DUI checkpoints and fear of stricter laws
Re: “DUI checks also block basic rights,” July 27 David Harsanyi column.
Driving is a privilege, not a right. Good citizens are not clamoring for an end to DUI checkpoints. During my 25 years driving Colorado roads, I have never encountered one; actually, there aren’t enough of them. If drunks successfully evade checkpoints, then why can’t sober drivers?
Are we all really living in fear of 0.00 percent BAC limits? Some European nations have such limits, yet their citizens are not fearful because they maturely and responsibly acknowledge that because alcoholic beverages dull the senses – isn’t that the point of consuming alcohol? – driving after drinking any alcohol is potentially dangerous.
DUI checkpoints may be an avoidable inconvenience. However, I can attest that a vehicle driven by a drunk, crossing over a median and hurtling towards you at 100 mph, is not.
Jerry Sullivan, Denver
Federal protection for state’s wilderness
Re: “Pass bills to protect state’s wilderness,” July 30 editorial.
I was encouraged to see The Post’s editorial on protecting the state’s wilderness. I have spent numerous years in Colorado’s backcountry as an outdoor educator and as a wilderness ranger. I know wilderness, and these areas are wilderness. The only thing missing is the support of our entire Colorado delegation. Helping designate these pristine areas is a political no-brainer and a win-win situation.
The Browns Canyon proposed wilderness is an absolutely spectacular low- and mid-elevation area that would make a great addition to Colorado’s existing wilderness, which consists mostly of high-elevation rock and ice. Rocky Mountain National Park has been managed as de facto wilderness for the last 30-plus years. Wilderness designation would change absolutely nothing, and that is exactly the point. Wilderness designation is the best way to leave something for future generations just as we enjoy it today. The Rocky Mountain National Park proposed wilderness has the support of all the gateway communities, sportsmen groups and local user groups.
Coloradans want to see these areas designated as wilderness. Let’s do something smart for Colorado.
Michele Novosad, Boulder
…
Contrary to your editorial, Sen. Wayne Allard’s and Rep. Marilyn Musgrave’s request for an economic impact analysis before Congress declares 265,828 acres of Rocky Mountain National Park a wilderness area makes sense.
It was only in May that an elderly Arizona widow’s summer home in RMNP drew headlines over the expiration of a 25-year lease granted when the government purchased the property in 1980. At the 2005 deadline, she decided she still wanted to use the property. After much political posturing, Congress finally passed a special bill to bail her out.
So, how do we know that other homes, cabins and businesses inside RMNP or on the fringe are not encroaching and may have to be bailed out? Will the customer base of existing businesses that depend a lot on today’s RMNP visitors change? If so, these businesses need to know now, not after the fact.
Just as environmental impact studies are mandatory in the private sector, economic impact analyses should be routine for the federal government in matters such as this.
Percy Conarroe, Longmont
More reasons to be thankful for smoking ban
Thank goodness for the smoke- free law in Colorado. Recently, after a fantastic weekend of hiking beautiful Colorado, our group decided to stop at the Tommyknocker brewpub in Idaho Springs for some lunch. Upon arrival, we saw that the dining area was packed with other weekend warriors. We were told either to go to the bar for food or wait 20 minutes until a booth in the dining area opened.
We were starving, but everyone remembered how smoky the bar was last time we were in. When the hostess reminded us – with great pride and enthusiasm – that the entire place was smoke-free, not only did we have lunch in the bar, but we stayed for a few more cocktails and conversations than we normally would have.
On the drive home, we made a list of all the places we would go now that the state is smoke-free – those places where we enjoyed the food and environment, but didn’t want to breathe secondhand smoke while we were there. It’s such a pleasure to know that from now on, after taking in refreshing clean air outdoors, we can also do so indoors.
Stacey Simms, Denver
7th CD candidates’ environmental records
Having been involved with environmental issues for 20 years and having a high regard for the League of Conservation Voters, I was very disappointed that the LCV endorsed Ed Perlmutter for Congress. I am a former state director of a national environmental organization that worked on pro-environmental legislation, and we considered Peggy Lamm not only a good friend to the environment and a solid vote on environmental issues, but a leader. Peggy never had to be lobbied on environmental issues and never listened to special-interest lobbyists.
To be fair, Perlmutter doesn’t have a horrible record on the environment, but he could be counted on to side with developers and the oil industry. He supported takings legislation that would allow compensation paid for with taxpayer dollars to pay developers for not developing on environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands. In 2002, he supported a bill that The Denver Post called an “oil-industry dream,” and the oil industry has called Perlmutter an effective voice for the oil industry.
Peggy Lamm can be trusted on environmental issues.
Carmi McLean, Lakewood
The writer was Colorado director of Clean Water Action.
…
As a Democrat and voter in the 7th Congressional District, I am disgusted by Peggy Lamm’s distortion of Ed Perlmutter’s record. In her campaign mailings, Lamm consistently ignores important truths with regard to Perlmutter’s record.
For example, a recent mailing claims that “The Perlmutter family received $5 million dollars to build the new Wal-Mart.” While factually correct, it is ignored that it was the candidate’s father’s cousin who was involved in this deal, and not the candidate himself. Only when a campaign is digging desperately for negative information and trying to confuse voters would such an accusation even be leveled.
In the same mailing, Perlmutter is accused of siding with “big developers.” This accusation willfully ignores the responsible growth legislation he sponsored, the “environmental hero” label he earned from the League of Conservation Voters, and the fight he led against the Nike corporation building on Table Mountain.
Negative campaigns are an unfortunate part of politics, but I am sick of watching as a good man’s record is so callously distorted.
Anthony West, Lakewood
Which party will gain immigrants’ votes?
Re: “Martinez fears Republicans are throwing it all away,” July 23 David Broder column.
David Broder writes that Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida fears Republicans will lose Hispanic votes because House members oppose the Senate immigration bill. Martinez says, “They don’t think about the long-term cost.”
But the path-to-citizenship provision in that bill would in time result in millions of new Hispanic voters. Most of them would likely vote Democratic, as Hispanics currently do, and perhaps even more so because the Democratic Party strongly supports such a path. The Republicans could be helping the Democrats to increase their advantage by a million votes or more.
Edward J. Kelly, Evergreen
TO REACH OPINION EDITORS
Phone: 303-820-1331
Fax: 303-820-1502
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202 or PO Box 1709, Denver, 80201
Letters guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
