Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

I just read the article "More little kids are mistaking edible cannabis for candy" published in the Star Tribune on Jan. 4. While this is clearly an issue, it's not new. Why blame cannabis for this phenomenon? This has been going on for years. Think about how medicine, weight-loss gummies, vitamins and even detergent pods look enticing to children because they look and taste like candy.

I'm a little perplexed about the news that really isn't news at all. It's about adults properly storing their edibles along with all other medicine to remain out of the reach of children. It's no more than common sense — when people actually exercise it. Perhaps if we stopped making medicine and cannabis so enticing to children, the problem wouldn't be so pervasive. Why do Americans have to be babied into taking medicine, vitamins or other remedies to get/remain healthy? In Europe, medicine tastes terrible and is taken only when absolutely needed.

Please stop sensationalizing access to cannabis alone and continue to promote safe storage of all products that are harmful to children.

Cathy Johnson, Burnsville

•••

"Follow the science: Don't legalize pot" (Opinion Exchange, Jan. 3) makes an excellent point. With the science so strong against legalizing this drug, why would the Minnesota Legislature even consider doing so? For those who use pot, is that high so important to your life satisfaction that you think the rest of society should abide all the negatives: impaired driving, lowered IQ in young adults, possible addiction and psychiatric issues? No way.

Lucyan Mech, Lauderdale

•••

The amount of misinformation on the topic of legalizing marijuana is at an all-time high (no pun intended). The commentary "Follow the science: Don't legalize pot" by John Hagen in Tuesday's Opinion Exchange is a perfect example.

First of all, the person Hagen cites and quotes, Kevin Sabet, has an anti-legalization agenda, so not surprisingly all of his "evidence" comes with an anti-legalization bias. Note: Hagen states Sabet is "of the Yale Medical School." For the record, Sabet is an assistant professor adjunct at Yale's Medical School and a fellow at Yale's Institution for Social and Policy Studies. He also states Sabet has been an adviser to three presidents. However, there's no mention of Sabet ever holding a position of authority on legalization policy.

Hagen provides four bullet points consistent with his anti-legalization platform: 1) Pot impairs academic performance. 2) Marijuana is associated with psychosis, bipolar disorder and other mental health diseases. 3) Marijuana is addictive. 4) Fatal car crashes increase sharply after legalization.

The anti-legalization folks have trumpeted these claims for years, yet when I looked, I couldn't find one shred of evidence in his commentary that supported any of these statements. The rest of his commentary contains more unsubstantiated claims: "George Soros alone, apparently, has shoveled $200 million into legalization." Billionaires and big business have "poured waterfalls of cash" into legalization promotional campaigns. Very bold, eye-catching statements, but nothing to back them up.

In contrast, I was able to find an article published by the Huffington Post in 2016 regarding deaths due to overdosing on marijuana: "In 2015, the rate of absolutely zero deaths from a marijuana overdose remained steady from the year before, according to figures released in December by the Centers for Disease Control. But while Americans aren't dying as a result of marijuana overdoses, the same can't be said for a range of other substances, both legal and illicit." Without presenting any further evidence, I'm guessing that stat hasn't changed. To their credit, Hagen and Sabet are in favor of decriminalizing and expunging past convictions for personal use. However, in my view, that type of policy is consistent with legalization.

Facts and evidence. In a court of law, and in an effort to secure a favorable verdict, Hagen would have been expected to present these types of things. Unfortunately, that was not the case on Tuesday, and folks were once again misinformed on an important topic by self-proclaimed "experts" who have a biased agenda.

Steve Ettel, Golden Valley

•••

Though I'm sure to disappoint many readers, I just can't get behind the proposed legalization of recreational marijuana that is forecast to be considered in the upcoming legislative session. There are several arguments one could make; here I will focus on public safety on our roads. To my knowledge, there is no roadside test to determine how "stoned" a driver is, no "legal limit" as a guide. There are varying strengths of marijuana, depending on source and supplier. Occasionally, there might even be some other drug laced in, perhaps unknown to the smoker. Legalization might bring uniformity to some products, but illegal sources will unfortunately still be circulating.

Just recently, while out for a walk in a St. Paul park, my spouse and I observed a couple sharing a joint in a parked car. The windows were open, and the smell wafting out was unmistakable. Within a few minutes, the car was gone. Just how impaired the driver was is anybody's guess.

Surely I am not alone when I say I have attended an event where someone showed up obviously stoned (and admitted it to others) but had driven across the Twin Cities to get to the event.

Legalizing marijuana without having sorted out guidelines for drivers and appropriate roadside testing will only increase traffic accidents and fatalities. We are already endangered enough on our roads by speeding, tailgating, distracted driving and drunken driving. Let's not add (more) stoned drivers to the list.

Lisa Wersal, Vadnais Heights

•••

John Hagen's commentary proclaiming the adverse effects of legalization of marijuana claims to be science-based. Unfortunately, that presumption is, itself, unscientific. I am not a proponent or opponent of legalization. (I'm even more pristine than Bill Clinton. Marijuana — in any form — has never entered my body.) However, as a retired physician, I know that making "scientific" claims about biological effects of substance use is tenuous. Take, for example, the ebb and flow of "science" over the decades, surrounding the effects of caffeine on our bodies and our behavior. Hagen relies heavily on the work of Prof. Kevin Sabet. Sabet is a vocal opponent of marijuana usage. In my opinion, a better perspective is gained by looking at the societal impact of legalization of recreational marijuana in the states where that has occurred. This kind of assessment was undertaken by the Cato Institute and updated in 2021. Their work contains the caveat that their assessment may not be the final word. Nonetheless, the Cato Institute's analysis basically concludes that other than increased tax revenue for states that legalized recreational marijuana, no notable benefits or adverse effects have occurred.

Richard Masur, Minneapolis

I am writing in regard to the Jan. 3 letter about how phonics alone is not effective in teaching students to decode (i.e., "sound out") words in reading. Current phonics instruction can, and does, address this issue. It is true that some phonemes (parts) of the words such as "knot" and "phonetic" do not follow basic phonics. However, phonemes in each of these words do follow basic phonics. It's then a matter of teaching students how to break up the word into the phonemes that they can decode, and the phonemes that need to be learned some other way. And yes, we even teach students what a "phoneme" is.

Sherry Kuhn, St. Paul

The writer is a reading teacher.