ANDREW CUTLER
Publisher/Editor
KATHRYN B. BROWN
Owner
WYATT HAUPT JR.
News Editor
JADE McDOWELL
Hermiston Editor
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2020
A4
Founded October 16, 1875
OUR VIEW
Measure
108 should
be passed
by voters
O
regon Measure 108, on the Nov. 3
ballot, would increase the tax on cig-
arettes by $2 per pack, up to $3.33
per pack. It also increases taxes on cigars,
and establishes a new tax on e-cigarettes and
vaping products that are essentially nicotine
delivery systems. This tax revenue would
fund health care and mental health care for
low-income families, and public health pro-
grams aimed at preventing the use of tobacco
and nicotine, and helping users quit.
If passed, it would go into effect on Jan. 1,
2021. This would bring in an estimated $160
million in new revenue for Oregon per year.
While we are in favor of this, there are a
couple of things we don’t like about Measure
108.
We don’t like the enormous amounts of
money that were poured into the “Yes for a
Healthy Future” campaign. Many of Oregon’s
large hospital systems gave $500,000 each,
and one gave $3.29 million. Total campaign
donations to pass this measure total over
$12.5 million.
But our concern here is mostly about the
need for campaign finance reform (which is
addressed by Measure 107). Clearly these
hospital and health care systems have a lot to
gain if fewer people use tobacco and nicotine,
and if more people have health insurance, so
it makes sense that they would be willing to
spend big money to pass this measure.
We also don’t like the fact that raising the
per-pack tax to $3.33 would make Oregon’s
cigarette prices considerably higher than in
our three neighboring states. Those per-pack
taxes are: Washington: $3.03, California:
$2.87 and Idaho: $0.57.
Smokers and vapers who live near a state
border might decide it’s worth the time and
gas to drive across the state line to stock up.
And when people cross a border to shop for
one item, they are likely to buy other items as
well on that trip. So much for shopping local.
There is also a concern that high cigarette
taxes will create a black market, with prod-
uct being smuggled in from states with lower
taxes. This will be of particular concern to
Malheur County, sharing a border with Idaho.
Right now, 31 states have higher cigarette
taxes than Oregon. The passage of Measure
108 would mean only five states would have
higher rates.
We do like making the users of addictive
and unhealthy products (tobacco and nicotine
in this case) pay for addiction treatment and
health care costs that result from their use.
We also are in favor of anything that dis-
suades young people from smoking or vap-
ing, and keeps them from getting addicted to
nicotine.
We don’t buy the argument that taxes like
this “punish Oregon’s most vulnerable.” Ulti-
mately, when costs of cigarettes and other
nicotine delivery products go up, smok-
ing rates go down. And that protects the
vulnerable.
We recommend a “yes” vote on Measure
108.
EDITORIALS
Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the East
Oregonian editorial board. Other columns,
letters and cartoons on this page express the
opinions of the authors and not necessarily
that of the East Oregonian.
LETTERS
The East Oregonian welcomes original letters
of 400 words or less on public issues and public
policies for publication in the newspaper and
on our website. The newspaper reserves the
right to withhold letters that address concerns
about individual services and products or
letters that infringe on the rights of private
citizens. Letters must be signed by the author
and include the city of residence and a
daytime phone number. The phone number
will not be published. Unsigned letters will not
be published.
SEND LETTERS TO:
editor@eastoregonian.com,
or via mail to Andrew Cutler,
211 S.E. Byers Ave. Pendleton, OR 97801
A set of environmental grievances
BILL
ANEY
THIS LAND IS OUR LAND
I
wish to register a complaint.
Since 2016, a steady stream of fed-
eral actions has been threatening the
future of our nation’s environment. It is
hard to see these assaults clearly when
they are hidden in the fog of outrageous
statements and actions from the White
House, but yet, there they are.
So I am filing a complaint, nailing it on
the metaphorical door of the opinion page,
if you will, and ask that we consider the
following truths.
Clean air is important
As the recent extended period of smoke
air reminded us, we need clean air to sur-
vive and to have thriving children and eco-
systems. While forest fire smoke eventu-
ally clears out; industrial and vehicle air
pollution is more persistent.
Over the past four years, the Environ-
mental Protection Agency has repealed
or weakened rules regarding vehicle and
power plant emissions, fought against the
states’ abilities to set and enforce their
own measures aimed at reducing air pollu-
tion, relaxed mercury emissions standards,
and encouraged coal use and development
despite a national energy glut.
These actions will make it tougher to
reach air quality goals established by the
U.N. Paris accords in 2016, so the admin-
istration has announced their intent to pull
us out of that international agreement the
day after our next election.
Clean water is important
We need clean water to survive and for
fish and wildlife to thrive. Recently, the
federal government reduced protections
for wetlands and headwaters of the nation’s
streams, removed protections for fish in
Central California in favor of agricultural
uses, backed off the requirements for pro-
tecting streams and reclaiming land, and
fought against the ability of states to set
and enforce water quality standards.
They reversed earlier federal decisions
that had been protecting the Boundary
Waters in Northern Minnesota and Bris-
tol Bay in Alaska from mines proposed
by foreign companies, thereby putting at
risk some of the nation’s best backcountry
and the world’s most productive salmon
fishery.
