IS DEA SMOKING FUNNY CIGARETTES?

Re "DEA alerts pot-store landlords," Dec. 15: Landlords are
responsive to and dependent upon government agencies for policing
authority. Landlords have no policing authority.

In a recent call to the Sheriff's Department, we were advised that
eviction for selling drugs was an option only if the resident went to
jail. So, if the sheriff doesn't take action, we can't. The person we
talked to also indicated it would be considered "vigilante" behavior
for which the sheriff would take action against the landlord. The DEA
says we could lose our property for failure to act; the sheriff
penalizes if we act. The result is we are governed by two authorities
with diametrically opposed views. If this went to court, landlords
would expend private funds for defense in what appears to be an
interagency dispute.

The task of stopping the illegal marijuana distributors is the job of
DEA and/or police, not the landlord. Perhaps what needs to be done is
set up an interagency team with representatives of each group and a
landlord association to work together to accomplish the task.

This, however, doesn't address another central problem: the
difference between legal jurisdictions governing the use of medical
marijuana - including the question: Is medical marijuana a valid
medicine and how should it be governed?

- - Greer Beahm, Sacramento