To the Journal editor:

By now, your readers may have picked up on (the) story regarding our prosecutor using inflammatory and outright misleading statements to a jury about the Alger Hemp Coalition.

This was done in an attempt to jail a disabled man found growing small amounts of personal marijuana. I would like to address one statement I find particularly egregious.

“They do nothing to support the government services they want, and have nothing but criticism for the government services they don’t want.” This statement shows a definite lack of research, and a willingness to bend facts when she desires.

Since its inception, Alger Hemp Coalition has maintained an Adopt a Highway along M-28, donated to the animal shelter on a regular basis, and have given to local food pantries. We have not been quiet, and our meetings have been open to the public for years. We advocate to remove the criminal element from marijuana sales and bring it to a licensed, accountable, light of day business, ran by members within our local community.

Our activities also include educating members about changing legal landscapes, safe growing techniques and energy efficiency. This has led many who have been too handicapped to re-enter the workforce, to ditch the government dole and become a productive part of society.

We pay property taxes, buy goods, groceries and gas locally, returning the money organized crime used to ship out of our county, to our community. We have kids and grandkids in school here and would support a taxation system to improve the quality of their education.

Yet, we repeatedly have stumbling blocks placed in front of us by officials within our court system who choose to reinterpret law to best fill pockets and jails. This turns any financial benefit from marijuana back into a minus, not to mention what it does to those it ensnares into the penal system, many to never return. It’s a sad day when our prosecutor, assumed to be unbiased, sides with the drug dealers against any sort of accountable, regulated, business.

Perhaps this was what she referred to when she concluded her statement “… criticism for the government services they don’t want.” I doubt a public official disregarding law they don’t agree with, a service any of us want, or should pay a salary for. Perhaps we need more critics, they don’t cost taxpayer money.