Loading...
Staff Report with attachments Reviewed by: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, Town Attorney, and Finance Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov TOWN OF LOS GATOS COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: 06/21/2022 ITEM NO: 23 DATE: June 16, 2022 TO: Mayor and Town Council FROM: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager SUBJECT: Maintain a Ban on Cannabis Businesses in Los Gatos and Consider a Ballot Measure to Tax Cannabis Businesses RECOMMENDATION: Maintain a ban on cannabis businesses in Los Gatos and consider a ballot measure to tax cannabis businesses. BACKGROUND: While California legalized cannabis (marijuana) with the passage of Proposition 64 in 2016, it is up to each municipality to decide if and how commercial cannabis retail, manufacturing, cultivation, events, and/or testing should be conducted in their communities. To date, the Town of Los Gatos has not allowed for commercial cannabis retail, manufacturing, or cultivation. In the Bay Area region, the cities of San Jose, Santa Cruz, Capitola, Scotts Valley, Mountain View, Brisbane, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Pacifica, San Carlos, South San Francisco, San Francisco, Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, Hayward, Livermore, Oakland, Piedmont, Pleasanton, San Leandro, and Union City have allowed some form of commercial cannabis operations. Background on California Cannabis Legislation is available at the California Cannabis Portal at https://cannabis.ca.gov/. While the legislation begins at the State level, each City and Town has the opportunity to enact its own cannabis laws and regulations based on many factors, including what's best for a particular community as a whole; provided those regulations do not conflict with State law. At the January 26, 2021, Town Council meeting on Strategic Priorities, Council gave direction to start obtaining community feedback in order for Council to determine whether to amend its Municipal Code to allow commercial cannabis businesses in Los Gatos. PAGE 2 OF 9 SUBJECT: Maintain a Ban on Cannabis Businesses in Los Gatos and Consider a Ballot Measure to Tax Cannabis Businesses DATE: June 16, 2022 BACKGROUND (continued): In response, the Town held approximately ten public meetings with various community groups and Town Boards/Commissions/Committees to obtain input on whether the Council should consider potential amendments to the Town’s cannabis regulations. At these public meetings, the feedback included an interest in allowing cannabis businesses in Town, concerns and uncertainty about allowing cannabis operations and the potential health and safety impacts, and interest in the potential new source of tax revenue. In addition, the Town conducted an unscientific Survey Monkey poll to solicit general input from the public (results are included with the January 18, 2022 Council staff report) with the majority of responses opposed to allowing cannabis businesses. On January 18, 2022, the Town Council voted to continue to explore possible taxation and asked staff to return to the Council with a consultant scope of services focused on community outreach, a scientific survey, and evaluation of potential taxation and revenues. On February 1, 2022, the Town Council approved the Cannabis Consultant Services Proposal submitted by Hinderliter, deLlamas & Associates (HdL) Companies and authorized the Town Manager to execute the agreement. The scope included the preparation of a tax revenue analysis, assessment of a cost recovery program for the permitting of cannabis businesses, comparable data from other California jurisdictions, and assistance with community outreach. This report provides the results of the HdL work and other staff analysis. DISCUSSION: Consultant Study HdL completed the requested consultant report (see Attachment 1). The revenue analysis is based on an estimated service area and its population that could be served by a cannabis retail storefront in Los Gatos. The consultants further refined the estimates assuming leakage to licensed retailers outside of Los Gatos and to the black market. Figure 5 depicts a range of $12.0 million to $27.0 million of adjusted gross receipts for a storefront in Los Gatos. Based on this range of adjusted gross receipts, HdL applied different tax rates to estimate potential revenue from a tax. At 4%, tax revenues could range from $493,000 to $1.085 million. At 5%, the range is $616,000 to $1.35 million and at 7%, the range is $863,000 to $1.9 million. These estimates are for tax revenue only. The report also describes the cost recovery opportunity for licensing and permitting establishments. Town services beyond licensing and permitting (e.g., calls for Police or Code Compliance services) are discussed under Public Safety Considerations and Impact to Other Town and County Services. These service costs would need to be deducted from the tax PAGE 3 OF 9 SUBJECT: Maintain a Ban on Cannabis Businesses in Los Gatos and Consider a Ballot Measure to Tax Cannabis Businesses DATE: June 16, 2022 DISCUSSION (continued): revenue to determine a net revenue estimate. As discussed below, it is difficult to quantify the net fiscal impact of a dispensary; however, a qualitative understanding of potential impacts is important in this policy discussion. The HdL report has useful comparable data for other jurisdictions in terms of regulatory programs, zoning parameters, tax rates, and permit fees. Public Safety Considerations The Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department researched the impacts of marijuana dispensaries to law enforcement and within similar sized communities throughout Monterey County. The general conclusion did not suggest any significant increase in calls for service to law enforcement directly related to dispensary operations; however, there have been preliminary trends of more serious crimes, civil challenges, and concerns indirectly associated with dispensaries as they foster an opportunity for illegal behavior and civil conflict related to tax evasion, real estate crime, property management challenges, and other illegal items. These criminal activities sometimes occur because of the limited resources of local law enforcement to provide ongoing oversight to dispensary operations. Legal dispensaries generally have a very inviting and professional appearance on the exterior and extensive security measures. Many legal dispensaries in the jurisdictions visited had surveillance cameras, multiple armed security guards, and periodic inspections. Unfortunately, these mechanisms do not always deter illegal activities and provide a false sense of security against criminal elements. The LGMSPD is conducting concerted efforts to provide adequate staffing to meet the community’s needs and the additional need for oversight of the dispensaries will likely not be sufficient for the Department’s current staffing models, leaving the Town particularly vulnerable to potential illegal activities. To date, the LGMSPD has experienced minimal law enforcement demand related to cannabis, including calls pertaining to operating a motor vehicle under the influence, sales, or use of the substance. Current narcotic enforcement is focused on Methamphetamines (Meth), Heroin, Fentanyl, and other opiate-based medicines. If law enforcement needs increase related to marijuana, there will be increased impacts in addition to staffing. For example, if marijuana is collected as evidence and the case is not filed by the District Attorney, the Police Department must return the product in its pre-existing condition. Since cannabis must be stored in a manor to preserve it, there are administrative and engineered controls required for storing the cannabis evidence which can potentially result in financial implications for the Town. PAGE 4 OF 9 SUBJECT: Maintain a Ban on Cannabis Businesses in Los Gatos and Consider a Ballot Measure to Tax Cannabis Businesses DATE: June 16, 2022 DISCUSSION (continued): In the event of a cannabis-related incident, it is estimated that the staff impact would involve three Officers, one Sergeant, one Dispatcher, one Community Service Officer, and one Captain. The cost per hour of these positions is approximately $1,053 (salary and benefits prior to the implementation of the recent bargaining agreements). A cannabis tax could potentially provide cost recovery of law enforcement response and fund a dispensary oversight program. The fiscal impacts of a serious crime indirectly related to dispensary operations would preoccupy the Investigations Division, Patrol, and professional staff and are difficult to estimate. Conversations with staff from the Monterey County Cannabis Program and other law enforcement agencies revealed that Santa Clara County does not have a trained and dedicated framework to monitor and provide law enforcement oversight of dispensary operations. The Monterey County Cannabis Program has grown from 6 to 28 FTEs in five years specifically for management of commercial cannabis to address regulation, policy, enforcement, and education. Santa Clara County does not have a similar multi-disciplinary team for oversight of commercial cannabis. Elements of a law enforcement oversight program include: • Toxicity testing – to verify that the product is contaminant free (no mold or harmful chemicals); • Dispensary product monitoring – to verify proper labeling to inform the consumer of the correct THC amount and not labeled in a manner to entice minors (e.g., Birthday Cake or Orange Crush); • Monitoring of the Marijuana Enforcement Tracking Reporting Compliance (METRC) - California Cannabis Track-and-Trace System designed to track the product from plant to sellable in-store product; • Liaison with Department of Cannabis Control – to ensure compliance of Medicinal and Adult Use Commercial Cannabis Regulations (CCRs); • Legal counsel available and knowledgeable about dispensary local, state, and federal laws to guide the local jurisdictions in their work with the dispensaries’ legal teams; • Public Health Department coordination; and • Forensic Accountant – oversight of taxes and other monetary monitoring/auditing. Other law enforcement considerations include: • California does not currently have any Police Officer Standards and Training (POST) course(s) available to teach local law enforcement about commercial cannabis businesses and regulations, State laws, interactions with dispensaries, etc. Therefore, LGMSPD would be on its own to learn about the industry and relevant laws; • It is understood that Los Gatos and Monte Sereno residents currently benefit from cannabis delivery services that operate out of other jurisdictions. With a retail PAGE 5 OF 9 SUBJECT: Maintain a Ban on Cannabis Businesses in Los Gatos and Consider a Ballot Measure to Tax Cannabis Businesses DATE: June 16, 2022 DISCUSSION (continued): storefront or delivery business in Los Gatos, the risks increase with the transportation of product valued potentially up to $1.0 million into Town. Based on the consultant analysis, it is unlikely that commercial scale cultivation would occur in Town; • Increased number of people transporting more marijuana throughout Town due to access and supply in Town; and • Limited Town resources to educate youth on the risks associated with cannabis (the Town currently has one part-time School Resource Officer shared between Los Gatos Unified School District and the Los Gatos Union High School District). Based on this information, staff is recommending that the Town Council maintain the ban on cannabis retail sales. Even with a tax to offset some enforcement costs, the Town would be challenged to address the potential accompanying law enforcement issues and additional necessary oversight resources. Impact on Other Town and County Services If the Town Council is interested in allowing cannabis retail store(s) and/or delivery, the Town would need to develop its own licensing, permitting, and regulatory program, and adopt an Ordinance amending the Municipal Code. In Attachment 1, HdL explained the components of a regulatory program and that the costs associated with its implementation could be borne by the cannabis businesses seeking to locate in Los Gatos. Once established, the Town would likely have a monitoring program to ensure compliance with the Town ordinance and the Business and Profession Code for cannabis business called Medicinal and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA). To the extent that non-law enforcement