Sanders the best candidate for president
As I recall from my high school government class, socialism is a system in which the government makes decisions about the economy, in contrast to capitalism, in which people or corporations with the most money and profits make (or buy) economic decisions. In a democracy, citizens vote on political decisions. Hence, in America we have government of, by and for the people. One may think a democratic-socialist government would be a good thing for consumers, workers and citizens, though the small percent with the most money may find themselves outvoted sometimes in favor of the common good or the commonwealth.
But the United States is a republic (for which our flag stands), not a true democracy, as we elect legislators to represent us and don’t vote directly for a president or for legislation, except for referenda and, at times, a constitutional amendment. Accordingly, would Maine and American politicians who are described as socialists more accurately be called republican socialists?
Regardless of the jargon, I think Bernie Sanders offers the best option for getting to the root of problems, listening to us and leading us through bipartisan political and economic challenges, decisions and solutions.
Mark Rains
Vienna
Bring back the Maine primary
I strongly support Sen. Justin Alfond’s proposal to eliminate caucuses and re-institute primaries in Maine.
This past weekend’s caucuses underscored how cumbersome and outdated this procedure has become. Caucuses made sense when the electorate did not have the endless sources of information available to them that they do today.
The disadvantages of the caucus procedure far outweigh the benefits. A caucus requires far more expenditure of time than a primary. They strip participants of the privacy of primary voting. Additionally, the possibility of convincing the participants to abandon their chosen candidate and support another is nearly nonexistent and becomes an exercise in futility.
Instituting primaries in lieu of caucuses would be a far more efficient way to encourage Maine voters to participate in the democratic process of electing our officials.
Rebecca H. Lajoie
Morrill
Naloxone saves lives
LD 1547, a bill that would have expanded access to the lifesaving overdose antidote naloxone, left the Legislature’s Health and Human Services Committee last Tuesday with a divided report. I’d like to provide a measure of education regarding the concerns expressed by those opposed.
As it stands, current legislation governing access to naloxone is insufficient to combat the rising death toll from opioid-related overdoses. A national survey showed a majority of doctors either are unaware of their ability to prescribe naloxone or are unwilling to do so.
Equipping our first responders with naloxone was a step in the right direction. But the rural nature of our state poses a problem in the form of response time. Eighty-five percent of opioid-related overdoses occur in the presence of another person, so lay administration of naloxone will buy valuable time until trained professionals can arrive. Those extra minutes can mean the difference between life and death.
There is no evidence to support claims that increased access to naloxone encourages more use of opioids. Studies performed in Chicago and San Francisco have shown the opposite: Drug users equipped with naloxone were more likely to reduce use and access health resources.
Naloxone is nonaddictive and can put opioid-dependent people into withdrawal, hence there is little motivation to misuse it. Naloxone has fewer side-effects than epinephrine (EpiPen) and creates no “high.” Naloxone has one purpose: to reverse an opioid overdose. Reducing barriers to accessing naloxone will make it easier for Mainers to save lives.
Ross Hicks
Brunswick
Dependence versus addiction
Thanks, BDN, for the series of articles on addiction and substance abuse. This paper is providing an important public service with these articles.
I have one suggestion, which came up while reading Meg Haskell’s March 5 article “The invisible victims of Maine’s opiate crisis.” The most important distinction the public needs to understand is the difference between “physical dependence” and “addiction.” These two terms were used in this article, but they mean very different things; the distinction between them was not adequately made.
Addiction involves cravings. It’s that simple. If people with an addiction are put next to a someone without an addiction who has been taking opioids for several months because of, say, a difficult knee replacement recovery, the difference is this: a person with an addiction cannot wait to get hold of another handful of opioids, and the other person cannot wait to get off them.
The BDN should, in future articles, be certain to regularly make these distinctions.
Mary Offutt
Deer Isle
Mainers support new national park
Maine has been part of my life from my first summer through my retirement here with my husband in 1999. Through my youth and then with my husband, I traveled to national parks from Big Bend in Texas to Glacier in Montana to the Everglades in Florida to Acadia in Maine.
I’m incredibly disappointed with the lack of leadership from Rep. Bruce Poliquin, the governor and Sens. Angus King and Susan Collins. But as a soon-to-be octogenarian, I’m angry on behalf of my grandnephews and nieces. They are the ones who will suffer if our elected officials do not heed the call of the overwhelming majority of Mainers, whether in Portland, Presque Isle, the Katahdin region or Camden, who support the establishment of a national park and recreation area east of Baxter State Park.
When a $40 million gift is on the table, an investment dwarfing anything else proposed in the region, the voice of all Mainers should count. There always are naysayers. But a gift of private property with a massive endowment is hardly a “federal takeover.” Any carefully crafted proposal to conserve even this small piece of Maine’s priceless North Woods in a way that will contribute to the economic development of the entire state should not become a political football. The benefits to Maine are obvious.
Governors and senators come and go, but national parks are forever. Our senators need to heed the majority of Mainers and create the park or, at the very least, support the creation of a national monument.
Edith Manns
Camden