MUST ISSUE OF LEGALIZING MARIJUANA MANDATE ONLY EXTREME OPINIONS?

Somehow the governor's "desperate" crusade to stomp out marijuana use in
Alaska seems as ill conceived as does the opposing march for "pot in every
garden." It seems to imply that anyone who partakes or ever partook in the
occasional use of the plant cannot possibly be a true Republican. That an
occasional acquiescence for the "M" word or even a condescending
understanding of its possible medical benefits seems to imply that you're a
Democrat. That there is no middle of the road.

Why does the governor feel so threatened by maintaining a partial
legalization of marijuana? Why do pro-grass groups think total legalization
is realistic, advisable or even possible? Neither seems to make sense.

Why is it that so few are voicing their opinions to the editor on this
subject? Is there a latent fear that by having one's name published that we
will become suspect and discredited? Where are the 40 percent of voters who
apparently voted for total legalization (in our opinion -- not a good
idea)? Are they really so easily intimidated that they won't stand up to
support partial legalization?

Shouldn't there be more unbiased debate without the fear of stigma?
Discussions on the pros and cons of marijuana use? The nuts and bolts, and
cost and practicality of enforcement? And such.

- Ken and Kay Green

Cooper Landing