When they sent those born from 1925 to 1945 off to war in Korea we went quietly, not bothering to ask why.

In high school, when they showed us “Reefer Madness,” we sat quietly and watched it, a good many of us wondering why they were telling us about this drug we had never heard of before.

It would be some decades before we began to question authority, but when we did we produced some of the country's most persuasive spokespersons.

There were many musicians including all of the Beatles. Noam Chomsky, Richard Dawkins, Hugh Hefner, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., Gloria Steinem – well, you can go look them up in Wikipedia as easily as I can.

Today we are not the most noticeable of the people who support the concept of legal medical marijuana, but we may be the largest group which quietly uses it to ease pain in our aging bodies.

And we wonder what all the fuss is about among somewhat younger people who passionately and very loudly take a position, pro or con, in public hearings, radio talk shows and the comment section of the online news media.

Most of us want medical marijuana to continue being legal. In fact, many – if not most of us – think the prohibition on recreational use is pretty silly when recreational use of alcohol is legal.

Recently, however, it's been getting tougher to support the people who argue for more liberal laws for marijuana dispensaries and cultivation.

In public testimony they've asked for what seemed to be very large numbers of dispensaries. When the county Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance allowing five dispensaries in the unincorporated areas of the county they immediately started gathering signatures demanding a referendum vote.

San Jose, a city with nearly one million population, recently limited the number of MMDs to 10, after a proliferation of them opened in the city. That makes five dispensaries in a county of about 65,000 people seem pretty generous. And we have two cities which can adopt their own regulations.

The Lake County supervisors on Oct. 4 unanimously approved the first reading of the revised cultivation ordinance written by Community Development Director Rick Coel and Sheriff Frank Rivero.

The ordinance allows each qualified user to grow a maximum of six mature or 12 immature plants, with three patients able to grow up to 18 mature or 36 immature plants on properties one acre or larger, and still larger grows allowed on properties five acres or larger with a minor user permit.

Since I don't plan to grow it really doesn't matter to me, but I wonder how and when the growers will decide plants have become mature and what they'll do with the six extras.

Because so many of the questions about growing at home are complaints about the smell from a variety known as skunk, I wonder why people don't just grow less smelly varieties.

The ordinance will have its second and final reading and a final vote today.

The referendum group has already promised to seek a referendum on cultivation if they don't like the final version of that ordinance.

One of their tactics in arguing against the ordinances has been to call them “draconian measures.” The term refers to the very harsh laws of Draco, a 7th-century Athenian statesman and lawmaker, and his code of laws, which prescribed death for almost every offense.

The Lake County supervisors may be getting a little testy about the constant objections to their decisions but they have yet to suggest any harsh treatment of the critical citizens, much less a death sentence. It's probably time to retire the hyperbolic draconian argument.

Sophie Annan Jensen is a retired journalist. She lives in Lucerne, Calif.

I have remained silent to these comments from the sheriff as I feel it does not benefit either of our offices or the fight for public safety.

However, he has recently started slandering individual members of my office with falsehoods and misrepresentations.

This is not acceptable for any elected official, especially one who should be a partner in law enforcement.

The sheriff has publicly made statements that I am left of the ACLU and a member of the American Communist Party, neither of which is true.

He quoted me of saying I intend on putting him in jail for the rest of his life, a statement never made publicly of privately.

Sheriff Rivero has said I am soft of criminals and I put outlaw motorcycle gangs above the interest of citizens.

I will do everything legally possible to provide for public safety, but let there be no misunderstanding, I have taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and will honor that oath.

I never have, and will not make personal attacks on the sheriff. Using my position to do so is not in the best interest of the community or the administration of justice. Additionally, to try and humiliate anyone in public is against my upbringing.

Recently, Sheriff Rivero has publicly attacked my criminal investigators in order to discredit them prior to the release of their investigations into his activities.

The sheriff has publicly said some investigators illegally made entry into the Sheriff’s data base system (RiMS) for “entertainment purposes.”

The truth is, for many years prior to Francisco Rivero ever working for the sheriff’s department our two agencies have worked together to investigate and assist each other in our mutual goals of protecting the public.

For years some investigators who also worked for the sheriff, had been updating the sheriff’s RiMS system with current information.

Additionally, both agencies have mutually shared reports to help in criminal investigations, which is not for “entertainment purposes.” This was the practice that had been followed until he discontinued this valuable tool in combating crime.

The sheriff has said my investigators are “running amok,” “bullying” and “threatening” people. The sheriff gives no examples nor has he ever brought his beliefs to my attention.

I have found my investigators to be extremely professional and understanding of the needs of the people, but at the same time we are aggressive in our fight against crime.

Lastly, Sheriff Rivero publicly said I am “scared”of my investigators. My only response to him is, do not confuse fear with and respect.

This office is committed to seeking the truth and holding accountable those who violate the public trust.