complaints are submitted to the Town, Code Compliance would be responsible to respond, inspect, and determine appropriate action for the complaint. A cannabis tax would bring in revenue that would offset the response costs. There may be other impacts to other services; however, it is difficult to anticipate all of them. It is also likely that County health, behavioral health, and/or social services may also experience increased demands with additional storefronts and/or delivery businesses. Scientific Survey The Town is working with a professional consultant, ETC Institute, to conduct a scientific cannabis community survey. ETC mailed out the survey to a random sample of 2,100 households in Los Gatos. These households were selected at random from an address list of all residences located within the Town's boundaries. The consultant offered these households PAGE 6 OF 9 SUBJECT: Maintain a Ban on Cannabis Businesses in Los Gatos and Consider a Ballot Measure to Tax Cannabis Businesses DATE: June 16, 2022 DISCUSSION (continued): three ways to complete the survey: by mail; online; or phone. Follow up will occur until at least 300 surveys are returned. If more than 300 are returned, the larger number will be analyzed at no additional cost to the Town. With 300 completed surveys, the results will have a precision of at least +/- 5.6% or a 95% confidence level. The consultant will ensure the results reflect the community's demographics, ensuring results are statistically valid, and will provide the Town with accurate data. The results of the survey are expected to be distributed in an Addendum on Monday, June 20 or Desk Item on June 21. Pending State Legislation Senator Scott Wiener authored SB 1186 which originally would have restricted municipalities from banning medical cannabis retail sales. The bill has since been amended to eliminate bans of medical cannabis delivery services only. This bill would also provide that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to specified actions taken by a local jurisdiction relating to medicinal cannabis businesses, including the repeal of any local regulation prohibiting the operation of medicinal cannabis businesses. The bill is currently in the Assembly for consideration. Should the bill pass and the Governor signs it, the Town would be obligated to establish a regulatory program for medical cannabis delivery businesses. This means that the Town Council would need to identify appropriate zoning districts, distances from sensitive uses, permitting requirements, and a monitoring program. All of these parameters would be considered during public meetings regarding the introduction and adoption of an Ordinance to the Town Code. Permitting and application fees would be required to be considered in the Town’s Fee Resolution, also requiring a public meeting. Ballot Measures Throughout the discussion of cannabis businesses, two potential ballot measures have been suggested. The first is a ballot measure asking the question if cannabis businesses should be allowed in Los Gatos. Putting this question to the voters requires a simple majority of the Council. When jurisdictions ask these questions, typically a draft Ordinance containing the proposed regulations is included so the public knows exactly what it is voting on. PAGE 7 OF 9 SUBJECT: Maintain a Ban on Cannabis Businesses in Los Gatos and Consider a Ballot Measure to Tax Cannabis Businesses DATE: June 16, 2022 DISCUSSION (continued): The second is a ballot measure to establish a tax on cannabis businesses. As a tax measure, it requires a 4/5 vote of the Town Council to place it on the ballot. If this is of interest to the Town Council, the measure would need to specify the level of tax (e.g., 4% of gross sales receipts). For a tax measure to be placed on the ballot, it is not required for the voters to decide the land use question. The Town Council is the elected body that makes land use policy and legislative decisions regarding the General Plan, zoning, allowable uses, requirements for allowed uses, number of allowed cannabis businesses, etc. For most jurisdictions, land use issues are not determined by the voters because if circumstances change or adjustments are needed, such changes can only be considered with another ballot measure. With the November 2022 election scheduled, the last regular Council meeting to add an item on this ballot is at its August 2nd meeting. Community Outreach The Town conducted a community workshop on May 4, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. via teleconference. The workshop provided an opportunity for the community to learn more about cannabis regulation and share input regarding the potential for commercial cannabis in Los Gatos. The materials from the meeting are available at www.losgatosca.gov/cannabis. Though lightly attended, the community answered several Zoom poll questions: • 55% said cannabis retail sales should not be allowed in Los Gatos • 62.5% preferred delivery only cannabis business(es) • Of various non-residential zoning districts, 60% preferred the Controlled Manufacturing Zone (generally located along University Avenue north of Vasona Park) • 70% preferred a distance of 1,200 feet from sensitive uses (e.g., schools and commercial day care) which is greater than the State distance of 600 feet (see Attachment 2 for a map of the State buffer areas) In addition to the Town’s workshop, staff has also met on multiple occasions with residents who expressed their opposition to cannabis businesses in Town. The dedicated webpage also provided a unique email address for public comments: cannabis@losgatosca.gov. Through this address and others, the Town has received numerous communications on this issue (see Attachment 3). The majority of the correspondence is opposed to cannabis storefronts in Los Gatos. PAGE 8 OF 9 SUBJECT: Maintain a Ban on Cannabis Businesses in Los Gatos and Consider a Ballot Measure to Tax Cannabis Businesses DATE: June 16, 2022 DISCUSSION (continued): Policy Questions/Alternatives for the Town Council As Council continues its exploration of considering the allowance of cannabis businesses, the following questions may be useful during the deliberation. For each question, the major next steps are identified. • Should the Town maintain its ban on cannabis businesses? If yes, then the exploration of land use regulations and permitting for cannabis businesses is not needed. If future State law mandates local jurisdictions to allow medical cannabis delivery services or other cannabis business types, then the Council would need to develop regulations. • Should the Town consider retail storefronts, delivery only, or both? If the Council is interested in this option, then a study session should be scheduled to identify the Council’s land use parameters for these uses. A draft Ordinance would be prepared based on these parameters. The Town would also need to develop its operational regulations for the businesses, including the application and selection process. • Should the question of whether to allow cannabis businesses go before the voters? If the Council would like to move forward with this option, then staff would return to the Council on August 2nd with proposed ballot language. If the Council would like the voters to decide on a cannabis land use Ordinance, then the Council would need to convene in July to work on the Ordinance in time to place it before the voters. • Should the Council consider placing a ballot measure to establish a tax on cannabis businesses? Regardless of its decision on the land use question, the Council may want to consider a tax for the 2022 ballot. Even if Council would like to maintain its ban, a tax could be in place in the event State law requires municipalities to allow medical cannabis delivery businesses or other types of cannabis businesses in the future. If the Council is interested in this option, then staff would return with proposed ballot language at the August 2nd meeting. At that time, the Council can determine a specific tax rate. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS: Staff is looking forward to Council’s discussion and direction on cannabis businesses. The Council’s direction will determine appropriate next steps as discussed above. PAGE 9 OF 9 SUBJECT: Maintain a Ban on Cannabis Businesses in Los Gatos and Consider a Ballot Measure to Tax Cannabis Businesses DATE: June 16, 2022 COORDINATION: The preparation of this report was coordinated with the Town Attorney’s Office, Police Department, Community Development Department, and Finance Department. FISCAL IMPACT: Depending on the alternative the Council would like to pursue, there are fiscal impacts associated with cannabis businesses in the Town as discussed in this report. A potential tax revenue may offset some of the costs of municipal services. A single ballot measure costs approximately $58,256 and the Proposed Fiscal Year 2022/23 Operating Budget includes funding for potential measures. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Council direction on this item is not a project defined under CEQA, and no further action is required. If Council would like to allow cannabis businesses, then an ordinance would need to be drafted and it would need environmental clearance. Attachments: 1. Consultant Study 2. Map of State Buffer Areas 3. Public Comment This Page Intentionally Left Blank Delivering Revenue, Insight   and Efficiency to Local Government  Commercial Cannabis in Los Gatos:  Potential Revenues, Regulatory Costs, and  Comparative Data  Prepared for   the  Town of Los Gatos  June 16, 2022  ATTACHMENT 1   2    Introduction  The Town of Los Gatos currently prohibits the establishment or operations of any commercial cannabis  businesses within town limits.  In early 2022, the Town Council engaged the services of HdL Companies  (HdL) to prepare a fiscal impact analysis for allowing commercial cannabis businesses to operate within  Los Gatos.  The analysis is intended to inform the Council’s decision‐making process regarding whether to  allow commercial cannabis activity locally, the costs associated with regulating cannabis businesses, and  potential revenues that could be generated from adopting a cannabis tax measure.  The fiscal impact analysis is broken down into three sections:   Revenue Analysis   Expenditure Analysis   Comparison to Other Jurisdictions  Additional information regarding comparable jurisdictions can be found in Attachment A to this report.  Revenue Analysis  HdL’s revenue analysis is focused on the potential impacts of allowing commercial cannabis retailers in  the Town of Los Gatos.  Consideration for other cannabis license types – collectively referred to as  “wholesalers,” which includes cultivators, manufacturers, distributors, and testing laboratories – is not  included in this report.  Should the Town of Los Gatos wish to explore permitting wholesale operators  locally, HdL may update the revenue projections based upon the type and number of businesses desired.  Pursuant to State law, commercial cannabis retailers are authorized to sell cannabis goods directly to  consumers, either through delivery or on‐site purchases.  In contrast with wholesalers, who supply  cannabis products to the statewide market, retailers are the only cannabis business type that specifically  serves the local community.  As a result, the ideal number of retailers for a community will be proportional  to the local population of the host city and the surrounding service area.  The Town of Los Gatos is situated on the west side of Santa Clara County at the base of the Santa Cruz  Mountains. The City has a population of 33,529 peoplei and sits at the southwest edge of Silicon Valley.  Adjacent and nearby cities and communities include the cities of San Jose, Campbell, Monte Sereno and  Saratoga and the unincorporated areas of Cambrian Park and Lexington Hills.  The City of San Jose is the only jurisdiction in all of Santa Clara County that currently allows licensed  commercial cannabis businesses of any kind. The Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) currently shows  16 licensed cannabis retailers located within the City, of which 8 are storefront retailers and 8 are  microbusinesses which may conduct a variety of cannabis business activities, including retail. All San Jose  storefront cannabis retailers are allowed to also conduct sales via delivery. The locations of these cannabis  retailers are shown in Figure 1.    