Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About The Bulletin. (Bend, OR) 1963-current | View Entire Issue (Dec. 14, 2022)
A8 The BulleTin • Wednesday, decemBer 14, 2022 EDITORIALS & OPINIONS AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER Heidi Wright Gerry O’Brien Richard Coe Publisher Editor Editorial Page Editor The many holes in Oregon’s drug monitoring program O regon is No. 1 in the country in the percent of the population older than 12 that say they have misused opioids in the past year. And Oregon has one of the weak- est prescription drug monitoring programs in the country. Connection? Maybe. The prescription drug monitor- ing program is a state database that compiles data about prescriptions for addictive drugs, patients and prescribers. It keeps patient data private and can help catch suspi- cious activity. But Oregon’s program is so weak, it gives plenty of room for abuse of prescription drugs. The state’s program has many, many holes. The state prohibits the sharing of suspicious prescriber activity to state licensing boards. A total of 29 states do. Maybe Or- egon should. The state doesn’t allow law en- forcement to get access to suspi- cious reports of prescribers. A total of 21 states do. Maybe Or- egon should. Oregon doesn’t collect informa- tion about Schedule 5 controlled substances. A total of 42 states do. Schedule 5 drugs are generally considered less addictive, but people do combine them with other drugs to get high. Maybe Oregon should collect the data, too. Oregon’s program doesn’t get the data from the pharmacies at long- term care facilities. A total of 19 states do. Maybe Or- egon should. Oregon’s program also doesn’t get the data from pharmacies of the Veterans Administration. A total of 25 states do. Maybe Or- egon should. Oregon’s program doesn’t get the method of payment when collect- ing data. A total of 46 states do. Maybe Or- egon should. And some people use their pets to get access to drugs by seeking prescriptions from veterinarians. Oregon doesn’t collect that data. A total of 21 states do. Maybe Or- egon should. A state audit first told Ore- gon legislators about many of the weaknesses in the state’s program in 2018. Some holes have been plugged. Those we listed remain. Some legislators had all that in- formation laid out before them recently in a presentation with the numbers presented in nice graphics. Are they going to do anything about it? Or does there need to be more abuse of prescription drugs first? How should Oregon respond to illegal marijuana grows? W hat’s been fascinating to watch since Oregon le- galized pot is how many people create illegal grows. The grows have often been con- nected to illegal human trafficking and illegal use of well water. For in- stance, at one operation discovered this year near Bend, Mexican-na- tional laborers were trafficked into the United States, promised $20 per day to tend the sites and compelled to live in squalor. That’s from the Oregon-Idaho High In- tensity Drug Trafficking Area task force. And there are many more examples. In fact the police in Or- egon have seized 105 tons of ille- gally grown marijuana this year, OPB reported. It looks like the Legislature may take action to fight the problem. A draft bill prepared for the next leg- islative session would require the owner of a property to be required to clean up the equipment and waste from an illegal grow them- selves. It also clearly prohibits use of water to grow illegal pot and al- lows punishment of up to a maxi- █ mum of 364 days’ imprisonment, $6,250 fine, or both. The draft takes another step and increases the pos- sible imprisonment and fines for possession and manufacture of large quantities of marijuana, such as more than 100 plants, to 10 years and $250,000 or both. That possible bill won’t stop grows, of course. It would pun- ish people after they have created them. Do you think it is the right approach? Or should the state fo- cus more on putting more funding in the hands of law enforcement to help them investigate and interdict grows? Anthony Johnson, the chief pe- titioner for the legalization effort in Oregon, Ballot Measure 91, told OPB he wants Oregon to take ac- tion against illegal grows. But he also thinks the problem won’t im- prove unless the federal govern- ment legalizes marijuana. Even then, we’d imagine there will still be illegal grows. And we have to won- der if the next challenge for law en- forcement will be illegal grows of psilocybin. Editorials reflect the views of The Bulletin’s editorial board, Publisher Heidi Wright, Editor Gerry O’Brien and Editorial Page Editor Richard Coe. They are written by Richard Coe. My Nickel’s Worth Sidewalk clearing lacks enforcement As a citizen of Bend I feel a sense of civil confusion over our current laws along with contemplated future laws since I know they will never be enforced. With our fresh and needed snowfall the sidewalk clearing law is an egregious