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.