REGARDING THE LETTER "AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE LEGALIZATION OF WEED"

Just a couple thoughts for the author of this article. Kaitlyn, I
believe is her name.

First, "weed" isn't the preferred nomenclature. Cannabis, or
marijuana, would do just fine, and would make you sound much less pretentious.

Next, 10 Billion dollars (you can check that) is what the Drug
Enforcement Agency spent last year on the prohibition of marijuana.
Not heroin, or cocaine, just "weed". Ask yourself this: are adults,
who partake in their homes; worth those kind of tax dollars?

You finish your article with this line, "Just imagine the
consequences if the drug were legalized." Would you mind letting
your readers know what consequences you're referring to? You might
take a look at what affect Portugal's drug policy has had on usage.

Finally, Kaitlyn, research why marijuana was first made illegal. The
racial overtones will turn your stomach(or so I hope). Also, try
watching anti-cannabis propaganda from the era in which the law was
enacted... it's laughable.

Well, I guess this next point is my final one. Kaitlyn, I'm an
adult. Can you please tell me a scenario in which growing a couple
of plants with the yearly tomato garden would affect anything but my
lungs. Please give a valid argument against an adult being able to
grow, cure, and smoke a plant, in the privacy of their own home.
And, the health care cost relayed to taxpayers argument doesn't fly.
That argument is a slippery slope to making eating fatty foods a
punishable offense.

The function of the Federal Government is to protect citizens from
foreign armies, and to regulate interstate commerce. I know that the
Fed. has grossly abused it's role in the past 100 years, but it's
time we roll that back. Civil liberties, Kaitlyn, that's my main
argument. Civil liberties. Please keep your hands, opinions, and
morals where they belong... with you; far, far away from my body.
You won't find me saying that the money from regulation and taxation
will save the country from economic disaster, but a couple billion
here and there wouldn't exactly destroy the union, would it?

Thank you for taking time to read this response.

Frederick