3      Though the region is already reasonably served by licensed storefront cannabis retailers located in San  Jose, there are also a number of cannabis delivery services operating in the area. Figure 2 shows a map of  cannabis delivery providers, advertised on the cannabis platform Weedmaps as of May 2022, available  for at‐home deliveries in Santa Clara County.  Providers are displayed by the areas they deliver, rather  than their ‘home’ location, so a single delivery service may be represented multiple times on the map.    To determine the potential gross receipts of cannabis retailers located in the Town of Los Gatos we must  first identify the approximate area that these retailers would serve. As with any other type of retailer,  Figure 1:    Figure 2:      4    cannabis retailers are not limited to serving the residents of their host communities. Customers may drive  from other nearby cities to reach their nearest store. In addition, cannabis retailers may deliver products  within a wider service area.  Retail studies show that 93% of consumers are willing to travel 15 to 20 minutes to make most routine  purchasesii, meaning that storefront retailers in Los Gatos would be able to capture cannabis tax (and  sales tax) from some portion of the surrounding area. The cities of Monte Sereno, Campbell, and Saratoga  all fall within this distance, as do the unincorporated areas of Cambrian Park and Lexington Hills.   In addition, we note that all of the cannabis retailers in the City of San Jose are located East of the Highway  87 corridor, other than one near the airport. This suggests that a broad portion of cannabis consumers in  San Jose would likely find it more convenient to travel to Los Gatos to make their purchases. This includes  portions of the neighborhoods of Cambrian, Almaden, Blossom Valley, Willow Glen and West San Jose.   For purposes of our analysis, we conservatively estimate that approximately 10% of the population of San  Jose falls within the Los Gatos service area.  Because there are no other options for cannabis consumers in the South Bay Area, we anticipate that  retailers in Los Gatos may capture some portion of cannabis sales from cities such as Cupertino and parts  of Sunnyvale and Santa Clara. The proximity of these other cities is shown in Figure 3, below.  Figure 3:  In Figure 4, below, we have added up the total population of the projected service area for cannabis  retailers in the Town of Los Gatos. We estimate the total population of this area at a little under 1.2 million  Cities and Communities in the Los Gatos Service Area      5    people. However, when we account for only serving a portion of the population of San Jose and Cupertino,  the service area population comes down to around 235,000. Dividing that figure by the number of existing  retailers serving the area yields a retail density of 14,666 people per retailer.   Figure 4:    Data from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) gives the total cannabis retail  sales for each county as well as the sales per capita, derived by dividing the total sales by the population.  From this, we are able to see the relationship between the retail density (population per retailer) and the  sales per capita. CDTFA reports $220 million in retail cannabis sales in Santa Clara County (1.9M  population) over the last 12 months, which equals sales per capita of $114 per personiii. Applying this to  our service area population would yield $27 million dollars in sales.  In Figure 5, on the next page, we have provided a general scenario to estimate a reasonable range of  cannabis tax revenues that the Town of Los Gatos may be able to generate from a projected 2 licensed  cannabis retailers. Starting with our service area population of 234,648 people, we then apply a range of  assumptions for the percentage of the population that uses cannabis on a regular basis. These estimates  vary from around 10%iv to 13%v, up to as high as 22%vi.  This percentage is influenced by social acceptance  of cannabis within the local community.  Applying these estimates to our estimated consumer base yields  between roughly 23,000 and 52,000 potential cannabis consumers.  Cannabis retailers typically average around 120 customers per dayvii. Data shows that a typical cannabis  consumer makes a purchase of $73 with an average frequency of twice a monthviii.  Applying this to our  range of cannabis consumers yields monthly sales of between $3.4 million and $7.5 million, which works  out to annual gross receipts of between $41 million and $90 million.   However, the existing retailers in the City of San Jose will likely continue to capture some portion of sales,  as will licensed and unlicensed cannabis delivery services operating throughout the area. To account for  this, we have assumed an additional 30% leakage for each of these markets, which brings our estimate of  total gross receipts down to a range of $12 million to $27 million.   Applying our recommended retail cannabis tax rates to this range of total gross receipts yields a range of  revenue projections. Applying HdL’s recommended “low” tax rate of 4.0% would yield between $490,000  and $1.1 million in annual cannabis tax revenue for the Town of Los Gatos, with a best estimate of  City/Community Population Est. % in  Service Area Adjusted  Population Retailers Population  Per Retailer Cambrian Park 3,719 100% 3,719 0 N/A Campbell 43,959 100% 43,959 0 N/A Cupertino 60,381 25% 15,095 0 N/A Lexington Hills 2,492 100% 2,492 0 N/A Los Gatos 33,529 100% 33,529 0 N/A Monte Sereno 3,479 100% 3,479 0 N/A San Jose 1,013,240 10% 101,324 16 6,333 Saratoga 31,051 100% 31,051 0 N/A Service Area Population 1,191,850 234,648 16 14,666 Service Area Population   6    $640,000. Applying a rate of 5.0% would yield between $617,000 and $1.4 million, with a best estimate  of $800,000 in annual revenue. Applying HdL’s recommended “maximum” rate of 6.0% would yield  between $860,000 and $1.9 million, with a best estimate of $1.1 million in annual cannabis tax revenue  for the Town.  In addition, retail cannabis sales would also generate between $123,000 and $271,000 in Bradley‐Burns  sales tax revenue for the Town. These estimates are all shown in Figure 5, below.    Figure 5:    The Costs of Permitting, Regulating and Enforcing Cannabis Businesses  HdL’s expenditure analysis is intended to provide a general overview of the types of costs that the Town  of Los Gatos may incur through the permitting, regulating and enforcing of cannabis businesses.  Costs  include, but are not limited to, the following:   Costs associated with the development of a commercial cannabis regulatory program:  o Initial outreach and exploration  o Ordinance development  o Environmental review  o Meeting costs and development of staff reports and other materials  o Development of application procedures and guidelines  o Development of appropriate fees  o Development of regulatory protocols and administrative procedures  Low    Estimate "Best"  Estimate High  Estimate Population of Los Gatos 33,529 33,529 33,529 Population of surrounding service area 201,119 201,119 201,119 Total population of service area 234,648 234,648 234,648 Percentage of population that uses cannabis 10% 13% 22% Number of cannabis users 23,465 30,504 51,623 Average transaction amount $73 $73 $73 Transaction frequency (per month)222 Monthly gross receipts $3,425,864 $4,453,624 $7,536,902 Annual gross receipts $41,110,373 $53,443,485 $90,442,821 Est. leakage to other licensed retailers (30%)$8,222,075 $10,688,697 $18,088,564 Est. leakage to black market (30%)$20,555,187 $26,721,743 $45,221,411 Adjusted annual gross receipts $12,333,112 $16,033,046 $27,132,846 Cannabis business tax rate: 4.00%$493,324 $641,322 $1,085,314 5.00%$616,656 $801,652 $1,356,642 7.00%$863,318 $1,122,313 $1,899,299 Bradley‐Burns 1.0% local sales tax $123,331 $160,330 $271,328 Revenue Projections for Cannabis Retailers   7     Costs associated with the review and permitting of individual cannabis businesses:  o Development of an RFP for cannabis businesses (if utilized)  o Conducting application reviews and applicant interviews  o Background checks  o Land use permitting and entitlements, including CUP hearings (if needed)  o Processing building permits  o Pre‐license inspections  o Consultant costs associated with any of the above   Costs associated with ongoing monitoring and permit renewals:  o Regulatory compliance inspections  o Other routine inspections that may be required (public health, fire department, etc.)  o Annual revenue audits to ensure proper reporting and remittance of fees/taxes  o Permit renewal processing  o Program administration   Costs associated with enforcement and appeals:  o Regulatory enforcement of any findings of non‐compliance  o Processing and conducting any appeals of enforcement actions  o Law enforcement actions against licensed cannabis businesses where necessary  Each of the costs identified above may be fully offset through regulatory fees charged to cannabis  businesses.  Typically, after approval of a regulatory ordinance, local jurisdictions will adopt a cannabis  fee schedule that represents 100% full cost recovery for administrative oversight and enforcement of the  cannabis industry.  These fees are charged to licensed cannabis business owners, applicants and licensees,  who are the direct beneficiaries of the commercial cannabis program.  Beneficiaries of the cannabis program will vary by regulatory activity. For example, development of the  regulatory program benefits those who are permitted to operate a business that would otherwise be  prohibited. Processing of applications and land use permits benefits the applicants of the proposed  businesses, regardless of whether they ultimately receive a license. The cost of monitoring existing  businesses for compliance and processing permit renewals benefits the business as it allows them to  continue to operate.  Because the Town is still in the exploratory phase of developing a cannabis ordinance, it is currently  unknown how many commercial cannabis businesses might be allowed, what methodology will be used  to select eligible businesses, in what locations they will be permitted, and under what level of oversight  they will be regulated. Given this uncertainty, it is not yet possible to calculate the specific permitting and  regulatory costs that Town will incur in developing and implementing a cannabis program, or the fees  necessary to recover those costs.  As a result, the simplest way of estimating a range of possible Town  expenditures is to conduct a survey of various cost recovery fees that have been adopted by other  jurisdictions.  Fees are generally divided into three categories that include; 1) initial application fees; 2) permitting and  land use entitlement fees; and 3) annual regulatory fees. Each of these general categories may include    8    multiple fees to cover distinct costs or services, not all of which would be applied in every case. Ultimately,  fees will vary by jurisdiction, depending upon a variety of local factors.  Initial application fees can vary greatly depending upon the details of the application process required by  the jurisdiction. Some cities or towns choose not to limit the number of cannabis businesses or to process  applications on a “first‐come, first‐served” basis. Others may solicit applications for a limited number of  permits, which will then be reviewed on either a quality assurance (pass/fail) basis or merit‐based (high‐ low score) basis. Final selection of permittees may be performed either through a discretionary process  or via lottery, where permittees are chosen at random from a pool of qualifying applicants.  The table below provides a comparison of application fees charged per cannabis business across various  jurisdictions:    In this table, HdL has identified average cannabis business license application fees for 15 cities from  around California. The fees range from a high of $28,189 for the City of Culver City, to a low of $3,011 for  the City of Oakland. Generally, these fees represent the full cost, per applicant, for reviewing and selecting  businesses to proceed through the permitting process.  As such, the fees provide a rough estimate for the  per business cost the Town of Los Gatos could expect for developing and administering a cannabis  application process.  Once applicants have been selected to move forward into the permitting process, the land use entitlement  and building permit process is no different than it would be for other, similar businesses. The amount of  Town staff time (and thus the cost) may vary greatly depending upon the specific location, needed  construction or tenant improvements and other building requirements.  