9/1 Letters to the editor

Alcohol advertising in need of regulation
While looking at the sports page, I saw a large beer, whiskey and wine advertisement. The longer I looked, the more I saw red.

I read of one wreck after another about men, women, children and even babies being killed by drunken drivers. In the papers, I read, “The intoxicated man (or woman) has been incarcerated.” It should be written as, “The drunken bum has been thrown in jail.” That would be the truth.

Tobacco has been beaten down, but how many people have wrecks because they are smoking tobacco? The government limits advertisements related to tobacco, but beer, whiskey and wine are presented as all right to drink — just don’t drive.

If you are drunk, are you going to remember not to drive, or even care?

Let’s put a high tax on alcohol instead of tobacco. The drinkers will pay it, because alcohol is so wonderful to drink. Why don’t drinkers stay at home after they drink? No one wants to smell their stinky mouth anyway.

I am so tired of hearing, “Don’t smoke, don’t smoke,” and not hearing, “Don’t drink alcohol, don’t drink alcohol.” When someone drinks, then drives, has a wreck and kills a few people, they are a drunken fool. Let’s say it like it is.

I know this is a tacky letter, but the people who have lost their loved ones to drunken drivers will say, “Right on!”

Lillian Perkins
Melrose

Ordinance right choice for drug control
In reference to your Aug. 14 editorial (Proposed meth ordinance should not be approved):

In today’s society we show our driver’s license for tobacco products, alcohol, or simply writing a check. If a person wishes to not show their identification for ephedrine products all they have to do is buy the gel cap or liquid form.

Is this an inconvenience? Possibly so, but is it an inconvenience to keep kids from buying alcohol, tobacco or items that are harmful to them?

I feel it is necessary to help law enforcement in any way possible; this problem is growing at an alarming speed and our “system” in many cases ties the hands of law enforcement.

Drug addiction is a horrible cross to bear — for the victims and their families. I hope you never have to hold someone you love who is contemplating suicide and try to help them get clean. I hope you never have to care for a drug addict’s children while he’s in jail because of drugs. I hope you never have a grandchild born who tests positive for drugs.

As a responsible society, we need to do our part to help solve drug addictions in our community. This ordinance is a step in the right direction.

As for your question about Commissioner Fred Van Soelen and Mayor David Lansford recusing themselves from the vote because of their day jobs: They are elected officials and should vote in a manner that would reflect the views of the people that elected them. To say anything different would be questioning their integrity and responsibility to that office.

If this ordinance helps deter even one methamphetamine lab from producing methamphetamine is it not worth it, Clovis?

Rob Pitcock
Clovis