The Jefferson City News-Tribune, Feb. 22
Increase penalties for deadly drugs
We’re pleased to see the Missouri House appears poised to support a bill that would make it a felony to possess or deal fentanyl or date-rape drugs.
The House gave first-round approval to the bill in a voice vote Wednesday, the Associated Press reported.
O’Fallon Republican Rep. Nick Schroer’s bill would make it a felony to traffic fentanyl and derivatives such as carfentanil. Penalties range from three years to life in prison, the AP said.
Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that is 80-100 times stronger than morphine. It was developed for cancer patients to manage pain, but has become infamous as a deadly recreational drug.
In recent years, it has been added to heroin to increase its potency, uvnbeknownst to heroin users. Because of this, it often causes overdoses and, sometimes, fatalities.
Now, the drug is being sold on the streets by itself. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency said ingesting a dose as small as .25 mg can be fatal. It’s also highly addictive. These factors put together make overdoses frequent.
The drug accounts for almost one third of all overdoses, and the number of fentanyl overdoses has drastically increased over just the past few years, according to Psychology Today.
The bill also would make it a felony to possess or traffic GHB, a date-rape drug, and the drug commonly known as Rohypnol.
The drug is not approved for medical use in the United States.
GHB, similarly, also is considered a date-rape drug, or a “club drug,” that depresses the central nervous system. Despite its bad reputation for abuse, it is being studied as a promising drug in lower doses for some medical conditions.
Lawmakers may need to spell out what constitutes GHB and some of the other drugs in the bill.
Different recipes for GHB, for example, can be found on the internet and contain products that most people wouldn’t think about ingesting: paint strippers, superglue remover, rust removers, and various cleaning agents.
The measure needs another vote of approval in the House to move to the Senate.
We encourage the House to iron out details of the bill, then pass it.
Hopefully, the Senate will follow suit.
_____
The Kansas City Star, Feb. 21
Bible classes don’t belong in Missouri’s public high schools
If some Republican lawmakers in Missouri get their way, public high schools could teach elective classes on the Bible.
A House bill would require state education officials to develop learning standards and curriculum guidelines for teaching the Old and New Testaments. The legislation passed out of the House Special Committee on Student Accountability by an 8-2 vote this week.
But the unnecessary measure could put the state on legally precarious footing by clearing the way for Bible courses that appear to promote one religion over all others.
Missouri schools already have the right to use religious books in literature and history classes as long as they’re not used in a manner that violates the U.S. Constitution’s establishment clause, which prohibits government from favoring any religion. The Bible can be used as reference material.
But teaching a class centered only on the Bible in public schools raises new and avoidable constitutional and legal questions. Lawmakers should reject the proposal.
Conservative education activists have argued that students lack knowledge of the Bible. Other supporters like the idea of the class as an elective.
“The Bible is simply a part of the fabric of life,” Republican state Rep. Ben Baker, the bill’s sponsor, told the committee this week.
Baker, who is a newly-elected legislator from Neosho, a minster and the dean of students at Ozark Bible Institute and College in southwestern Missouri, has acknowledged that his proposal would likely spark controversy.
He was right.
The ACLU correctly argues that every student, regardless of their faith, should feel safe and welcome in public schools.
“It would be nearly impossible to teach a class that would not violate a student’s First Amendment rights,” said Sara Baker, legislative and policy director for the ACLU of Missouri.
Allowing taxpayer-funded religion classes - and teaching a course centered on the Bible amounts to a religion class - raises troubling questions about the separation of church and state.
“If schools want to teach the history of religion, why do we need a law to allow them to do that?” said Allan Markley, superintendent of Raytown Schools.
A similar bill was rejected in North Dakota on constitutional grounds. Questions still swirl about the legality of Kentucky’s Bibles in schools plan, and similar legislation in West Virginia has led to lawsuits.
There’s no good reason to open the door to similar protracted legal fights in Missouri.
“I get the purpose of the bill,” said State Rep. Matt Sain, a Democrat from Kansas City. “My problem is what if you get a teacher that is not trained in the lessons of the Bible? You open up potential litigation for school districts and the state.”
There are plenty of ways for schools to legally teach religion to students - and to give them a broad overview of religious history and multiple religious denominations. But offering Bible courses in Missouri public schools is an unneeded solution that could create a whole new batch of problems.
_____
The St. Joseph News-Press, Feb. 25
Thus far, 2019 hasn’t been a great legislative year for open records and transparency in government.
Perhaps the biggest threat to the Sunshine Law is a proposed change that would make communication between public officials and their constituents private. House Bill 445 is a reaction to the Clean Missouri constitutional amendment, passed by voters last November.
Part of that bill, which is intended to hold local government to the same standards as the state, includes an amendment that closes access to any correspondence between a government official and a constituent.
“I just want to be sure that my constituents feel comfortable in contacting me and that I can keep their information private,” Rep. Cheri Toalson Reisch, R-Hallsville, recently told the Columbia Missourian.
The sweeping amendment, however, undermines transparency and potentially limits a wide range of public information about your government.
Those voting for the bill included Republican Brenda Shields, who represents the 11th House District in St. Joseph. Rep. Bill Falkner, R-St. Joseph, voted against the measure. Rep. Sheila Solon, R-St. Joseph, was absent for the vote.
Most newspapers and media companies are uncomfortable with narrowing or restricting the Missouri Sunshine Law. We’re no different. We believe our state’s open records law holds public officials accountable.
Another key reason we’re concerned about this bill is that the people of Missouri have spoken. Voters overwhelmingly passed the Clean Missouri Amendment. It appears those who live in our state want more accountability and transparency in government, whether the Legislature agrees or not.
Another attack on open records comes from bills in both the House and Senate on publishing public notices. Currently, city, county and state governments are required to publish certain information in newspapers. For instance, Buchanan County Clerk Mary Baack-Garvey is required to post a complete sample ballot in advance of every election.
One proposed bill would allow Baack-Garvey to simply put up a notice on the county clerk’s website.
There are some troublesome issues with this. First, not every citizen has a computer, smartphone or tablet. Second, not every Missourian has access to the internet, especially in rural counties and communities where that service might be limited.
Currently all the proposals that would allow electronic publication of required notices are languishing in committees. Should they surface, Falkner recently told the News-Press that he would vote against such measures.
Let’s urge Shields, Solon and the rest of our Northwest Missouri representatives do the same.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.