The audience intended through this letter is the people of Colorado who have a negative attitude regarding federal laws as being unjust and applied selectively and are interested in knowing the local laws and how the federal government impacts on them.
I expect my audience to possess knowledge about drug abuse and the legislations in place regarding cultivation, importation and possession of drugs. They should also know the penalties applicable if prosecuted by the federal government or the state.
The author assumed that Bartkowicz was unfairly charged as amendment 20 should have been used instead of the federal drug laws as the federal government had tolerated amendment 20 for over a decade. In this sense, he felt the amendment should be done away with. My response is that Bartkowitcz lacked understanding of amendment 20 and had contravened the Colorado state laws as well as the federal drug law hence was accused justly and even if he was allowed to use amendment 20 as defense, it would be of no use to him. He thus has a case to answer.
The tone of the response discourages the audience in using state laws as scapegoat in avoiding prosecution. Although Bartkowicz was to be given stiff penalty, he deserved it for contravening drug law and cultivating marijuana which is harmful to health. The letter is easy for the audience to comprehend and make own judgment regarding the case but the Drug laws need to be elaborated so that they can fully understand.
In response to Vincent Carroll’s article that appeared in the Denver Post on 9/22/2010, some aspects of the controversy between federal government laws and state laws regarding drug abuse is brought into light. I analyzed some aspects of the case against Bartkowicz regarding marijuana cultivation and use. My response will stress on the differences and similarities between federal law