Vote against addiction
Death by accidental drug overdose in Westmoreland County has increased four-fold to more than 80 per year during the past decade. Shamefully, that's among the highest in Pennsylvania and the nation!
But even worse, numerous overdosed residents are transported to other counties where they are pronounced dead.
In the news story “Western Pa. drug overdoses reach ‘epidemic levels'” (Oct. 3 and TribLIVE.com), the current district attorney stated that he believes about 80 percent of Westmoreland County crimes are attributable to drug and alcohol addiction.
Although the situation is epidemic, it was virtually ignored by the incumbent DA until the county commissioners recently appointed a large task force to attack it.
Many months ago, GOP district attorney candidate Peter Borghetti and GOP coroner candidate Christopher O'Leath proposed a joint community outreach initiative to attack the drug problem on a multifaceted basis, educating children and adults on prevention as well as recovery.
They support the proposed drug court that will handle the special needs of those who need recovery and rehabilitation to put them on the path to becoming productive members of our communities.
In addition, they support registration of convicted drug dealers, similar to registration of sex offenders, to make citizens aware of these predators in their neighborhoods.
If lives are to be saved here, we need real leaders in Greensburg who reject the status quo and are committed to proactively addressing the drug issues. Peter Borghetti and Christopher O'Leath are those leaders.
They get my vote on Nov. 5 — how about yours?
Thomas J. Wubben
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.