Taking Steps to Solve Drug Problem in Mercer
By Sheriff Ernie Kelty

There is no simple answer to solving the drug problem in our county, but it is the goal of the sheriff's office to commit all available resources to lessen its impact on our community. I believe that the best approach to address the problem is through education, enforcement and prosecution.

Our first line of defense is to educate our children on the dangers of drug use and the penalties assigned for possession of drugs and/or trafficking in illegal substances. Parents must also be educated to identify drug use, as early detection is a prime factor in bringing the problem to a halt.

Our second line of defense is active enforcement of our drug laws. The sheriff's office works in coordination with a number of local, state and federal agencies to pursue those involved with drugs. We often must also rely on the assistance of our community through reports of suspicious activity. Anyone suspecting such activity should contact Crime Stoppers at 733-9115 or the Mercer County Sheriff's Office at 734-4221.

Our third line of defense is the prosecution of offenders. The sheriff's office works to ensure that our investigations are professional and will support our county and commonwealth's attorneys in successfully prosecuting these offenders.

In many cases, we also support individuals and families to seek rehabilitation so that those who have become involved in drug use can free themselves of this plague. Anyone needing this assistance may contact me at anytime.

Fighting the drug problem requires the effort of our entire
community, and all are invited to contact me to discuss how they may help rid our community of this very serious problem.

More Powerful Painkillers Will Lead To More Addicts
Where I Stand
By Rianna Robinson

Prescription painkiller abuse has become a problem of nightmarish proportions in Kentucky over the past few years, and now a new drug, set to hit the market next year, will only make the problem worse.

San Francisco-based Zogenix Pharmaceuticals plans to apply this year to begin marketing Zohydro, a pure form of hydrocodone, found in medications like Vicodin. The company plans to have the drug on the market next year.

Drug companies say a pure form of hydrocodone would avoid liver problems associated with drugs like Vicodin, which contain high levels of acetaminophen.

Drug abuse advocates say Zohydro could become the next Oxycontin, the most abused medicine in the U.S. Personally, I think this is just another way for pharmaceutical companies to make a buck from addiction.

Purdue Pharma, the makers of Oxycontin, have been investigated for over saturating the market with a drug they knew to be addictive, then down playing the addictive nature of the drug to encourage doctors to prescribe it. They have made millions, if not billions, of dollars from the suffering of addicts and their loved ones, just as Zogenix will if Zohydro is released.

I know the drug companies are not making these drugs for the sole purpose of abuse, and I know that not everyone who uses them is abusing them. But how many more painkillers do we need out there, and how powerful do they need to be? There has to be some other way to manage chronic pain other than putting a highly addictive pain killer on the market. People have been abusing prescription drugs, from pain killers to diet medications, for years. But, that doesn't mean we need a more powerful, and therefore more lethal, painkiller on the market.

It seems like everyone knows someone who has had their life turned upside down by prescription drug abuse. It destroys families and communities and is linked to increases in crimes like theft.

Do we really need to add more fuel to the fire? I say no, and I hope drug abuse advocates and concerned citizens let the Food and Drug Administration know that we are tired of this poison ruining lives and destroying families. Log on to www.fda.gov, click the "contact FDA" link and let the organization know that we in Kentucky do not need or want another drug that will cause as much addiction, pain and community decay as Oxycontin has on the market.

Super Bowl Music from a Football Newbie
First World Issues
By Aaron Burch

I'm 22 years old and somehow I only started watching the Super Bowl when I was a senior in high school. My family is not very sports oriented, so I missed out on the biggest sporting event of the year over and over again.

However, I am a total music nerd. In that sense, I'm sad that I missed some of the music moments. My first Super Bowl was the Colts win in 2007. Prince was the halftime show and I wasn't even paying attention! Don't worry, I've since gone back and watched his performance to correct my mistake.

This Sunday, I will be watching the Super Bowl like almost everyone else in the country and I'll be watching the game, the advertisements and even the music, probably.

If I seem apprehensive, it's just because Madonna is playing as the halftime show and even her biggest hits don't do much for me. Being a 22 year old male, I have almost zero interest in Madonna, but she'll be on TV and I'll have nothing better to do.

Music at the Super Bowl is very hit or miss. In the early days of the game, marching bands and tributes were the only style of halftime entertainment used. Ella Fitzgerald performing at Super Bowl VI was a likely highlight, but Disney's "It's A Small World" was the theme of Super Bowl XI. We should all feel sorry for the crowd who had to sit through that.

If you look on the halftime Wikipedia page, there's such an odd shift through the years. Salutes to the Big Bang Era music, Mardi Gras, Motown, stars of the silver screen and Hollywood's 100th aniversary dominate the 1980s.

In the 1990s, the producers started to get wise to current music trends. New Kids on the Block and Gloria Estefan pop up early in the decade. Of course, the first major performance was Michael Jackson in 1993. Jackson's performance was so huge that it actually rescued the Super Bowl from what had been a steady decline in ratings. From then, it was clear that only huge artists could and should perform during that time slot.

Or so you would think, the rest of the 1990s Super Bowls were an awkward mix of R&B, country, marching bands and rock. I'm sad that I missed the Blues Brothers, ZZ Top and James Brown bash but count me out of most of the rest.

I think I'm actually blessed to have begun watching the Super Bowl's in a post Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction world. The quality of artists went up significantly after public nudity caused such an outcry. For several years we got "classic" acts, which actually means way more talent if you think about it. Paul McCartney, The Rolling Stones, Prince, Tom Petty, The Who and yes, even Bruce Springsteen all made appearances and none of them were bad. Some weren't great, but none were bad,

The year before the wardrobe malfunction, Shania Twain, No Doubt and Sting performed. I don't know about you but that isn't really my cup of tea.

Now I'm worried that the Super Bowl is slipping back into musical purgatory. Last year, the Black Eyed Peas barfed "Tron" style neon all over the field and Slash got a wheelbarrow full of money to play the riff from "Sweet Child O' Mine" while Fergie wailed over top of it.

This year, Madonna plans to bring out Nikki Minaj, M.I.A. and Cirque Du Soleil for a performance that should be miles ahead of last year, but still far short of the previous artists I mentioned. Though I strongly recommend listening to M.I.A.'s Kala album, which came out a few years ago and had the hit "Paper Planes" on it.

I'm ready for the Super Bowl, halftime show, commercials and everything in between. According to the Super Bowl's facts and figures page on treehugger.com, 1 billion chicken wings and 325.5 million gallons of beer will be consumed this Sunday. While I don't plan on doing anything crazy, it's possible that I'll have my fair share.

In that case, Madonna probably won't sound so bad. Just please no more Black Eyed Peas. I'm begging to the football heavens. No more Black Eyed Peas.