RAND'S POT STUDY HOLDS NO ANSWERS

Your editorial on Monday, "Rand supplies a dose of clear analysis on
pot," isn't at all clear to me.

Every pot season we read about the number of marijuana plants seized
by law enforcement. I recall the number to be in the hundreds of
thousands of plants in Shasta County alone. The costs that accompany
the time, effort and energy investigating and seizing these plants,
and the arrests, trials, court-appointed lawyers, judges, courtroom
time, juries, sentencing, incarceration, probation oversight, etc.,
have to have a considerable price tag. Without that cost basis in the
equation, a meaningful number cannot be determined.

I suggest a study be initiated as to how Trader Joe's is still selling
"Two Buck Chuck" for two bucks after 10 years. Prices generally double
in a 10-year period with inflation. If Trader Joe's doubled the price
of "Two Buck Chuck," would it not increase the state coffers? Oh, but
wait, if they increased the price then people wouldn't drink more. Oh,
but wait again. If Whole Foods is buying "organic" produce from China,
it would stand to reason that pot from China would be even cheaper. I
wonder who paid for the Rand study.

Neil Smith, Redding