Target criminals, not families, with Sudafed law
The Oct. 8 story "Sudafed lobby offers ban plan" offers a realistic and fair alternative to legislation that would make everyday cold medicines prescription-only. Kentucky lawmakers' outrageous and illogical approach to stopping the meth problem has finally been countered by one that targets meth criminals, not families.
Making these products prescription-only is just an extreme attempt by our legislators to get a slap on the back for being "tough on drugs" but does not account for the massive unintended consequences it would create. From increasing health care costs for Kentucky families to exacerbating a growing physician shortage in our state, this legislation is just plain bad for Kentucky.
Laws already exist that criminalize meth production, distribution and abuse. Now you want to criminalize and penalize honest citizens of Kentucky who are treating themselves for colds.
It is time for legislators to stop abusing the citizens of Kentucky with laws that are uneconomical and burdensome to everyone but the criminals.
Count me in for blocking meth criminals from purchasing cold and allergy medicines containing pseudoephedrine.
I recently read where a proposed solution would block purchases by meth criminals, while still allowing law-abiding Kentuckians who suffer from allergies to get their cold medicines over the counter. If that is possible, I can't understand why our legislature would even consider making Kentuckians go to the doctor to get cold medicine if they could simply target the meth criminals creating the problems.
As your average Ohio Valley citizen who suffers from allergies, I've followed this issue with the fear that I would have to take time off work to get a prescription to buy Sudafed. This new alternative makes a lot of sense so I'm a bit surprised at how quickly it was dismissed by the editorial, "No half-step in fighting meth."Shouldn't we at least try it?
Before our legislature passes a bill making all of us go to the doctor to get cold medicine, I ask that they target the meth criminals with this block list.
When I heard that some members of the Kentucky legislature wanted to make cold medications containing pseudoephedrine prescription-only, I was thoroughly shocked.
The aim is to cut down on meth labs, but these lawmakers fail to understand that the criminals will just find a way around their new law. Making these medications prescription only will punish law-abiding people, like me, who rely on these products and use them legitimately.
I am an allergy sufferer and use products like Claritin-D regularly. I can't imagine having to schedule an appointment, take off work, go to the doctor and pay per office call just to get medicine I can now legally pick up at the pharmacy on my way home from work.
Why punish everyone for the actions of a few? Legislators must find a more reasonable way to tackle this issue without burdening the rest of us.
'Good spanking' works
The letter "A good spanking" sparked vivid memories of growing up in a home where the parents raised their children by the "spare the rod, spoil the child" philosophy.
My eight siblings and I understood from a very early age we were wanted, loved, protected and cared for — at least as well as any struggling coal miner's family could expect.
We also understood that unacceptable behavior at home, in school or out in the community would not be tolerated. Our parents considered it a humiliating indictment of their failure as parents if one of their children drew attention to themselves through misbehavior or misconduct, especially in school.
Also, failure in school was not acceptable because education was seen as our ticket to a better life. We didn't just get spanked when we crossed the line, we got spanked and grounded. The spanking was for our poor judgment; the grounding gave us time to reflect.
The outcome of our upbringing speaks for itself. All nine siblings graduated from high school at or near the top of their classes.
Three graduated from trade schools in the medical field. Two graduated from universities and one from graduate school. Two served with distinction in the military (one was a career soldier).
To my knowledge, none had to seek counseling to deal with our strict upbringing.
Our parents loved us enough to want what was best for us, and while some may not have approved of their methods, I for one will forever be grateful.
No need to spank
Only "good" spanking is a parent's childhood memory.
Kids today — no respect? You might set up camp for today's adults first. There is a great body of study and evidence that spanking is a strong predictor of future violent behavior, more defiant, more easily frustrated; more anger and temper tantrums, less able to delay gratification; less empathy for others. Above all, spanking is not very effective.
Twenty-five years ago, I studied and taught the nurturing parent model to parents. I didn't have any children then, people laughed and ridiculed me, saying this stuff doesn't work and you don't know what it is like to be a parent. I answered, "No, but I know what it is like to be a hurt child."
Nineteen years ago, my husband and I had twin boys. Our sons have never been spanked but we are among the strictest parents.
We set very high expectations for our sons' behavior, we were consistent and corrected every time, we never said "next time you do that"; we never responded to whining or a demand, we always responded to "please," "thank you" and "I have a question."
Our sons could respectfully question our decisions. If we didn't have a good reason, we changed the decision (rarely happened, but made us think and explain our values).
Love is stronger than fear. Ask anyone in Scott County how my parenting worked out.
I have been viewing Joel Pett's political cartoons over the years with admiration and appreciation. I admire his gifts of expression and appreciate the position taken on various subjects.
I can relate well to recent cartoons on corporate greed and to the recent cartoon regarding the Amish, who, contrary to the opinion of a certain police officer, I consider to be citizens worthy of our respect.
The cartoons reflect, I think, a general concern for the safety and welfare of all Americans, especially the most vulnerable or misunderstood.
I have come to know a group of people living in America who have shown friendship, kindness and hospitality to me over the years. As a group, they admire the positive traits we Americans possess and feel blessed to live in our country.
The people group I am referring to are Muslims, both those born here and those who have immigrated. They love receiving our friendship and feel disappointed if they are misunderstood, scorned or scoffed at by non-Muslims.
The majority that I know serve our country well as doctors, nurses, teachers and ordinary citizens. They are taxpaying, law-abiding and loyal American citizens or residents.
I would love to see one or more of Pett's cartoons showing appreciation in some way for these friends of mine and their fellow religionists.
Alice F. Walker