Don Anderson is district attorney for Lake County, Calif.

I recently attended a public meeting that one of our county supervisors attended. Eight people attended, including the supervisor.

Three individuals seemed to be there only to challenge this supervisor regarding the Lake County Board of Supervisors’ vote on an ordinance regulating marijuana dispensaries in the unincorporated areas of Lake County.

They accused the supervisor of accepting a monetary bribe for voting in favor of the ordinance.

Name calling, innuendos, lack of courtesy do not promote positive outcomes.

The few who were there to confront the supervisor were rude. They did not allow the common courtesy of letting each person express their views without being interrupted by rude side comments.

However, when they were speaking common courtesy was expected.

I am a passionate person, so I know how it feels to be passionate about an issue.

Courteous and respectful debates generally result in finding common ground somewhere in the middle.

Maybe the outcome isn’t exactly what we want, but that is the foundation our country was built on: Finding common ground that addresses opposing views.

I think that is what our supervisors tried to do: Find a compromise between those who want dispensaries banned, and those that want them to be unregulated.

All individuals who wish to do business in Lake County have guidelines imposed by the county and state governments. The guidelines vary and are based on type of business, location, products sold, services rendered, etc.

Dispensaries are a business and as such should be treated as other businesses in Lake County with guidelines to follow.

All those present at the meeting agreed that medical marijuana seems to help people and those individuals should be allowed access to their medicine.

One person stated that he does possess a marijuana card, but that he got it purely for recreational purposes.

Other comments were made regarding having to hide the use of marijuana, yet people are allowed to drink and use pharmaceuticals openly.

After a few more rude comments, two people at the meeting got up to leave clearly angry, and one commented that the room was full of bigots.

I looked up the definition of a bigot: “One who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc.”

The comment reminded me of the old saying, “When you point your finger at someone, there are three pointing back at you.”

Clearly some people have forgotten how to play nice.

Linda Diehl-Darms lives in Middletown, Calif.

Human blood containing toxins from GMO crops?

That was not supposed to happen.

When MON810 was released into the US food supply over a decade ago, government approval was based on Monsanto’s own word that the toxin in the corn would pass harmlessly through the human body during digestion.

No independent research or testing was done, to verify Monsanto's claim. No long-term animal trials were done, to determine effects on multiple generations. And, no human trials were done.

“Yes, every cell of our corn contains a deadly pesticide. But don't worry! We assure you the toxin will just pass right through human digestive tracts. Take our word on that.”

And, bowing to pressure for deregulation, that's what the USDA and FDA did. They approved MON810, and other genetically modified crops, over objections from their own scientists.

Other countries chose to follow what is known as The Precautionary Principle. Based on real science (as opposed to Corporate-bought-science), they seek to understand long-term affects on health and the environment, before popping the lid off Pandoras Box.

Based on testing done elsewhere (since independent testing is not done here in the USA), many countries have outright banned Mon810. Thailand (producer of a third of all rice consumed in the world) has banned GMO rice. The list of GMO products banned in other countries is very long – products which unwitting and unwilling US consumers have been eating for years.

Corporate ag has been very successful at hiding the truth from Americans.

A 2006 study found that only 26 percent of American consumers believed they had ever eaten genetically modified food, while a 2010 survey reported that only 28 percent of respondents knew such foods were sold in stores. (Los Angeles Times 6-2-2011, “Debate rages over labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients”).

The truth is, most Americans consume GMOs daily. Not because they want to. But because they are not allowed to know.

In almost every developed nation in the world except the United States, labeling of GMO foods is mandatory. In England, consumers are allowed to choose. In France they have that choice. In countries of the former Soviet Union, consumers have that choice. In China, they have that choice.

But not in the USA.

Japan preferred a “wait and see” moratorium, so they could see what happened to the first generation born and raised on GMOs in the USA.

And what has happened to the US population in the 15 to 20 years since GMOs were introduced to our food supply?

Chronic disease rates and severe food allergy rates doubled – from 6 percent to 13 percent.

How much of that doubling of our chronic disease (mostly GI tract) and food allergy rates can be directly attributed to consumption of GMOs?

In the absence of labeling, how could we begin to answer that question?

The absence of labeling would seem to be working rather to the advantage of Big Ag and Corporate Food, don't you think? Certainly hard to identify need for product recalls, when we have no way of knowing which products are making us sick.

Twenty years after it was introduced with the unsubstantiated promise that it would “pass through the human digestive tract,” we now know that Monsanto's claim that its GMO Bt toxin would be expelled by our digestive tracts was wrong. Instead, it remains in our blood.

Whoops.

To learn more, read food industry professional Robyn O'Brien's “The Unhealthy Truth: How Our Food is Making Us Sick” (www.robynobrien.com) and please join the consumer movement to label GMOs (www.labelgmos.org/).

Deb Baumann lives in Upper Lake, Calif.