WHY ARE MORE HARMFUL SUBSTANCES LEGAL WHEN MARIJUANA IS OUTLAWED?

I am writing in response to a letter by Kate Winkle regarding the
possible legalization of marijuana in Alaska ("Legalize marijuana? Not
unless you want Alaska to be destroyed," Aug. 28). I think that before
she denounces marijuana she ought to examine the effects of alcohol
and tobacco, both of which are currently legal and both of which are
substantially more deadly than marijuana. I ask her and the other
readers to question why these two far more harmful substances remain
legal while marijuana remains outlawed.

Through following the news, I have seen far more crimes and deaths
related to legal drugs than to this single illicit substance. And of
course, you don't even hear about cancer deaths with their root in
tobacco anymore because they've become so commonplace.

There is far more justification for alcohol and tobacco to be outlawed
than marijuana, so it's rather nonsensical to have it remain illegal
while those two substances remain freely available. Obviously,
underage use of any drug should remain illegal, but there is very
little harm in responsible marijuana use by adults. Its legalization
would probably even further reduce the minimal harmful effects that it
has, as the quality could be regulated by the government and the
violence related to illegal drug trafficking would be curtailed.

Ken F. Johnson

Anchorage