As with any other construction  process, the costs associated with site plan review, conditional use permits, facility plan check, and on‐ site inspections would be fully recovered through zoning, building and fire review fees.  Agency (Year of Adoption)1 Application Fee Culver City (2018)$28,189  San Luis Obispo (2018)$24,744  Chula Vista (2019)$24,063  Redwood City (2018)$22,604  Goleta (2019)$14,901  Santa Ana (2017)$14,282  Palm Springs (2017)$10,984  Oceanside (2021)$8,452  Placerville (2019) $8,336  Watsonville (2020)$7,900  Modesto (2018)$6,380  San Jose (2017)$5,461  Vista (2019)$4,318  Salinas (2017)$3,145  Oakland (2017)$3,011  Average Application Fee: $12,451  (1) Year of adult‐use cannabis program adoption.   9    Annual permit fees vary significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, based upon the desired level of  regulatory oversight and administration. Jurisdictions may require that businesses submit to one or more  regulatory compliance inspections per year, as well as annual cannabis revenue audits to ensure the  business is reporting and remitting the proper portion of gross receipts to the host city.  In addition, some  jurisdictions choose to place certain regulatory roles within law enforcement, which may include POST  certified officers. This can greatly increase the cost for these regulatory services.    The table above provides the annual regulatory permit fees for the same 15 cities cited previously. Fees  range from a high of $147,645 for the City of San Jose to a low of $3,700 for the City of Watsonville. We  note that the regulatory fees for some jurisdictions may vary depending upon the specific types of  cannabis businesses allowed. In such cases, the table displays the highest cost. Among this sample set,  the average annual permit fee is $27,731 per year. However, this average is skewed by the fees for the  City of San Jose, which are more than three‐times higher than the next highest fees. We regard this as an  outlier as it is not representative of the overall range. When we exclude the fees from the City of San Jose,  the average annual permit fee among our sample set of California cities and counties comes down to  $19,166. We believe this lower figure is more representative of actual annual regulatory costs per  business.  Annual permit costs reflect the direct per‐business cost for each jurisdiction to provide its desired level of  regulatory oversight for permitted cannabis businesses, including regulatory monitoring and inspections,  revenue audits, annual permit renewals and overall administration of its cannabis business regulatory and  tax program.  Where the Town falls within the range of possible outcomes identified in the table above  will depend upon the specific design of the local cannabis regulatory program.  Agency (Year of Adoption)1 Annual Permit Fee San Jose (2017)$147,645  San Luis Obispo (2018)$41,065  Chula Vista (2019)$31,275  Redwood City (2018)$29,530  Culver City (2018)$27,771  Placerville (2019) $22,841  Modesto (2018)$21,740  Vista (2019)$19,967  Oakland (2017)$16,676  Santa Ana (2017)$12,529  Goleta (2019)$11,879  Palm Springs (2017)$10,984  Salinas (2017)$9,854  Oceanside (2021)$8,511  Watsonville (2020)$3,700  Average Annual Permit Fee: $27,731  (1) Year of adult‐use cannabis program adoption.   10    In addition to direct regulatory costs, the Town may incur additional impacts to the community through  externalities associated with cannabis businesses.  These externalities may include, but are not limited to:   Traffic impacts   Public health impacts   Public safety impacts   Nuisance impacts  Due to limited research available in these areas, HdL is not able to provide cost projections for the  potential negative externalities identified above.  According to recent surveys of available research on  cannabis legalization in the US, “evidence is inconsistent and, in some cases, inconclusive regarding how  recreational cannabis legalization affects outcomes significant to public health, including cannabis use,  cannabis use disorder, cannabis related hospitalizations and poisonings, driving safety, and other  substance use.”  Depending upon the study, findings may vary from “significantly positive, significantly  negative, to insignificant relationship” between cannabis legalization and various public health  outcomes.ix  This lack of available research is caused, in part, by the ongoing classification of cannabis as  a Schedule I controlled substance, which limits funding opportunities available to researchers studying  cannabis related topics.  Similarly, there is little consensus regarding the public safety impacts from allowing licensed cannabis  businesses to operate locally.  Some studies have found an association between the density of cannabis  retailers and neighborhood crime rates.x  Other studies have found a negative relationship between  dispensary allowances and property crime rates.xi  One study even found that cannabis retailers closings  were associated with increases in crime in the surrounding areas.xii  Due to these inconsistent findings,  HdL is not in a position to provide the Town with cost estimates for the broader social and public health  impacts of transitioning consumers from the illicit market to the licensed and regulated cannabis  marketplace.  Comparison to Other Jurisdictions  The following analysis provides additional information on nine cannabis regulatory programs in California.   The jurisdictions were selected due to their proximity to the Town, and/or the fact that they share similar  demographic characteristics to Los Gatos (e.g. population, density, income level, etc.).  The regulatory  programs include:   City of Burlingame, CA   City of Pacifica, CA   City of Martinez, CA   City of Fairfax, CA   City of Goleta, CA   City of Novato, CA   City of Mountain View, CA   City of Encinitas, CA   City of Santa Barbara, CA    11    The goal of the analysis is to provide Town Council with a summary of key policy decisions made by other  jurisdictions during the development of their local cannabis regulatory programs. This information may  serve as a reference point for Town policymakers when deciding; 1) whether to adopt a cannabis program;  and 2) what provisions to include/exclude in a regulatory ordinance.  Categories of comparison include:  1. Method of Program Adoption  2. Permitted License Types  3. License Caps  4. License Issuances  5. Licensing Process  6. Zoning Requirements  7. Sensitive Use Buffers and Distances  8. Cannabis Business License Tax Rates  Findings from the analysis can be found in Attachment A to this report.  A summary of key observations  from the analysis is provided below:  Council Adoption vs. Citizen Initiative: Most of the jurisdictions identified for comparison adopted their  cannabis programs through Council action.  HdL has observed a recent uptick in the number of small  jurisdictions dealing with voter driven ballot initiatives to legalize commercial cannabis activity (e.g.  Redondo Beach, El Segundo, Dana Point, etc.).  However, these efforts appear mostly limited to the  Southern California region at this time.  Of the comparable jurisdictions identified, only one (1) of the  programs was approved through Citizen Initiative (Encinitas).  In general, Citizen Initiatives place fewer  restrictions on the number, location and operation of cannabis businesses than ordinances that are  adopted by City Councils.  Citizen Initiatives may only be amended through voter approval, which limit the  ability of cities to adjust regulatory requirements for cannabis businesses over time.  For this reason, HdL  recommends against adopting cannabis programs through the initiative process.  Permitted License Types: Six (6) of the nine (9) cities that HdL analyzed allow multiple business types to  operate within their jurisdiction.  The most common allowable license types include Retail (9) and  Manufacturing (6).  The least common allowable license type includes Cultivation (3).  This is likely due to  the larger footprint required for this activity, and its potential to have a greater neighborhood impact than  other use types (e.g. odor, facility design, etc.).  Most of the cities analyzed placed a cap on the number  of allowable Retail business types.  For other license types (i.e. Cultivation, Manufacturing, Distribution,  and Testing), cities have generally allowed the market and/or zoning restrictions to dictate the number of  licenses issued.  Licenses Issued: For most cities identified, the actual number of cannabis business licenses issued has  been less than the total number available.  For Retail license types, this is likely due to fact that cities  require a significant amount of time to design and implement a competitive application process.  The  intense industry competition involved in the Retail application process can create delays due to the  number of application reviews involved and/or appeals filed by businesses that are unable to receive a  license.  HdL anticipates that all of the jurisdictions identified will reach the maximum number of allowable  Retail businesses.  For non‐Retail businesses (e.g. Manufacturing, Distribution, Testing, etc.), HdL has  observed a sharp decrease in demand for these license types due to the oversaturation of the wholesale    12    market.  As a result, HdL anticipates that the Town of Los Gatos would receive limited interest for these  license types, even if the Town Council were to decide to make wholesale license types available to  applicants.  Licensing Process: In situations where cities have placed a hard cap on the number of available licenses,  different processes have been used to determine which businesses would be eligible to receive a license.   Specifically, cities have used a non‐competitive (1), merit‐based (5), first‐come first‐served (1), and public  lottery (2) process.  For most local jurisdictions, HdL recommends using a hybrid merit‐based/lottery  approach, that allows for initial screening of applicants followed by random selection through public  lottery.  Zoning Restrictions: Zoning restrictions for cannabis businesses vary by city.  Some cities (6) allow cannabis  businesses to operate in some combination of Commercial, Industrial and Mixed‐Use zones.  Other cities  (2) limit cannabis business activity to commercial areas only.  One (1) city allows cannabis businesses in  Industrial Zones only.  Generally, HdL recommends allowing Retail businesses in Commercial Zones, and  non‐Retail businesses (cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, etc.) in Industrial Zones only.  Sensitive Use Buffers: The most common types of sensitive‐use buffers recognized by the cities identified  are schools, day care centers and youth centers, which are the default buffers recommended by the State.   Some cities recognize additional buffers, including playgrounds, tutoring centers, and residential zones,  which go beyond the minimum State standard. In practice, HdL has observed that the recognition of  additional buffers beyond the State default can have the unintended effect of driving up the price of real  estate in remaining areas of the Town (i.e. “Green Zones”) that fall outside sensitive use buffer zones.  Additionally, overly restrictive buffer requirements may increase the likelihood of overconcentration of  cannabis businesses in areas of the Town that remain eligible for cannabis activity.  For these reasons, it  is important that Town staff to create “buffer maps” for Town Council consideration, before making any  decisions on appropriate buffer distances between cannabis businesses and sensitive uses.  Cannabis Tax Rates: Cities identified for comparison have adopted cannabis tax rates that range from 3.5%  to 6% of gross receipts for Retail, and 0% to 6% for non‐Retail cannabis activity.  In addition, once (1) city  charges a square footage tax on cultivation, that ranges from $2 to $10 per square foot of canopy,  depending on whether to cultivator is licensed for indoor, outdoor, mixed light, or nursery activity.  