Letters to the Editor

Opioids, Sanchez, net metering, Cruz and abortion

Addiction to opioids has remained a silent epidemic, at times ignored by leaders. But skyrocketing rates of drug deaths have led some presidential candidates to address the issue.
Addiction to opioids has remained a silent epidemic, at times ignored by leaders. But skyrocketing rates of drug deaths have led some presidential candidates to address the issue. Associated Press file

Change in thinking on opioid epidemic

Re “Finally, the political will to curb opioids” (Editorials, Jan. 24): The Sacramento Bee editorial board wrote: “The researchers didn’t know why doctors kept prescribing opioids to at-risk patients. We don’t either.” As a front-line family doctor, I know why. Pain is subjective, and we tend to give patients the benefit of the doubt. And people are not perfect.

For example, you get a traffic ticket, a penalty, but you often get to drive again. And was it not these same politicians, all up in arms now, who told us we were “undertreating” pain at the turn of the millennia and went so far as to mandate 12 hours of pain management education as a requirement. You can’t have it both ways, and there is not a “one-size-fits-all” fix to this.

Dr. Nathan Hitzeman, Sacramento

Loretta Sanchez ... really?

Re “Sanchez runs against Harris and herself” (Forum, Dan Morain, Jan. 24): Rep. Loretta Sanchez sounds like a female Donald Trump. Another problem with our government – too many big egos. I’ll stick with Kamala Harris for U.S. Senate.

Stephen Adams,

West Sacramento

Fairness in net metering ignored

Re “For green future, we should resist utility attacks on rooftop solar” (Viewpoints, Jan. 24), and “Sky won’t fall if solar companies share a little sun” (Editorials, Jan. 25): I support solar, but I was pleased that The Sacramento Bee’s editorial board injected some common sense into the “net metering” controversy after Antonio Villaraigosa’s one-sided tirade against efforts to make solar users – who are already subsidized – pay fairly for their non-solar energy use.

Villaraigosa avoided explaining the issue, opting instead for overblown benefit claims. To The Bee’s timely explanation, let me add that creating solar panels is very much energy dependent, and six of the top 10 solar panel manufacturers are in China, where coal is still king. Also, I would compare net metering to the loss of gas tax funding for roadways as more drivers switch to electric vehicles instead of to Internet taxes. As with home electricity, all drivers should pay their fair share for infrastructure they rely on.

Harvey Swenson,

Sacramento

Solar opponents should be proponents

We are all literally and figuratively linked to our utilities. The utilities already have a sweet deal with people who choose solar. Having a solar array helps the utilities with peak power production so that they don’t have to build new power plants. At the end of month, they bill you. They seem to want more.

I really can’t imagine anyone being against clean energy. Especially when it’s produced and paid for by others. The California Public Utilities Commission should not be allowed to discourage people from choosing clean energy so that the utilities can increase profits. Enough is enough.

Robert Rodger, Los Osos

Criminal charges should be filed

Re “Poisoning Flint’s water: Political contempt in action” (Sacbee.com, Mary Sanchez, Viewpoints) The leadership who knew the water was toxic to the point of hazardous waste and told the public it was still safe to drink should be held criminally responsible for ruining the lives of everyone who drank, bathed or cooked with that water.

Eileen Broome, Sacramento

Abortion is a personal choice

Re “The Conversation – Abortion” (Forum, Jan. 24): The response to the upcoming Supreme Court decision on abortion was interesting. There were four letters from women and three from men. Obvious thought went into the letters from the women. Male responses were predictable. Shouldn’t this whole issue be a woman’s very private decision?

Perhaps if a woman has a personal reason not to endure a pregnancy, it could be given to the man to carry, give birth and to raise.

Sadly, all could be resolved with tolerance toward the morning-after pill.

Celeste Snavely,

Sacramento

Eligibility of Cruz questioned

Re “Cruz is eligible for White House” (Letters, Jan. 24): Joe Genshlea’s letter cites the Naturalization Act of 1790 as evidence refuting Tony Quinn’s logic on Ted Cruz’s eligibility to serve as president. The problem with Genshlea’s logic is that this act was repealed and replaced by another Naturalization Act in 1795, which removed the clause cited and reintroduced the issue of geography and birth. Sadly, should Cruz win, the courts will ultimately have to sort out the issue, like Florida’s hanging chads before.

Eric L. Wells,

Cameron Park

EXTRA LETTERS ONLINE

Find them at:

sacbee.com/letters-to-the-editor

HOW TO SUBMIT

Online form (preferred):

www.sacbee.com/submit-letter

Other: Letters, P.O. Box 15779,

Sacramento, CA 95852

150-word limit. Include name, address and phone number. Letters may be edited for clarity, brevity and content.

  Comments