Image provided by: Clackamas Community College; Oregon City, OR
About The Clackamas print. (Oregon City, Oregon) 1989-2019 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 31, 1990)
ELECTION October 31,1990 Recycling not the issue... state. It primarily centers on packaging ; products. The Clackamas Print is concerned about I the effects if this measure were to pass. One effect would be the impact on the I businesses in Oregon. In effect, Measure 6 I will put Oregon businesses at a competi- I five disadvantage. The law does not govern ■products imported from other states, only those businesses who manufacture and sell ■in Oregon. The law would put immediate ■restraints on the types of packaging used in ■the production of consumer goods. This measure will push businesses out of Ore- |gon due to thé cost of the substitute pack- | aging. The Oregon business community ■also cannot afford the legal fees if they are ■summoned to court. The recycling act would I in turn cause many local companies to I abandon the sale of their products in Ore- [gon. The recycling measure also covers health Icare supplies that protect sterility and sanitation. The packages of such products as syringes, blood and blood products, over the counter medications, contact lenses Pages Initiative not a question of seat belts... Measure 6 keys on packaging Recycling is a major concern among many Oregonians. Coming Nov. 6, the voters in Oregon will decide on what is called the 1990 recycling act (Measure 6). This ballot measure is not the answer for recycling in Oregon. If passed, Measure 6 would govern all packaging products sold in retail or whole sale throughout the whole state. It would ban all packag ing by 1993 that | is not reusable at least five times. It also > will allow any person to file civil fines to enforce the law. The Print feels, as does Paul Hanne- ■ mann, theauthorof the Oregon Bottle Bill, that this Measure 6 is not about recycling, I and in no way improves recycling in the THE CLACKAMAS PRINT supplies, and many more items will be substituted. Almost all food packaging for meats, frozen vegetables, bread, produce and hundreds of other products will also be impacted. Leonard Kunzman, the former director of Oregon Department of Agri culture, wrote in the 1990 voters’ pamphlet that the needed packaging to keep meat fish and poultry safe for consump tion will be band by this law. Kunzman also commented that the insulating trays to keep the meat cold as it travels home from the market and the air tight wrapper over the meat keeps the bacteria from getting to the meat Without these packages, we as consumers take the risk of food borne diseases and food spoilage. Another concern is the fines and pen- ln effect, Measure 6 will put Oregon businesses at a competitive disadvantage. alties that businesses are subject to if they donot follow the packaging law. Thelawas written allows any person to press charges against any business if the business is sus pected in not following the laws. Oregon needs to expand the current recycling pro grams and invest in incentive programs, but this packaging ban won’t do any good for Oregon. The current ballot measu re isn’t about recycling and doesn’t improve recycling in Oregon. Measure 6 is centered around product packaging and leaves many ques tions unanswered. The bill says nothing about financial support and seems to put Oregon businesses and consumers at a dis advantage. For Oregon’s corporations, consumers and health professionals sake, you as voters need to just say no on 6. Partisan Candidates United States Senator: (Vote for One): Mark O. Hatfield (R); Harry Lonsdale (D) Representative in Congress, 3rd District: (Vote for One): Phil Mooney (R); Ron Wyden (D) Representative in Congress, 5th District: (Vote for One): Mike Kopetski (D); Denny Smith (R) Governor: (Vote for One): Dave Frohnmayer (R); Al Mobley (I); Fred Oerther (L); Barbara Roberts (D) Commisioner of the Bureau of Labor and Industries: (Vote for One): Mary Wendy Roberts (D); Mary Ann Ruggiero (L) State Senator, 12th District: (Vote for One): Bob Johnson (D); Bill Kennemer (R) State Senator, 13th District: (Vote for One): Joyce Cohen (D); Bob Tiernan (R) State Senator, 14th District: (Vote for One): Jack Elder (D); Bob Kintigh (R) State Representative, 22nd District: (Vote for One): Rick Kotulski (D); Ron Sunseri Measure 9 denies freedom On Nov. 6, Oregon voters go to the polls to decide the mandatory seatbelt ini tiative. Measure 9 kills adult Oregonians’ freedom of choice. The existing seatbelt law in Oregon requires persons the age of 16 or under to wear a seatbelt while riding in or operating a vehicle. This ballot measure would add a law to the state constitution requiring persons over 16 years of age to wear seatbelts. Most people in Ore gon will admit that wearing a seatbelt while driving is a valid safety pre caution which individual motorvehicleop- erators should adhere to. However, in 1988, Oregon voters voted down a similar ballot measure by a percentage margin of 12 per cent (56 percent against; 44 percent in favor). In that vote, Oregonians said