i United States Census Bureau “Quick Facts; Saratoga city, California; Campbell city, California; Los Gatos town,  California; Santa Clara County, California; San Jose city, California” Population Estimates July 1, 2021  https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/saratogacitycalifornia,campbellcitycalifornia,losgatostowncalifornia ,santaclaracountycalifornia,sanjosecitycalifornia/PST045221     ii Ross Marchant (2014) “Consumers will Travel 17 Minutes to Reach a Local Business”   https://www.brightlocal.com/2014/05/01/local‐business‐travel‐times/ Bright Local    iii California Department of Tax and Fee Administration “Cannabis Sales by County”  https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/dataportal/dataset.htm?url=CannabisSalesByCounty    iv Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2019‐2020 National Surveys on Drug Use and  Health https://www.samhsa.gov/data/release/2020‐national‐survey‐drug‐use‐and‐health‐nsduh‐releases          13      v CBS News (2018) “17 stoner states: Where's marijuana use highest?” https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/17‐ stoner‐states‐wheres‐marijuana‐use‐highest/9/    vi Christopher Ingraham (April 20, 2017) “How many Americans regularly use pot? The number is, errr, higher than  you think” Sacramento Bee http://www.sacbee.com/news/nation‐world/national/article145681414.html    vii Eli McVey, et al. (2017) “Marijuana Business Factbook 2017” Marijuana Business Daily    viii Eli McVey, et al. (2017) “Marijuana Business Factbook 2017” Marijuana Business Daily    ix Cannabis Legalization In the US: Population Health Impacts, Health Affairs Health Policy Brief, July 1, 2021.    x Shi, Y., Meseck, K., &amp; Jankowska, M. M. (2016). Availability of medical and recreational marijuana stores and  neighborhood characteristics in Colorado. Journal of Addiction, 2016, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/7193740    xi Hunt, P., Pacula, R. L., &amp; Weinberger, G. (2018). High on crime? exploring the effects of marijuana  dispensary laws on crime in California counties. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3193321    xii Chang, T. Y., &amp; Jacobson, M. (2017). Going to pot? the impact of dispensary closures on crime. Journal of  Urban Economics, 100, 120–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2017.04.001  City Method of Adoption Permitted License Types License CapDCC Licenses Issued(1)Retail Licensing ProcessBurlingame, CA ‐ City Council Adoption (2021) ‐ Retail Non‐storefront ‐ Retail Non‐storefront: 4 Total ‐ 0 (1 currently under review) ‐ Non‐competitive. Operators Permit & Conditional Use PermitPacifica, CA ‐ City Council Adoption (2017) ‐ Retail ‐ Manufacturing ‐ Testing ‐ Retail: 6 Total ‐ Manufacturing: No Cap ‐ Testing: No Cap ‐ Retail: 5 Licenses ‐ Manufacturing: 0 ‐ Testing: 0 ‐ Chronological Order of Date Received.Martinez, CA ‐ City Council Adoption (2019) ‐ Retail  ‐ Manufacturing ‐ Distribution ‐ Testing Laboratory ‐ Non‐Storefront Retail ‐ Retail: 2 Total ‐ Manufacturing: 1 Total ‐ Distribution: 1 Total ‐ Testing Laboratory: 1 Total ‐ Non‐Storefront Retail: 1 Total ‐ Retail: 2 Licenses ‐ Manufacturing: 1 License ‐ Distribution: 1 License ‐ Testing Laboratory: 0 ‐ Non‐Storefront Retail: 0 ‐ Competitive ‐ Scored/Ranked ‐ Points Awarded by Proposal Review CommitteeFairfax, CA ‐ Town Council Adoption (2019) ‐ Retail ‐ Retail: 2 Total ‐ Retail: 1 License ‐ Competitive ‐ Scored/Ranked ‐ Points Awarded by Planning CommissionGoleta, CA ‐ City Council Adoption (2019) ‐ Cultivation ‐ Distribution  ‐ Manufacturing ‐ Nurseries  ‐ Retail ‐ Testing ‐ Cultivation: No Cap ‐ Distribution: No Cap ‐ Manufacturing: No Cap ‐ Nurseries: No Cap ‐ Retail: 15 Total ‐ Testing: No Cap ‐ Cultivation: 2 Licenses ‐ Distribution: 3 Licenses ‐ Manufacturing: 1 License ‐ Nurseries: 0  ‐ Retail: 3 Licenses ‐ Testing: 0  ‐ Competitive ‐ Scored/Ranked ‐ Points Awarded by City DirectorNovato, CA ‐ City Council Adoption (2019) ‐ Non‐Storefront Retail ‐ Testing ‐ Manufacturing ‐ Indoor Cultivation ‐ Microbusiness ‐ Distribution ‐ Non‐Storefront Retail: Unlimited ‐ Testing: 2 ‐ Manufacturing: 2 ‐ Indoor Cultivation: 2 ‐ Microbusiness: 3 ‐ Distribution: 1 (No limit if ancillary to another activity) ‐ Non‐Storefront Retail: 0, (1 in review) ‐ Testing: 0 ‐ Manufacturing: 0 ‐ Indoor Cultivation: 0, (1 in review) ‐ Microbusiness: 0, (1 in review) ‐ Distribution: 0 ‐ Competitive ‐ Scored/Ranked ‐ Points Awarded by Proposal Review CommitteeMountain View, CA ‐ City Council Adoption (2019) ‐ Non‐Storefront Retail ‐ Retail ‐ Non‐Storefront Retail: 3, or  ‐ Retail: 3, or combination thereof. ‐ Non‐Storefront Retail: 0 ‐ Retail: 0 ‐ Applications Screened ‐ Qualified Applications Placed in Lottery ‐ Zoning Administrator Randomly Selects ApplicationsEncinitas, CA ‐ Voter Driven Initiative (2020) ‐ Retail ‐ Cultivation ‐ "Product Manufacturing" ‐ "Cannabis Kitchens" ‐ Distribution ‐ Retail: 4 ‐ Cultivation: No Cap ‐ Manufacturing: No Cap ‐ Distribution: No Cap ‐ Retail: 0 ‐ Cultivation: 0 ‐ "Product Manufacturing": 0 ‐ "Cannabis Kitchens": 0 ‐ Distribution: 0 ‐ Competitive Lottery  ‐ Applicants Graded and Placed into Tiers ‐ Applicants in 1st Tier Randomly Selected ‐ 1st Tier Exhausted, Applicants in 2nd Tier Randomly SelectedSanta Barbara, CA ‐ City Council Adoption (2018) ‐ Indoor Cultivation ‐ Manufacturing ‐ Distribution ‐ Retail Storefront ‐ Testing ‐ Indoor Cultivation: No Cap ‐ Manufacturing: No Cap ‐ Distribution: No Cap ‐ Retail Storefront: 3 ‐ Testing: No Cap ‐ Indoor Cultivation: Not Avail. ‐ Manufacturing: 2 ‐ Distribution: 3 ‐ Retail Storefront: 3 ‐ Testing: 0 ‐ Competitive ‐ Scored/Ranked ‐ Points Awarded by Permit Application EvaluatorCOMPARISON OF CANNABIS REGULATORY PROGRAMS ‐ LICENSING(1) Note: Current license data is based primarily upon information from the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC).  DCC data reflects issuance of a State license, which may or may not coincide with final issuance of a local license.  As a result, actual number of businesses currently in operation within each jurisdiction may differ from figures indicated above.  In addition, DCC data does not currently include manufacturing license totals by City.  As a result, manufacturing license totals shown above are based upon amounts reported on City cannabis websites and/or recent news articles published within those jurisdictions.ATTACHMENT A‐1 CityRetail Zoning Non‐Retail Zoning Sensitive Use BuffersBurlingame, CA ‐ "Rollins Road" / "Inner Bayshore": Mixed Use, Commercial, Light Industrial ‐ N/A ‐ Residential Use, Schools: 600 feet ‐ Day Care, Youth Centers: 600 feetPacifica, CA ‐ "Cannabis Operation Overlay District": Neighborhood Commercial, Service Commercial, Planned Development, Community Commercial ‐ Manufacturing: Service Commercial ‐ Testing: Community Commercial, Service Commercial  ‐ Schools, Daycare Centers: 600 feet ‐ Youth Centers: 200 feetMartinez, CA ‐ Light Industrial, Neighborhood Commercial, Controlled Industrial, Thoroughfare Commercial ‐ Manufacturing: Controlled Industrial, Light Industrial, ‐ Distribution: Controlled Industrial, Light Industrial,  ‐ Testing Laboratory: Controlled Industrial, Light Industrial, Research and Development ‐ Schools, Daycare Centers: 600 feet ‐ Youth Centers: 600 feetFairfax, CA ‐ Highway Commercial, Central Commercial, and Limited Commercial   ‐ N/A ‐ School, Youth Center: 600 feet ‐ Daycare, Tutoring Center: 300 feet ‐ Delivery Only: School, Youth Center: 250 FeetGoleta, CA ‐ Community Commercial, General Commercial, Old Town, and Regional Community ‐ Cultivation: Business Park, Industrial General, Service Industrial ‐ Distribution: Business Park, Industrial General, Service Industrial ‐ Manufacturing: Business Park, Industrial General, Service Industrial ‐ Nurseries:  Business Park, Industrial General, Service Industrial ‐ Testing: Business Park, Industrial General, Service Industrial ‐ School: 600 feet ‐ Residential Land Use: 100 FeetNovato, CA ‐  Light Industrial/Office, Commercial/Industrial, Business and Professional Office ‐ Cultivation: Light Industrial / Office, Commercial / Industrial ‐ Distribution: Light Industrial / Office, Commercial / Industrial ‐ Manufacturing: Light Industrial / Office, Commercial / Industrial ‐ Nurseries: Light Industrial / Office, Commercial / Industrial ‐ Testing: General Commercial, Downtown Core Retail, Light Industrial / Office, Commercial / Industrial, Downtown Core Business, Business and Professional Office ‐ School, Youth Center: 600 feetMountain View, CA ‐ Commercial Service, General Industrial, Limited Industrial, Corridor Areas, Core Character Area, General Character Area, Edge Character Area ‐ N/A ‐ School: 600 feet ‐ Childcare Center: 250 feetEncinitas, CA ‐ Commercial, General Commercial, Commercial Mixed Use, Mixed Use Land Use ‐ Cultivation: Agriculture ‐ "Product Manufacturing": Light Industrial, Agricultural ‐ "Cannabis Kitchen": Business Park, Light Industrial, Agriculture, General Commercial  ‐ Distribution: Business Park, Light Industrial ‐ Daycare, Playground, Other Retailer, School: 1,000 feet ‐ Youth Center: 600 feet ‐ Exceptions allowed for "geographic barriers" between cannabis business and sensitive useSanta Barbara, CA‐ Light Manufacturing ‐ Light Manufacturing ‐ Schools, Daycare, Youth Center: 600 feetATTACHMENT A‐2COMPARISON OF CANNABIS REGULATORY PROGRAMS ‐ ZONING City Retail Non‐RetailBurlingame, CA ‐ 5% of gross receipts.   ‐ N/APacifica, CA ‐ 6% of Gross Receipts ‐ Manufacturing: 6% of Gross ReceiptsMartinez, CA ‐ Negotiated through Community Benefit Agreement (CBA) ‐ Most Recent CBA: 6% of Gross Receipts ‐ Negotiated Through CBA ‐ Most Recent CBA: None available on recordFairfax, CA ‐ Information not readily available ‐ Information not readily availableGoleta, CA ‐ 5% of Gross Receipts ‐ Cultivation: 4% of Gross Receipts ‐ Distribution: 1% of Gross Receipts ‐ Manufacturing: 2% of Gross Receipts ‐ Nurseries: 1% of Gross Receipts ‐ Testing: 0% of Gross ReceiptsNovato, CA ‐ Negotiated through Community Benefit Agreement (CBA) ‐ Most Recent CBA: 3.5% of Gross Receipts ‐ Negotiated Through CBA ‐ Most Recent CBA: 1.5% of Gross Receipts (Testing), 3‐4% of Gross Receipts (Microbusiness)Mountain View, CA ‐ 9% of Gross Receipts ‐ N/AEncinitas, CA ‐ Pending Voter Approval ‐ 4% to 6% of Gross Receipts ‐ Pending Voter Approval ‐ Retail: 6% of Gross Receipts (Max) ‐ Cultivation: $10/sq. ft. of canopy indoor, $7/sq. ft. of canopy greenhouse, $4 per square foot of canopy outdoor, $2/sq. ft. of canopy nursery (Max) ‐ Distribution: 3% of Gross Receipts (Max) ‐ Manufacturing: 4% of Gross Receipts (Max) ‐ Testing: 2% of Gross Receipts (Max)Santa Barbara, CA ‐ 5% of gross receipts.  ‐ Distribution: 4% of gross receipts ‐ Testing: 4% of gross receipts ‐ Cultivation 2% of gross receipts  ‐ Manufacturing: 3% of gross receiptsATTACHMENT A‐3COMPARISON OF CANNABIS REGULATORY PROGRAMS ‐ TAX RATES SARATOGA CAMPBELL SAN JOSEMONTE SERENO COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY COUNTY LOS GATOS Legend 600-foot Radius LG Parcels within 600-foot Radius Schools and Commercial Daycares School and Commercial Daycare Locations ATTACHMENT 2 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Commercial Cannabis Public Comments From: Matt Fleming <matt@grassrootslab.com> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 9:23 AM To: Cannabis <cannabis@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Question on cannabis ordinance I saw that your town is considering allowing cannabis (and is surveying residents). First: I am not looking for a consulting contract or cannabis permit or anything of the sort. I will not ask you for a permit or for money. I'm a consultant for Hawthorne Gardening, a subsidiary of Scotts Miracle-Gro. Hawthorne is not in the cannabis business, but some of its customers are, and we work with municipalities on workable policies that serve the community and ensure local and independent cannabis operators can be successful. We have technical experts who can answer questions regarding lighting requirements, odor mitigation and other aspects of running either a retail, cultivation or other type of safe and compliant cannabis business. Can you tell me a bit more about where your town is in the process? And can I help answer any technical questions about issues like odor mitigation and lighting requirements, etc? -- Matt Fleming GrassrootsLab From: Matt Fleming <matt@grassrootslab.com> Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 4:12 PM To: Cannabis <cannabis@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Re: Question on cannabis ordinance EXTERNAL SENDER Attachment 3 Just circling back on this. Any assistance you could provide would be greatly appreciated. On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 9:22 AM Matt Fleming <matt@grassrootslab.com> wrote: I saw that your town is considering allowing cannabis (and is surveying residents). First: I am not looking for a consulting contract or cannabis permit or anything of the sort. I will not ask you for a permit or for money. I'm a consultant for Hawthorne Gardening, a subsidiary of Scotts Miracle-Gro. Hawthorne is not in the cannabis business, but some of its customers are, and we work with municipalities on workable policies that serve the community and ensure local and independent cannabis operators can be successful. We have technical experts who can answer questions regarding lighting requirements, odor mitigation and other aspects of running either a retail, cultivation or other type of safe and compliant cannabis business. Can you tell me a bit more about where your town is in the process? And can I help answer any technical questions about issues like odor mitigation and lighting requirements, etc? -- Matt Fleming GrassrootsLab (916) 282-9921 From: Joseph Plaster <j.plaster@nectarpdx.com> Sent: Thursday, November 4, 2021 10:56 AM To: Cannabis <cannabis@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Cannabis in Los Gatos EXTERNAL SENDER Hello, I noticed that the commercial cannabis survey is now closed. When will the results be presented at Council? Also, is there any way to sign up for cannabis related notifications? Thanks, I look forward to your response. Best, Joseph Plaster Licensing Associate Nectar Markets, LLC P: (858)245-9404 E: j.plaster@nectarpdx.com Pronouns: He/Him/His Negligent Misstatements: Nectar accepts no liability for the content of this email, or for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of the information provided, unless that information is subsequently confirmed in writing. