Opinion Piece By Samuel Strait – October 31, 2019 – It is becoming more of the norm in the current political climate when we have foolish political figures, who in all sincerity, write utter drivel in defense of the indefensible. Supervisor Lori Cowen did not disappoint with her recent effort in the Triplicate, "Vote for your party or your County?", October 30,2018, to defend SB 1 and the tax measure seeking to levy tax on the local Cannabis industry, Measure B. I am not quite sure how Ms. Cowan equates party affiliation and working across party lines with doing good works for our local communities, particularly when she is advocating for two measures that will do neither. In her impassioned defense of SB 1 and the possibility of the loss of $1,000,000.00 of road funding does she not know that SB 1 money has been flowing into the State's coffers for nearly a year? What exactly does she think the State is going to do with the money that they have already collected if Proposition 6 were to be successful, give it back to those that paid the GAS TAX? Not spend it on roads or related infrastructure as SB 1 demands? Spend it in places that voted predominately "NO" on Prop 6? What is new with that, by the way. I mean where is the common sense in that kind of thinking. Maybe Supervisor Cowan is unaware of a voter passed Proposition from 2007 which was money expressly for roads and infrastructure to be repaired. Does she not know that that money was siphoned away by the State government to cover other budget shortfalls and NEVER replaced to this day. Just exactly how did we benefit here locally from that money or at any other time. Has the completion date for a bypass of Last Chance Grade been moved forward since SB 1 came into being? Have we received any project from this $1,000,000.00 plus token of State affection that is anything more than lighted traffic walkways, traffic circles, bike paths, and a mysterious "safety" project at the junction of Hwy 199 and Elk Valley Road? Why exactly is the the City of Crescent City being favored, at least according to our illustrious Mayor Blake Inscore , with $4.1 million dollars of road money to FIX HALF OF FRONT STREET, about 300 yards of road, when some how the federal government (not the most competent when it comes to spending the tax dollar} can build ONE FULL MILE OF FEDERAL INTERSTATE INCLUDING AN OVERPASS FOR AROUND $1,000,000.00. Kind of makes you think, "What's wrong here in the "Golden State". And, finally why is it when our local political figures are given promises of money in the present or even in the future that there is the automatic assumption that things will get done that are both useful and beneficial? Supervisor Cowan needs to step back from her gushing endorsement, along with Supervisors Gerry Hemmingsen and Chris Howard, of no on Proposition 6 and check to see if this is a political decision or something that truly benefits the local citizens. I think that no matter how the vote on Proposition 6 turns out, there won't be much actual improvement in our roads situation, if ever from the State. The other issue that Supervisor Cowan takes up is her support for Measure B on November's ballot, another tax measure which she is bold enough to claim necessary to cover the expenses that the County EXPECTS to incur with the legalization of the commercial aspect of recreational cannabis. That's right, expenses the County EXPECTS to incur when the ban is lifted and the word "commercial" is added to the cannabis vocabulary. Currently, cannabis individually produced for personal use is legal in Del Norte County, it is just the large scale commercial growth, sale and manufacturing that is banned. The ordinances being proposed for anything commercial with regard to cannabis will likely take final form when the taxing power is given to the County by passage of Measure B. I for one, am not quite sure why MS. Cowan is wishing to authorize the passage of a tax measure on those that would as a commercial enterprise be passing that cost on to their customers, when she clearly is aware of the fact that commercial cannabis will equate to criminal activity and the cost to the County that such activity guarantees. The logic fails me. Cannabis for medical purposes seems palatable for most people. Recreational cannabis on a personal level is the law of the land in California. Commercial cannabis is still a topic that can be decided locally, but many are questioning the idea that it adds any value to their community. Maybe not now and see what develops in Counties that push forward. It already seems to have generated a significant number of problems in our neighbor to the south. As Supervisor Cowan attempts to convey, it is important to actually understand the consequences of many of the votes people cast without much thought to the overall result. Often, what appears on the ballot many not actually represent anything truly beneficial to the voter, it just has that appearance. Would a politician or political process deceive us, the voter? I will let you make the informed decision. Yes on Proposition 6. No on Measure B and C. Lets just see if good government can find a better way.