Wildlife species are important
The Endangered Species Act was
signed by Richard Nixon in 1973 and has
a clear intent to halt and reverse trends
toward extinction of species, whatever the
cost, because once a species is lost, it will
never return.
The current administration announced
plans to roll back and weaken these protec-
tions. Secretary of the Interior David Bern-
hardt, an experienced oil-industry lobbyist,
has been working against the best science
to remove threatened and endangered spe-
cies from the list and change the way deci-
sions affecting the habitat of these species
are made.
The administration has prohibited the
use of climate change science in these
decisions, but added the consideration of
economic effects, essentially putting a
pro-development thumb on the scale. They
also tried to open 9 million acres of sage
grouse habitat to oil and gas development,
and to remove Yellowstone area grizzlies
from the endangered species list, moves so
far blocked by the courts.
A recent review by The New York
Times and Columbia and Harvard law
school lists more than 75 similar actions of
the administration that threaten the future
of our nation’s environment, actions which
in enacted will dramatically degrade the
environment that we leave for our children
and grandchildren. We are right to con-
sider: are these federal actions good long-
term public policy?
Make no mistake about it, this is about
the money, not our future or the well-be-
ing of our planet. These pro-development,
anti-environment actions have been on the
wish list for extractive industries for years,
and they are racing to roll back as many
restrictions as possible while they can.
Fortunately, our constitutional system
of checks and balances is having some
effect. Courts have blocked some of the
most egregious changes in regulation, and
the midterm election saw to it that there’s
an opposing force in Congress. This is the
beauty of a system that allows us to peri-
odically weigh in with our vote.
Like, next month.
As Americans, we understand that not
everyone agrees with the direction our
government is moving at any point in time.
We live with that, as it’s part of being in a
democratic republic. If you are happy with
relaxing restrictions on oil and gas indus-
tries, lowering national energy efficiency
standards, or encouraging mine develop-
ment by foreign companies in some of our
most treasured natural landscapes, then
you may want our nation to continue down
this same path. It’s a path focused on mak-
ing it easier to use natural resources for
corporate wealth.
For me, I want us to prioritize sound
stewardship of our climate, our environ-
ment and our natural resources for our
future. It’s not always about how much
money can be made from our public lands,
and how easily. In fact, it should rarely be
so.
That’s how I will vote.
———
Bill Aney is a forester and wildlife biolo-
gist living in Pendleton and loving the Blue
Mountains.
YOUR VIEWS
Give all voters the
chance to vote
Today, Oregon politicians draw the
boundaries for their own state and con-
gressional districts. In our view, poli-
ticians in power shouldn’t be allowed
to draw voting maps that benefit them-
selves or their party — a serious con-
flict of interest. Unfortunately, the Ore-
gon Redistricting Initiative didn’t make
the ballot — but there is bright hope
for another electoral reform in Oregon:
opening up our primary system.
Oregon’s primary system is closed
to all but Democratic and Republican
party candidates and voters. Nonaffil-
iated and third-party voters and candi-
dates are barred from participating in
primary partisan races. That’s over 1
million — almost 40% — of registered
voters that are shut out. Our primary
system is much like it was when it was
adopted in 1904 — we’re one of only
nine remaining states with a closed pri-
mary system.
The solution? A fully open primary
system. All voters should be entitled
to vote in political office primaries,
regardless of their party preference or
nonpreference. All candidates, regard-
less of party preference or nonprefer-
ence, should be allowed to compete and
broaden voter choice. You shouldn’t
have to join one of the two major par-
ties to be allowed to participate in pri-
mary races — let all voters vote.
Oregon Open Primaries is a non-
partisan team of volunteers working
to advance a ballot measure that will
replace our antiquated, preferential pri-
mary system with one that levels the
playing field for candidates and gives
all voters the chance to vote.
See us at www.oregonopenprimaries.
org.
Michael DeWolf
Redmond
Money spent on fires
instead of forestry
I just read Ann Brown’s letter (Past
logging practices sowed seeds of today’s
fires, Sept. 26, 2020) about timber cut-
ting in 1979. I can confirm her state-
ments. I was on a marking crew around
that time on the Baker district.
We would mark a sale and leave a
larger pine here and there. When we
done, we were complimented on a good
marking job. Then, shortly after that, we
would see blue paint on the trees we left.
“Not enough volume” was always the
reply. “No reason to save those decadent
old pines.”
I worked as a crew leader rehabili-
tating a burn on the Unity district from
1969 to 1971 and watched the big pines
fall like the buffalo did on the plains. It
happened all over the West. It was a law-
suit waiting to happen and when it did,
the mills shut down instead of retooling
to process the smaller trees that needed
to be removed.
I thinned timber for three years and
that was financed by Knutsen Vanderbilt
money. That put a portion of timber rev-
enues back into forestry. That dried up
and the forest became overgrown. There
was damned little coming out of Con-
gress to rectify the problem, so we spent
the money on fires instead of forestry.
I quit the U.S. Forest Service over the
issue and a friend of mine on a differ-
ent marking crew quit, too. I am past my
word limit so the rest will remain unsaid.
Steve Culley
Baker City