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. Employee Views: Any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company. Employees of Nectar are expressly required not to make defamatory statements and not to infringe or authorize any infringement of copyright or any other legal right by email communications. Any such communication is contrary to company policy and outside the scope of the employment of the individual concerned. Nectar will not accept any liability in respect of such communication, and the employee responsible will be personally liable for any damages or other liability arising. Actual Authority: No employee or agent is authorized to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of “Nectar” with another party by email without express written confirmation by a Nectar C-Level Executive. From: Ellen Wysocki <ellen.wysocki@shrynegroup.com> Sent: Friday, January 14, 2022 9:45 AM To: Cannabis <cannabis@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Commercial Cannabis Dispensaries in Los Gatos EXTERNAL SENDER Hello, I was curious to see if there has been any discussion in regards to allowing commercial cannabis storefront retailers within the city of Los Gatos? Or if there are any upcoming meetings? Thank you so much for your assistance. Warm Regards, Ellen Wysocki Director of Licensing and Northern Expansion, Shryne Group, Inc. (707)225-7211 | ellen.wysocki@shrynegroup.com www.shrynegroup.com Sacramento, CA This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the Shryne Group. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. From: Jayme Rivard <jayme@montereybayreef.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 8:22 PM To: Cannabis <cannabis@losgatosca.gov> Cc: cary stiebel <cary@montereybayreef.com> Subject: Is the city considering allowing cannabis? EXTERNAL SENDER Hello, I had heard that Los Gatos city council may be considering allowing cannabis businesses. Is that true? Is there a mailing list I can get on for updates? Kind regards, Jayme Rivard (831)277-9931 From: Robin Flury <rtflury@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2022 3:18 PM To: Cannabis <cannabis@losgatosca.gov> Subject: medical growth? EXTERNAL SENDER Hi! I wanted to know what, if anything, is allowed in Los Gatos regarding growing cannabis for personal medical use. Can a small number of plants be grown indoors? Or outdoors? Is there any paperwork or applications needed in order to do so for medical purposes? Thank you! From: Lisa Tollner <liz@sensiproducts.com> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 8:53 AM To: Cannabis <cannabis@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Cannabis Consultant EXTERNAL SENDER Town of Los Gatos Council Members: I may be an ideal candidate for the upcoming cannabis consulting position. My background includes being involved in the cannabis industry in the primary sectors (retail, manufacturing, distribution, cultivation, processing). I am a 22-year resident of Monte Sereno, and I have inside knowledge of the pros and cons of cannabis and how it impacts a community. Please let me know if a formal RFP application becomes available for this position, or if you would like to arrange a call or meeting, let me know. Thanks, Lisa Lisa Tollner Co-Founder/CMO Sensi Signature Products 408-483-7131 www.sensiproducts.com @sensi_chew From: Julie Newell <julie@bloomstoneco.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 11:53 AM To: Cannabis <cannabis@losgatosca.gov> Subject: inquiry EXTERNAL SENDER Good Afternoon, I would like to know the status of cannabis in the city and if there is any additional movement for allowing retail businesses. If there is, do you have an idea of when this will be done and if the selection process will be lottery or merit thank so much for you response Julie -- Julie D. Newell Bloomstoneco.com 714-914-1162 From: Joanne Rodgers <joannerodgers@me.com> Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2022 3:23 PM To: Judy Peckler <jpeckler@hotmail.com> Cc: Ron Rennie <rrennie@losgatos.gov>; Maria Ristow <MRistow@losgatosca.gov>; Mary Badame <MBadame@losgatosca.gov>; Matthew Hudes <MHudes@losgatosca.gov>; Marico Sayoc <msayoc@losgatos.gov>; Laurel Prevetti <LPrevetti@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Marijuana dispensaries in LG EXTERNAL SENDER Dear Judy and all, Thank you for the information below about the attack on Cannabis Dispensaries in Oakland. I had not seen this. When we consider the amount of additional crime and more administrative work and policing that will be necessary, it seems to me that having drugs sales in our family oriented town will not bring in much tax money. We are also sending the wrong message that drug and being high are acceptable in Los Gatos. We have to be sure we let our council member know how we feel about this. Three council members(Rob Rennie, Mary Badame, Marico Sayoc) are up for re-election this November 2022. Mary Badame is the only one who voted NO to paying $50,000 to the Cannabis Management Services Co. to study where to locate marijuana dispensaries in our town. Thank you. Joanne This is the note from Judy Peckler: Last night I was watching local news and they interviewed the operator of the Cannabis Dispensary in Oakland. It had been hit by Crash and Grab team that had tried before and succeeded finally. There was an suv that drove into the entrance and two other support cars with numerous hooded thieves who ransacked the store. There was a second location had been targeted as well. This was a violent and destructive criminal attack. The police and authorities were gathering evidence. It was alarming to hear and I became more fearful of the potential violence that could impact a neighborhood. Please keep me updated and I want the community To be educated about this dangerous reality. Thank you Judy Peckler From: Marty Berk <berkmarty@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2022 2:48 PM To: Rob Rennie <RRennie@losgatosca.gov>; Maria Ristow <MRistow@losgatosca.gov>; Mary Badame <MBadame@losgatosca.gov>; Matthew Hudes <MHudes@losgatosca.gov>; Marico Sayoc <MSayoc@losgatosca.gov>; Laurel Prevetti <LPrevetti@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Joanne Rodgers <joannerodgers43@gmail.com>; Rowena Turner <rturner@sensability.net> Subject: Against having a marijuana dispensary in Los Gatos EXTERNAL SENDER Dear Los Gatos Town Council Members and Town Manager, Please listen to the many Los Gatos residents who do not wish to have marijuana dispensaries in town. I am a Monte Sereno resident but am closely connected to the town of Los Gatos in many ways. My children attended and benefited from Los Gatos schools from kindergarten through high school. My town contributes about a million dollars each year to share the Los Gatos Police Department services. I primarily shop in town and prefer Los Gatos restaurants. My late husband practiced surgery at Good Samaritan Hospital for over thirty years. Marijuana dispensaries are entirely unnecessary here and can lead to serious problems for Los Gatos families. Any problems arising from local dispensaries should be on your conscience. Paying $50,000 for a study to determine sites for dispensaries is such a waste of community money. Please, please consider the consequences of your decisions. Most sincerely, Martha K. Berk From: Katherine Winkelman <kathywinkelman@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 3, 2022 9:53 PM To: Joanne Rodgers; Rob Rennie; Maria Ristow; Mary Badame; Matthew Hudes; Marico Sayoc Cc: Laurel Prevetti Subject: Re: Comments on MJ Dispensaries to the Town Council- March 1 EXTERNAL SENDER As a long-time Los Gatos town volunteer and ongoing Los Gatos Chamber member, Los Gatos resident near 50 years, St Mary’s and St Lucy’s Youth Minister and volunteer 20 years, past CASA Los Gatos President, Club Live, Friday Nite Live Volunteer (student clubs on high school and Jr. high school campuses) and Los Gatos High Volunteer 15 years I cannot be convinced with all this experience walking with kids that the Town of Los Gatos should have a dispensary or two or three. And oh my what we could do for our kids and families with $50000. I totally agree with Joanne Rogers and all opposed. Sincerely Kathy Winkelman Get Outlook for iOS From: Joanne Rodgers <joannerodgers@me.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 4:10:09 PM To: RRennie@losgatosca.gov <RRennie@losgatosca.gov>; MRistow@losgatosca.gov <MRistow@losgatosca.gov>; Mary Badame <mbadame@losgatosca.gov>; MHudes@losgatosca.gov <MHudes@losgatosca.gov>; Marico Sayoc <msayoc@losgatos.gov> Cc: Laurel Prevetti <lprevetti@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Comments on MJ Dispensaries to the Town Council- March 1 Dear LG Friends and Town Council Members, Last night March 1st several of us spoke at the Open Comments to the Council Members concerning the $50,000 that was spent to study whether we would allow 3 marijuana dispensaries in Los Gatos. These are my comments and the letter below is one written by Franklin Bondonno, Santa Clara County Judge about kids in Juvenile Hall. I will let you know when we can arrange another meeting with a Council member and Police Chief. Please continue writing letters and emails to our Town Council Members. Joanne Rodgers Hi I’m Joanne Rodgers, co-founder of CASA, Community against Substance Abuse and founder of LGHS New Millennium Foundation. I was going to expound on MJ, as a GATEWAY DRUG and the harm it does to our kids. Like 400 difference toxins that pot leaves in the brain, the reproductive organs, and fatty tissue for weeks after using. Think of this in terms of our kids. But instead I read through the contract that our Town Attorney signed and FOUR of our Council Members voted to fund for $50,000 with HDL, Cannabis Management Services Companies. YOU HAVE OPENED A CAN OF WORMS. Los Gatos will have no control on the outcome of allowing 3 MJ dispensaries in our town as has been proposed in HDL Scope of Services unless there are 3 votes against it by the Town Council. There is no way this PROPOSAL FOR CANNABIS OUTREACH AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT will only cost Los Gatos tax payer the initial $50,000 fee you have just paid them. That is only the beginning. Let me tell you what I found out when I called one of HDL references: -HDL has been sued by several cities -I was told the rating process that HDL used in this city sent them different names but they were the same people. -the summary of the scores were wrong. -there was NO oversight - They complied all the surveys. They wrote the Ordinance changes; They wrote the ballot measure; they decided the tax rate; they run the public meetings and provided direction to town staff. -Our contract says everything will be virtual even the individual meeting with Town Council members and all public meetings because travel expenses for in person have not been included in the $50,000. -The person I talked to (one the their references) said the Cannabis business is a litigious business. -30 dispensaries were closed down. -There is lot of oversight needed by police and security and HDL will do this too. -She said they paid HDL much more than $50,000. -She said their key Personnel,Compliance Director, David McPherson is a sales guy period. Others personnel include 5 Auditors, 5 Compliance Inspectors and a few more. We have given this whole process over to a Cannabis Management Service Co. It is the Fox guarding the Hen House. And our town survey says 60+% of Los Gatos does not want this. Why would we go into this type of business? There are other ways to raise money for the town. Don’t spend another penny on this. It’s wrong for our town. I have a letter from Santa Clara Superior Court Judge that I will email to you all. Please read it. Thank you. From: Franklin Bondonno <FBondonno@scscourt.org> Subject: RE: Marijuana Dispensary planned for LG-Update Date: February 16, 2022 at 4:55:58 PM PST To: Joanne Rodgers <joannerodgers@mac.com> MJ can be legally purchased at the Airport store on Coleman in San Jose. That is about 10 miles from the edge of Town. MJ can be of help for the Cancer patients and is legal for adults in this state. However, MJ is a big issue for kids : it interferes with brain development up to about age 24 or 25. It can also increase anxiety and in some cases bring on ( but not cause ) early sysmptoms of mental illness. ie By Polar onset.