More needs to be done to fight meth epidemic
To the Editor:
I am glad that Rep. Greg Macpherson thinks fighting the meth crisis is important ('Attorney General Decision is Important,' April 10, 2008).
However, I think his editorial does not go far enough in addressing the need for drug treatment. Until recently, I worked in Oregon's child protection system, and during that job I saw first hand how meth is devastating Oregon's families. All too often those who need help in overcoming their addiction cannot find the treatment they need.
Parents and children looking for help are turned away every day. This lack of treatment increases the number of people in the criminal justice system and places more children in foster care. For our state to overcome this crisis, we must improve treatment options. Mr. Macpheson's opponent, John Kroger, has talked about the need for more treatment, and I am glad that Rep. Macpherson has now started to talk about the issue.
However, our current system is inadequate, and I hope whoever is elected understands the importance of this issue.
Goal One meeting not what I expected
To the Editor:
I attended the Goal One Coalition meeting on April 10th at city hall, which turned out to be a Goal Zero for me.
What I thought might be an effective talk to provide tools and process regarding land use issues, ended up being a lecture by a couple of angry, anti-local government people who reminded me of people I last saw 40 years ago carrying anti-Vietnam War placards.
According to them, local government engages in 'illegal, unthoughtful actions, with no accountability that regularly abuses their positions and citizens.'
When they aren't doing that, they are 'marginalizing' citizens' concerns, siding with overpaid attorneys and deferring to the applicants' experts, who, according to the coalition, aren't really experts but paid persons of no particular value.
Perhaps the most telling advice was to elect people that will challenge local government. Hmmm. I was immediately reminded of the last city council election when this group of citizens, who feels our local government engages in malicious practices, ran their choices for a better government and they were the lowest vote getters.
My question is how is it that the majority of the voters in West Linn are wrong about who should be running the local government and representing them?
The fact is they aren't wrong. The only thing that was wrong was bringing these types to our city hall to rain a tirade of accusations, falsehoods and lies about local government that had no relation to West Linn.
In the end it was a good time for malcontents to speak to other malcontents. People who spend an inordinate amount of time and energy filing complaints, abusing requests for information, filing appeals and basically shooting in the dark hoping to hit something.