example. For the pe- destrians amongst us, we experience very few cleared sidewalks. Regard- less of house values, neighborhood demographics, or any other criteria, most sidewalks are never cleared. What this means for a pedestrian fac- ing this situation is a risk of falling or proceeding in the street right of way and at risk of getting hit by a motor vehicle. Of course, I don’t choose a police state, but how can a city im- pose rules that lack any sanctions? The Bulletin addresses this topic ev- ery winter season as a reminder to businesses and homeowners, but lacking enforcement for noncompli- ance, this is merely a suggestion and not a requirement. — Alan Durkheimer, Bend Accountability for voter fraud complaints All of us who enjoy democracy want accurate vote tallies. When vot- ing fraud occurs, it should be dealt with as quickly as possible. Much of these issues come from highly circu- lated claims of fraud and exploit la- bels such as rigged, tampering, vote buying, corruption, etc, to garner more media attention and purposely frighten uninformed voters. With the advent of instant social media platforms and tabloid entertainment masquerading as real news, voters are being bombarded with misinfor- mation and even more threatening, disinformation. Obviously, we can’t punish free speech but we can hold those accountable who register voter fraud complaints. When a complaint is found to have misinformation, disinformation, or no evidence of support, the person registering that complaint should be held account- able. A minimum fine should be as- sessed to those who interfere with the integrity of America’s democracy. This fine should be congruent to the average cost of an investigation. Voter fraud is a rarity, but its myth is both costly and injurious to our de- mocracy. — Michael Zapp, Bend Bentz should condemn Trump’s comments U.S. Rep. Cliff Bentz; the latest abomination from our former pres- ident calling for the “…termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitu- tion…” deserves your immediate condemnation. Despite the 2020 election being the most open, secure, and fair election in history; despite his own attorney general and election czar defending the legitimacy of the election; de- spite no evidence of massive election fraud; and despite 61 failed lawsuits aimed at overturning the 2020 elec- tion, he still cites his worn-out elec- tion fraud fantasy as substantiation for his outrageous statement. Silence, fealty and impotence are not appropriate responses to the dan- gerous tantrums of a spoiled rich boy unaccustomed to not getting his way, (who is still the de facto leader of your party). As our congressman, who has the ear of most of Eastern and Southern Oregon, it’s time for you to heed your oath of office and “…support and de- fend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…So help me God.” by standing up with a loud, clear, and public denunciation of this man and his words attacking our Constitution. Do it to keep America great. Do it to defend democracy. Please condemn this lunacy. — Joseph Bova, Ashland Column showed short-term perspective In his Dec. 7 guest column, Chuck Shattuck criticized the way Bend manages transportation and energy conservation. Unfortu- nately, his piece focused only on a short-term perspective for looking at those issues. Without a longer view, we can only expect to main- tain the status quo, which would be a disaster for Bend, and for the planet. Our City Council faces the serious challenge of embracing that longer view, recognizing that peo- ple like Mr. Shattuck will criticize their decisions because of short- term sacrifices that may be neces- sary. I, for one, applaud our leaders for their “deep thinking and com- mon sense” as they manage for our city’s future. — Louis Capozzi, Bend Letters policy Guest columns How to submit We welcome your letters. letters should be limited to one issue, contain no more than 250 words and include the writer’s phone number and address for verifica- tion. We edit letters for brevity, grammar, taste and legal reasons. We reject poetry, personal attacks, form letters, letters submitted elsewhere and those appro- priate for other sections of The Bulletin. Writers are limited to one letter or guest column every 30 days. your submissions should be between 550 and 650 words and must include the writer’s phone number and address for verification. We edit submissions for brevity, grammar, taste and legal reasons. We reject those submitted elsewhere. locally submitted columns alternate with national columnists and commentaries. Writers are limited to one letter or guest column every 30 days. Please address your submission to either my nickel’s Worth or Guest column and mail, fax or email it to The Bulletin. email submissions are preferred. email: letters@bendbulletin.com Write: my nickel’s Worth/Guest column P.O. Box 6020 Bend, Or 97708 Fax: 541-385-5804 The lies of Twitter and the damage done against