POT ARTICLES MISS KEY LAW ISSUE

The articles "Alaska's top crop" (Oct. 15) and "Details cloud debates for,
against Prop. 5" (Oct. 16) failed to mention an important aspect pertaining
to our current debate over the legalization status of marijuana in Alaska.

ADN reporters S.J. Komarnitsky and Liz Ruskin both attempted to delineate a
chronology of events regarding the convoluted history of marijuana
legalization in Alaska. Unfortunately, and in my opinion, irresponsibly,
neither reported the fact that the 1990 recriminalization law was
specifically deemed unconstitutional in a Superior Court in 1993 (State vs.
McNeil).

McNeil's possession conviction was reversed because the 1990 initiative was
"inadequate to overrule" the 1975 Alaska Supreme Court decision in Ravin
vs. State. Our Supreme Court has not reversed Ravin, and the basis of their
decision, the privacy clause of Alaska's constitution, has never been
amended or deleted.

In addition to reminding readers that state prosecutors accepted the
court's opinion (while never ceasing enforcement of the unconstitutional
prohibition), the reporters should have asked authorities how they justify
an estimated enforcement expense of $6 million last year alone in light of
the McNeil case.

While reporters apparently don't think our courts have any bearing, readers
should wonder why they pay so much money to prohibit behavior our courts
deem lawful.

- -- H. Thompson Prentzel III

Fairbanks