Pubdate: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 Source: Oklahoma Daily, The (U of Oklahoma, OK Edu) Copyright: 2010 The Oklahoma Daily Contact: http://www.oudaily.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1371 Referenced: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10/n290/a07.html Author: Justin Nitzschke IN RESPONSE TO WEDNESDAY'S LETTER TO THE EDITOR REGARDING MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION In Wednesday the 14th's letters to the editor, a retired detective argued that the government had a duty to protect the people from putting harmful substances into our bodies. He was speaking about smoking marijuana. He then went on to say that if you step outside of cigarettes, alcohol, Prozac, or Valium you will be punished in order to protect you from whatever harmful substance you used, implying that these substances are harmless. I would like to point out that CDC statistics state that alcohol directly cause over 22,000 deaths in the US in 2006, and indirect deaths are estimated at over 100,000. This number has increased every year since. The CDC also estimates that around 443,000 die as a result of exposure to tobacco or tobacco smoke. Not to mention the costly addiction that makes it difficult to stop. Prozac and Valium have the potential to kill upon overdose, and can cause dependence after prolonged use. The current direct death toll from Marijuana is 0. No one has ever died from smoking pot. Possible indirect deaths due to intoxication in public can be argued for, but given that alcohol causes nearly 40% of all accidents in the US, I doubt that public intoxication from marijuana is a larger threat. Given that all these legal substances are a greater threat to the user's and other's health, why would something that has never caused a single death in the history of its use be illegal to protect us from harm? The laws need to show consistency. Either the government needs to make any substance that could potentially be harmful illegal, or substances that are less harmful than alcohol and tobacco need to be legalized. Justin Nitzschke Music Education Sophomore