conservatives BY HUGH HEWITT The Washington Post F rom shock to anger to outrage: That describes my arc of reac- tion to “The Twitter Files,” es- pecially Bari Weiss’ revelatory install- ment, #TwitterFiles2. Using Twitter’s own internal files, released with the blessing of new owner Elon Musk, Weiss demon- strates that Twitter was indeed cen- soring conservatives, despite vig- orous and repeated denials from company brass over the years. “I want to read a few quotes about Twitter’s practices, and I just want you to tell me if they’re true or not,” Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.), asked the company’s then-CEO Jack Dorsey in a 2018 hearing. Bear in mind: Dorsey was under oath. Doyle’s first quote: “Social media is being rigged to censor conservatives. Is that true of Twitter?” “No,” Dorsey responded. “Are you censoring people?” Doyle asked next. “No,” Dorsey answered. “Twitter’s shadow-banning prom- inent Republicans . . . is that true?” Doyle followed. “No,” Dorsey said. Those may not have been lies in Dorsey’s mind. But they are decep- tive, to say the least, when read in light of the Weiss revelations. Verified accounts of such prominent conser- vatives as activist Charlie Kirk (who like me hosts a radio show for Salem Media Group), radio host Dan Bong- ino and many others were flagged so that Twitter algorithms would not highlight their tweets. Dorsey’s smoke screen masked other kinds of deception, too. Con- servatives were led to believe that they had equal access to the Twitter audience. People and organizations on the right invested time, effort and sometimes money to craft messages in the belief that the results could be read on a level playing field. In truth, any message out of favor with Twitter management — or somehow offen- sive to lower-level content modera- tors — might find only a small frac- tion of its intended readership. The Twitter reporting has met with ferocious pushback, including on the app itself, in part because the GUEST COLUMN company handpicked the journal- ists it wanted for the task: indepen- dent-minded iconoclasts Matt Taibbi, Michael Shellenberger and Weiss. We don’t know what terms may have been imposed or agreements made with the company. So, sure, it’s fair to read with a radar for opinion and bias — as one should with all jour- nalism. I would prefer it if Musk made every document available to everyone. Like his tweets. But don’t let the attacks stop you from considering the reporting. Imagine the hours you would in- vest in preparing a lecture, a sermon or simply an advertisement if you were told it might be heard by 1,000, 10,000 or 100,000 people. Only after you have finished do you discover that your time has been wasted and you can never get it back, because your message was blocked or filtered. Producers of company-approved tweets enjoyed a fair shot at reaching the platform’s audience. Conserva- tives were singled out, secretly muf- fled, as Twitter robbed them of the one thing that cannot be made good: time. Meanwhile, Twitter was happy to have the large crowds of followers some conservatives have built. These numbers helped Twitter hit the lev- els of “engagements” they sold to ad- vertisers — advertisers who might be rethinking their investments on a platform they were assured would have full-spectrum reach. Has the Se- curities and Exchange Commission begun a hard look into the investor statements of this formerly publicly traded company? Another apparent deception tar- geted Twitter users who counted on the platform for breaking news or bubbling debates. They relied on Dorsey’s promise of neutrality. When former President Donald Trump’s account was canceled, and information about Hunter Biden was tightly rationed, at least the decisions were public, and Twitter users could factor them into their perceptions of the world. Not so with secret pro- tocols. Finally, there are the folks — I raise my hand here — who defended Twitter to our conservative friends and followers. Over and over, I and others on the center-right knocked down talk of behind-the-scenes activists busy silencing dissidents from the approved party line. We were trying to contain what politi- cal scientist Richard Hofstadter fa- mously called “The Paranoid Style in American Politics.” But the folks paranoid about Twitter have been proved right, and those of us who dismissed their concerns: wrong, wrong, wrong. The most damaging result of this scandal will be the further erosion of faith in elections in the social me- dia era. The Twitter Files license an endless series of counterfactuals that cannot be proven or disproven. “If Twitter hadn’t tipped the scales, then [fill in the blank] wouldn’t have happened.” Once again, conserva- tives have been told to trust a public square that turns out to be rigged against them. █ Hugh Hewitt is a nationally syndicated radio host on the Salem Radio Network. He is also a professor at Chapman University School of Law.
