To the editor:

Thanks for the article (Sept. 8) on our district attorney’s attitude towards marijuana crimes. His acknowledgement that the black market (prohibition) creates potential danger for marijuana sellers is spot on, but his assertion that sellers are targeted by law enforcement for their own protection seems a bit off the mark — unless those his office has sent to prison are thanking Charles Branson for keeping them safe. Unlikely.

Maybe one contributing factor to the potential danger for sellers is how armed home invaders fare in court — sometimes getting plea agreements resulting in probation. In one high-profile case, the defendant received probation, a waiver from the requirement to register as a violent offender, and a record that omitted the fact that a gun was used in the commission of the crime. That sends a stern message to would-be armed robbers!

Branson states that marijuana possession cases are not a high priority, but those transgressions are certainly not overlooked. Individuals are arrested and charged routinely. Others are not arrested but are instead pressured into acting as confidential informants. That’s the way our drug enforcement unit works.

Finally, I think the policy allowing the police and the prosecutor’s office to split the bounty of forfeitures in drug cases (85 percent to the police; 15 percent to the DA’s office) is unethical. It also raises questions about how criminal cases are prioritized. Branson appointed an attorney to specialize in forfeiture cases (thus quadrupling the amount of property/cash forfeited in four years). That puts the DA’s office and the police in the position of profiting from the arrests of the very pot sellers they say they are trying to keep safe from street robbers.