( Strong European studies on this ). Almost all of the kids I see in Juv. Justice use MJ ; and none of them can buy it legally. I can see no benefit to having MJ sales in LG except perhaps some sales tax revenue. However, most of the information I have seen shows that the underground illegal market is doing better then the legally regulated and taxed market. So the down side seems greater than the up side for our town. A key question is do legal MJ stores get robbed? How often ? Because of the banking laws, do they have a lot of cash on hand making them a target? How much extra Police time cost comes with this type of store in town ? The line that LG needs to be a "full service town" is a little glib. I would like to know how much income the Town expects to get from the MJ store. It should be way more that the 50K price of the study. And how did the Town come to the expected number ? I hope that helps. Franklin From: Stephanie Simas <steff1979@live.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 8, 2022 5:52 PM To: Cannabis <cannabis@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Cannabis EXTERNAL SENDER I’d love to work with the town to properly educate the residents on what legalization really means, and the local faces behind it. I’m a graduate of LGHS ‘97 and live near Lexington with my husband and son. As a special needs parent/mom who medicates her autistic son/child with CBD oil for behavioral issues and also is a 5 year cannabis industry veteran, I also have knowledge from running a cannabis shop in Soquel for the last 2 years. Sincerely, Stephanie A Simas 408-830-7101 XO- Steff From: Alexandra Swafford <alexandra@swafford.com> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2022 9:37 AM To: Cannabis <cannabis@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Two more voters and residents, and our opinion EXTERNAL SENDER Dear Town of Los Gatos, We have been sent surveys on what we like/do not like/ would like improved on/ use of Community...but Marijuana Dispensaries are not addressed on this survey. It was with great alarm that I read that Los Gatos was considering Dispensaries. Have we learned nothing over the years? We have a terrific High School, terrific students and a community that tries its best to support the development of responsible young (and old) adults. Correct that marijuana is now legal - at 21 years. It is true, that most any enterprising and even half determined young person can 'order' ANY number of drugs online...including ones that end up causing addiction and also killing (because of fentanyl mixed into any number of 'recreational drugs)...but the goal of the Town should be to 'set an example' of responsible use of whatever (and yes, that includes alcohol) for the youth. There are dispensaries outside of the boundaries of Los Gatos, and they deliver, so we need to have one here? For what purpose? Revenue? Like we do not have enough revenue in this Town to support a responsible quality of live and community without bringing in a Marijuana Dispensary? I understand that we are 'older' voters, but I also would hope that we would have experience and wisdom to have seen what drugs, misuse, overuse and addition does to people...and it starts with the attitude of the community. I have friends who have sold homes and moved to other Bay Area communities, specifically because Marijuana dispensaries opened close to them. Please listen to the residents of this community, and resist the consideration of opening Dispensaries here. It does NOT make Los Gatos a more 'cool' community; in fact quite the opposite. Marijuana is readily available now to those who need it recreationally or medically, but we do not need the Dispensaries here. Our opinion, alexandra & david swafford From: caissie stephens <stephens5.caissie@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2022 9:26 AM To: Cannabis <cannabis@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Yes to one Cannabis dispensary EXTERNAL SENDER I have lived in Los Gatos for over 52 years and I don't understand why there is such a hesitancy to have one Cannabis dispensary in town, unless it is fear. We have liquor stores, I do not drink, that are throughout the town and can buy alcohol at all major grocery stores. I am much more concerned about that, than I am about a cannabis dispensary. It brings revenue to the town and a lot of people use it for medical reasons. I am a yes on this C Stephens From: Alexandra Sung <alexandra.sung@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 9:13:21 PM To: Maria Ristow <MRistow@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Concern re: possibility of cannabis operations in Los Gatos EXTERNAL SENDER Dear Vice Mayor Ristow, I am a Los Gatos resident and want to express my concern regarding the possibly of allowing cannabis stores / operations in Los Gatos. I strongly oppose this idea due to public safety and odor concerns. The potential for additional revenue is simply not worth the risk of the negative externalities to this community. Those seeking cannabis have plenty of options nearby. Please let them go there and keep the negative impacts out of Los Gatos. Regards, Alexandra Sung From: Jeff Sung <jcsung@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 10:30 PM To: Cannabis <cannabis@losgatosca.gov>; Rob Rennie <RRennie@losgatosca.gov>; Marico Sayoc <MSayoc@losgatosca.gov>; Maria Ristow <MRistow@losgatosca.gov>; Mary Badame <MBadame@losgatosca.gov>; Matthew Hudes <MHudes@losgatosca.gov> Subject: No to cannabis EXTERNAL SENDER Dear Los Gatos Town Council, Years ago, it was cool to smoke. Joe Camel, the Marlboro Man... Members of our council should remember these figures. We've learned that people of that generation were brainwashed into smoking, with targeted ads by Big Tobacco. Only with lawsuits against tobacco, have we learned the true extent of how tobacco targeted children, targeted low income minorities for commercial profit. Governments went along for the ride, using "sin taxes" to pay for government programs, as these taxes were palatable to the general populace. Politicians didn't have to speak up for these poor individuals, suckered into smoking by focused campaigns, and caught in their addiction. These individuals could be portrayed as deserving the consequences of their "consenting adult" choices, while the general populace got to reap the benefits of their taxes. I fear that the same is happening now with marijuana. Yes, it is not right to put people in prison for using a small amount of marijuana. But it is not right to encourage its use by adding dispensaries, and it is absolutely not right for government to try to use marijuana as a way to raise tax revenue. This tax revenue is blood money. As a doctor, I see the people who pay this blood money. I am biopsying their lung cancers. I am putting feeding tubes in their stomachs because of the cancers growing in their throats. I am reading the scans of the cancers that have spread to their brain and bones. Make no mistake that smoking marijuana causes the same cancers as smoking tobacco. Marijuana causes brain damage. Marijuana accelerates cardiovascular disease. Marjauna causes mental illness. Marijuana gets into the hands of children. Nationwide, about 1 in 14 children aged 12 to 17 used marijuana in the past month. That figure was 24 percent in California, and increased to 26 percent after Proposition 64 was passed. Putting a dispensary in Los Gatos is going to make marijuana more accessible to children. We can't kid ourselves about this. We can't abrogate responsibility and say that this is the sole responsibility of parents. Nearly 60 percent of Los Gatos residents said they opposed having a dispensary in Los Gatos. Please listen to them. Listen to physicians. Stop listening to those with financial interests tied to marijuana. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Jeffrey Sung, M.D. From: Alexandra Sung <alexandra.sung@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2022 9:11 PM To: Cannabis <cannabis@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Opposition to any form of cannabis business in Los Gatos EXTERNAL SENDER Hello, I am a Los Gatos resident and want to express my concern regarding the possibly of allowing cannabis stores / operations in Los Gatos. I strongly oppose this idea due to public safety and odor concerns. The potential for additional revenue is simply not worth the risk of the negative externalities to this community. Those seeking cannabis have plenty of options nearby. Please let them go there and keep the negative impacts out of Los Gatos. Regards, Alexandra Sung On Mar 14, 2022, at 9:14 PM, Alexandra Sung <alexandra.sung@gmail.com> wrote: EXTERNAL SENDER Dear Council Member Sayoc, Thank you for your service to our community. I am a Los Gatos resident and want to express my concern regarding the possibly of allowing cannabis stores / operations in Los Gatos. I strongly oppose this idea due to public safety and odor concerns. The potential for additional revenue is simply not worth the risk of the negative externalities to this community. Those seeking cannabis have plenty of options nearby. Please let them go there and keep the negative impacts out of Los Gatos. Regards, Alexandra Sung From: richardson48@comcast.net <richardson48@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 8:38 AM To: Cannabis <cannabis@losgatosca.gov> Cc: 'Lainey Richardson' <richardson48@comcast.net> Subject: 60 year resident EXTERNAL SENDER I went to Dave’s Ave, Fisher, LG High and West Valley JC. I am PRO dispensary in LG. Happy to discuss: Lainey Richardson 14801 Golf Links Dr Los Gatos, CA 95032 408-497-6731 From: Joanne Rodgers <joannerodgers@me.