It’s disappointing that your April 7 editorial “Policing heroin” suggests addressing law enforcement procedure as a remedy to the opioid crisis. In many cases, charging an offender with minor possession is a law enforcement official’s only hope that the person has a treatment opportunity.
Working with offenders for minor possession offenses in an effort to apprehend the big-time dealer is already in place. It’s just not established policy.
Why not address the issues of where and how a person gets started and hooked on an opioid? The opioid crisis is not a problem of social/recreational abuse, as it was decades ago. It is an increasing product of current medical practice.
Law enforcement’s involvement is the end result. Addressing the end result as a sole tactic is destined to fail.
Right to Life upholds principle
Your March 24 editorial “Demoralizing democracy” was offensive. Right to Life has long been one of my most esteemed charities, because it upholds Christian principles of care for the most fragile of human infants.
“Thou shalt not kill” is one of the commandments; no Christian or any other religious person should violate that.
Any business owner who runs his or her company with respect for God and people deserves your respect, not your insults.
Laws set standard for behavior
The writer of the April 11 Readers’ Forum letter “Even if it’s illegal, abortion won’t end” misses the point.
Laws against theft, assault, vandalism, and speeding haven’t put an end to these violations, but that is not sufficient reason to nullify the laws. The purpose of laws is to set standards for society so that we don’t live amid chaos. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution refers to this as promoting the general welfare.
The Declaration of Independence states that it is a self-evident truth that our Creator has endowed us with an unalienable right to life. Abortion should be illegal because it contradicts the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence and violates the foundation of the Constitution.
Abortions aren’t for convenience
Where does the writer of the April 11 Readers’ Forum letter “Abortion seen as a convenience” get off calling women who have had abortions murderers? What gives him the moral authority to point his finger in judgment?
Abortions are performed legally for many reasons, but I believe few are done for convenience.