Pubdate: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 Source: Daily Review, The (Hayward, CA) Copyright: 2007 ANG Newspapers Contact: http://www.insidebayarea.com/dailyreview/writealetter Website: http://www.insidebayarea.com/dailyreview Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1410 Author: Nancy Van Huffel Note: Nancy Van Huffel is the administrator for the San Lorenzo Village Homes Association. Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal) HIGHEST PRIORITY: KEEP DRUGS, ALCOHOL AWAY FROM YOUTH VARIOUS articles were published last week regarding the proposed alcohol ordinance fee. One piece, authored by Cheryl Miraglia (My Word, Oct. 11), stated that most readers would agree there is some level of alcohol abuse in every community, including the unincorporated areas of Alameda County. She also made the point that only a few small businesses abuse the alcohol control laws and sell alcohol to minors. She concluded that we need to create incentives to attract and retain small businesses, especially restaurants in unincorporated Alameda County -- not create more reasons for them to locate elsewhere. CommPre and others responded to the article that they support the proposed fee because reducing opportunities for youth to get more alcohol is one of the most effective strategies for reducing youth alcohol problems. According to their piece (My Word, Oct. 12), the top three ways that youths report receiving alcohol are from a supermarket or liquor store, from friends, or from relatives. However, the article does not state what percent of illegal alcohol is supplied by liquor stores or restaurants, compared with friends and relatives. The San Lorenzo Village Homes Association has put this item on its agenda this week for discussion. In order to objectively determine our position on this important matter, I believe we need better information to help inform our community members before our board or the Castro Valley Municipal Advisory Council decides whether to support the proposed ordinance. At a minimum, we need to know the answers to the following questions: Is this issue a serious and/or widespread problem in the unincorporated areas at this time; is it a priority crime for the Sheriff's Department; what are the current statistics regarding the purchase of alcohol by minors in our area; how do we currently penalize those businesses that break this law now; do we impose substantial penalties; and how much does the county collect annually? Rather than prevent the few negligent businesses from breaking the law, will the $800 fee discourage good businesses from staying or coming into our area? How do our neighboring communities deal with this problem? What conversation have we had as a region on this problem so that youngsters simply don't go into neighboring jurisdictions to purchase alcohol? In addition to these editorials on alcohol, there was one on the medical marijuana clubs, in which Sheriff Ahern expressed concern about the community marijuana clinics. Leaders in the San Lorenzo community believe these clinics create serious problems for our youth because of the ease with which they can secure marijuana. The controls on young folks accessing marijuana appear significantly less than those on this group securing alcohol. Our elected officials should be concerned about developing consistent public policy on matters that affect our youth, whether it be for alcohol or for drugs. Regardless of one's personal position on the use and/or sale of either alcohol or marijuana, it is hard to argue against the fact that neither should be easily available to our young people. It is also undeniable that alcohol sales are legal and the sale and use of marijuana is not. Perhaps if we were not supporting the illegal medical marijuana outlets, the law enforcement resources currently needed to control the sales and respond to the crimes resulting from them would be more productively directed toward controlling the illegal sale of alcohol to minors. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake