measure B targets the wrong guys! (Last month, our Board of
Supervisors restricted growers to 25 plants per plot, rather than per
individual, rectifying one of the primary oversights of Measure G.) By
encouraging law enforcement to persecute anyone with more than six
plants, we will make criminals out of our friends and neighbors -- out
of law-abiding citizens with families and jobs. Not only am I opposed
to putting people with seven pot plants behind bars, I am also
concerned that Measure B will have a deleterious effect on our
economy. Like it or not (and I don't like it), marijuana cultivation
has become a large part of our economy. This means we need to address
the issue slowly -- first targeting massive grows that breed violence
and environmental degradation -- or we will jeopardize local
businesses and professionals. Measure B fails to differentiate between
various scales of growing vis-a-vis law enforcement, makes no
provisions for tackling the problem of teenage substance abuse in our
community and focuses on an arbitrary distinction between six and 25
plants that will criminalize upstanding citizens. Vote No on B.

Amber Trotter

Redwood Valley