the govern ment should not be involved in an individ ual’s right to decide how to protect them selves. Oregonians didn’t like the measure in 1988, why should the voters approve the measure now? This measure is not about the neces sity for adult Oregonians to protect them selves from the tragedy which may occur in .the event of an accident if a seatbelt is not used by an individual; this is about an indi vidual’s freedom of choice. With a mandatory seatbelt law, the state government can control any law-abid ing adult citizen by denying his right to choose for himself. Of course, the possibil ity of people simply ignoring the law, refus ing to buckle-up, and getting away with it is a distinct real i ty which the police force will have to deal with. Do Oregonians want those police officers who protect the public involved in handing out petty tickets when real criminals run through our streets? Instead of adding still another headache to the traffic cops list, let individuals govern themselves! Most mandatory laws, such as speed limits, are put into effect because the bla tant disregard for that law by an individual may be hazardous to the public. However, this law would protect the individual and no one else. This is an individual decision which must be made by the driver. If the driver feels a need to protect himself in the event of an accident, then let him wear the seatbelt; otherwise, let him take his own fate into his hands by not wearing the seatbelt It is a clear choice of the individual and not the state, considering it is the driver’s life in jeopardy. Most people who drive feel respon sible enough to make that choice. Don’t Most people who drive feel responsible enough to make that choice. Don't take it away from them. take it away from them! As you, the voter, step up into the booths, think about what you will be saying if you vote yes. You are saying from this time forward, I am wearing my seatbelt every time that I sit in a car. Fine,yousay. You do not mind wearing a restrictive apparatus around you while you drive, that’s fine. Regardless, you have made your choice to buckle-up, why not let the rest of the adult Oregonians make their choice, in stead of making it for them? Measure 4 nukes important energy Trojan's closure will increase energy expenses in Oregon If Ballot Measure 4 passes the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant will be shut down until a permanent radioactive waste re pository has been federally licensed and is accepting waste, can be cost-effective, and can withstand a major earthquake without harm to the public. We urge you to vote no on this measure. There are some good arguments in favor of this measure, but we would want you to look at the facts, very carefully. The most glaring issue facing voters, if they pass this measure, is how they are going to pay for their increased electric bills. Studies have shown that replacing the lost power caused by the shutdown of Trojan will cost around $ 1.5 billion. Do the electric users of this state want to pay this outrageous amount of money to get the power that we so desperately need to run our daily lives? I should think not Closing Trojan may also lead to un necessary environmental damage. Now who would want that? The clean, inexpen sive power that Trojan produces would be wiped away by a “yes” vote. Power would have to be made either by running more water through the hydroelectric system on the Columbia River, thereby killing more fish in the river, or burning more coal at the Boardman coal-burning plant. Closing Trojan would wipe away a lot of effort to clean up the planet that we call home. Many scien tists, engineers, physicians, and, even environ mentalists have called on the vot ing public of the great state of Oregon to vote no on Ballot Measure 4. The state of Oregon and its citizens would The most glaring issue facing voters, if they pass this measure, is how they are going to pay their increased electric bills. benefit greatly by supporting these people in voting against this measure. And The Print urges the readers of this article to do the same. (R) State Representative, 23rd District: (Vote for One): Dave Cook (R); Bob Shiprack (D) State Representative, 24th District: (Vote for One): Randy Miller (R); George A. Schneider (D) State Representative, 25th District: (Vote for One): Lindsey Bradshaw (L); Jane Lokan (R); Dave McTeague (D) State Representative, 26th District: (Vote for One): Jim Ebert (R); Larry Sowa (D) State Representative, 27th District: (Vote for One): Kelly Clark (R); John J. McCabe (D) State Representative, 38th District: (Vote for One): Austin Colcord (D); Cedric Hayden (R) The opinions on this page were arrived at by a vote of The Clacka mas Print Staff. Although all of the staff members may not share these views, the opinions were decided by a 2/3 majority vote. Only ballot measures 4,5,6,8,9, and 11 are represented here, as the staff felt that these were of most Importance to our readers. The Clackamas Print staff would like to encourage every registered voter to exercise their constitutional rights and vote on Nov. 6.