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2022 4:10 PM To: Rob Rennie <RRennie@losgatosca.gov>; Maria Ristow <MRistow@losgatosca.gov>; Mary Badame <MBadame@losgatosca.gov>; Matthew Hudes <MHudes@losgatosca.gov>; Marico Sayoc <msayoc@losgatos.gov> Cc: Laurel Prevetti <LPrevetti@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Comments on MJ Dispensaries to the Town Council- March 1 EXTERNAL SENDER Dear LG Friends and Town Council Members, Last night March 1st several of us spoke at the Open Comments to the Council Members concerning the $50,000 that was spent to study whether we would allow 3 marijuana dispensaries in Los Gatos. These are my comments and the letter below is one written by Franklin Bondonno, Santa Clara County Judge about kids in Juvenile Hall. I will let you know when we can arrange another meeting with a Council member and Police Chief. Please continue writing letters and emails to our Town Council Members. Joanne Rodgers Hi I’m Joanne Rodgers, co-founder of CASA, Community against Substance Abuse and founder of LGHS New Millennium Foundation. I was going to expound on MJ, as a GATEWAY DRUG and the harm it does to our kids. Like 400 difference toxins that pot leaves in the brain, the reproductive organs, and fatty tissue for weeks after using. Think of this in terms of our kids. But instead I read through the contract that our Town Attorney signed and FOUR of our Council Members voted to fund for $50,000 with HDL, Cannabis Management Services Companies. YOU HAVE OPENED A CAN OF WORMS. Los Gatos will have no control on the outcome of allowing 3 MJ dispensaries in our town as has been proposed in HDL Scope of Services unless there are 3 votes against it by the Town Council. There is no way this PROPOSAL FOR CANNABIS OUTREACH AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT will only cost Los Gatos tax payer the initial $50,000 fee you have just paid them. That is only the beginning. Let me tell you what I found out when I called one of HDL references: -HDL has been sued by several cities -I was told the rating process that HDL used in this city sent them different names but they were the same people. -the summary of the scores were wrong. -there was NO oversight - They complied all the surveys. They wrote the Ordinance changes; They wrote the ballot measure; they decided the tax rate; they run the public meetings and provided direction to town staff. -Our contract says everything will be virtual even the individual meeting with Town Council members and all public meetings because travel expenses for in person have not been included in the $50,000. -The person I talked to (one the their references) said the Cannabis business is a litigious business. -30 dispensaries were closed down. -There is lot of oversight needed by police and security and HDL will do this too. -She said they paid HDL much more than $50,000. -She said their key Personnel,Compliance Director, David McPherson is a sales guy period. Others personnel include 5 Auditors, 5 Compliance Inspectors and a few more. We have given this whole process over to a Cannabis Management Service Co. It is the Fox guarding the Hen House. And our town survey says 60+% of Los Gatos does not want this. Why would we go into this type of business? There are other ways to raise money for the town. Don’t spend another penny on this. It’s wrong for our town. I have a letter from Santa Clara Superior Court Judge that I will email to you all. Please read it. Thank you. From: Franklin Bondonno <FBondonno@scscourt.org> Subject: RE: Marijuana Dispensary planned for LG-Update Date: February 16, 2022 at 4:55:58 PM PST To: Joanne Rodgers <joannerodgers@mac.com> MJ can be legally purchased at the Airport store on Coleman in San Jose. That is about 10 miles from the edge of Town. MJ can be of help for the Cancer patients and is legal for adults in this state. However, MJ is a big issue for kids : it interferes with brain development up to about age 24 or 25. It can also increase anxiety and in some cases bring on ( but not cause ) early sysmptoms of mental illness. ie By Polar onset.( Strong European studies on this ). Almost all of the kids I see in Juv. Justice use MJ ; and none of them can buy it legally. I can see no benefit to having MJ sales in LG except perhaps some sales tax revenue. However, most of the information I have seen shows that the underground illegal market is doing better then the legally regulated and taxed market. So the down side seems greater than the up side for our town. A key question is do legal MJ stores get robbed? How often ? Because of the banking laws, do they have a lot of cash on hand making them a target? How much extra Police time cost comes with this type of store in town ? The line that LG needs to be a "full service town" is a little glib. I would like to know how much income the Town expects to get from the MJ store. It should be way more that the 50K price of the study. And how did the Town come to the expected number ? I hope that helps. Franklin From: Gladie Rabitz <gladierabitz@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2022 7:24 PM To: Laurel Prevetti <LPrevetti@losgatosca.gov>; Rob Rennie <RRennie@losgatosca.gov>; Maria Ristow <MRistow@losgatosca.gov>; Mary Badame <MBadame@losgatosca.gov>; Matthew Hudes <MHudes@losgatosca.gov>; Marico Sayoc <MSayoc@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Art Rabitz <paparabitz@aol.com> Subject: Cannabis stores/ dispensaries in LG EXTERNAL SENDER Dear LG Town Manager and Town Council Members -- We have lived in our Los Gatos home for 50 years, moving into our home in 1972. We have both been active in many parts of the Town's activities, in LGHS with our 4 kids in the 80's and 90's, on all the teams, volunteering in the schools, in many of the non-profits, etc. I was a co-founder of "The Venue, A Place for Teens" from 1988 forward, and on their Board of Directors for 12-15 years, developing the building, the programming, and the safety of the teens. I'm now active in Assistance League of Los Gatos-Saratoga, still helping in the schools, with Literacy, STEAM, Lunches for Seniors, Clothes For Kids, Care Packages for Foster Teens, and more programs to help those in need in and around our community. My husband is very active in the Los Gatos Rotary, and all their many activities including the long-held local Great Race. We have been hearing about the marijuana/ cannabis stores/ dispensaries that are being planned for Los Gatos, the $50,000 "study", etc, and we are appalled. How can you even think of having that kind of store in our clean-cut, family-oriented, touristy, musical, charming, and artistic town?? It would be such a detriment to the town, to the kids, to the families, and to our wonderful Town's beautiful reputation. I hope you reconsider having this type of business in town. For similar reasons, a local gun shop and a paraphernalia shop were closed down in Los Gatos over recent years. A cannabis/ marajuana/ paraphernalia shop does not belong here in our lovely Los Gatos. Please reconsider and let them open elsewhere, not here. Thank you for "listening". Gladie Rabitz, 18315 Daves Ave., Los Gatos, CA 95030 From: freeman <keith@soseas.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2022 9:41 AM To: Cannabis <cannabis@losgatosca.gov> Cc: freeman <keith@soseas.com> Subject: cannabis discussions EXTERNAL SENDER Dear Town of Los Gatos, I am a resident of Los Gatos for 60+ years and would like to participate in discussion of cannabis business licensing in Los Gatos. Can you please tell me how to sign up for meetings and consultant presentations? What is the schedule of meetings concerning cannabis in Los Gatos? Thank you, Keith Freeman 759 Blossom Hill Road Los Gatos, CA 95032 From: Lee Fagot <leefagot@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2022 5:27 PM To: Robert Schultz <RSchultz@losgatosca.gov>; Rob Rennie <RRennie@losgatosca.gov>; Maria Ristow <MRistow@losgatosca.gov>; Matthew Hudes <MHudes@losgatosca.gov>; Mary Badame <MBadame@losgatosca.gov>; Marico Sayoc <MSayoc@losgatosca.gov>; Laurel Prevetti <LPrevetti@losgatosca.gov>; Arn Andrews <aandrews@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Cannabis sales in Los Gatos EXTERNAL SENDER Council Members and Senior Town employees Interesting that the NY Times has a front page story about CA cannabis sellers today, “ California Cannabis Sellers Face a Bleak Reality”. March 16, 2022 NY Times page 1, informing us who the legal sellers are (convicted of illegal drug dealings in the past and given priority to open their retail outlets) reporting how they have done since opening their retail outlets, as they are facing violent burglaries, increased very local crime, losing money, complaining they not able to make the same profits they made selling illegal drugs on the street, etc. Very similar to the fears now over what NY wants to do based also on the recent experiences in CA, as related in these articles. And, the earlier story, “New Yorkers With Marijuana Convictions Will Get First Retail Licenses” , NY Times page A25 of March 10, relating similar issues expected with new laws in NY State allowing convicted felons to get priority for retail licenses for dispensaries. What the hell are our courts, and elected officials trying to do? This also could be undermining the quality of police services and provides Interesting rewards for bad and illegal behavior. What is the real cost vs. estimated new tax revenue potential? My guess, it will cost much more socially and financially going forward. Lets make the right decision on this issue of local retail outlet(s) in Town - NO!! Thanks, and the articles are pretty scary, but worth the reading to learn more. Lee Fagot From: Cindy Tucey <ctucey@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 8:54:41 PM To: Maria Ristow <MRistow@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Vote NO on cannabis in Los Gatos EXTERNAL SENDER Dear Vice Mayor, Please vote NO to retail cannabis in Los Gatos. I was displeased to learn that the Los Gatos town council is considering allowing retail cannabis in our town of Los Gatos. My in-laws live in a town in Colorado that was an early adopter of retail cannabis in the town. It has caused many problems for the town, and has brought a lot of undesirable elements to the town. It has trashed many previously nice areas. I have also seen shopping plazas with cannabis in the Bay area that have become undesirable due to the retail cannabis. I do not desire this for the town of Los Gatos. We also do not want easier drug access for our children. I understand a counter argument is that teens will get cannabis anyway, so why prohibit cannabis in our town and give up the tax money. To this I would respond, that this is about more than easy access to cannabis, it’s also about what sort of town we want to have. We do not want to attract the type of folks that will be getting high in the parking lot to our town. We don’t want the crime and security issues. Please vote NO. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Cindy Tucey Homeowner & Resident of Los Gatos From: Cindy Tucey <ctucey@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 1:53 PM To: Cannabis <cannabis@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Vote NO on retail cannabis EXTERNAL SENDER Dear Sir or Madam, I was displeased to learn that the Los Gatos town council is considering allowing retail cannabis in our town of Los Gatos. Please vote NO to retail cannabis in Los Gatos. My in-laws live in a town in Colorado that was an early adopter of retail cannabis in the town. It has caused many problems for the town, and has brought a lot of undesirable elements to the town. It has trashed many previously nice areas. I have also seen shopping plazas with cannabis in the Bay area that have become undesirable due to the retail cannabis. I do not desire this for the town of Los Gatos. I understand a counter argument is that teens will get cannabis anyway, so why prohibit cannabis in our town and give up the tax money. To this I would respond, that this is about more than easy access to cannabis, it’s also about what sort of town we want to have. We do not want to attract the type of folks that will be getting high in the parking lot to our town. If folks want to get cannabis, there are plenty of dispensaries in the local area. Please vote NO. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Cindy Tucey Sent from my iPhone On Mar 22, 2022, at 1:17 PM, Kathy Anderson <adonkathy@aol.com> wrote: EXTERNAL SENDER I am resending this requesting that each council member respond. I thank Mary Badame for responding. I would like to know each of your reasoning for spending money on a study where 60% of your citizens were against allowing. You are elected to represent the citizens of Los Gatos. Why would you ignore that responsibility by pursuing a costly study on an issue 60% of your citizens were against. Why would you consider having to make a zoning change to allow marijuana dispensaries when the majority of the citizens are against. Did you do a poll and costly study on the gun issue or did you just take a stand against a controversial issue? I know each of you are busy but you are elected officials and need to respond to your electorate. Kathy Anderson Foster Rd. Los Gatos I have asked in past correspondence to Council to vote no on marijuana dispensaries. My question is - why are you even considering allowing them in Los Gatos ? The poll concerning marijuana dispensaries 60% of returns voted no. Council would need to make a zoning change to allow them. Council voted to not allow gun shops in town. It shows Council can take a stand when controversial issues come up. So why aren’t you just saying no to the marijuana dispensaries? Please respond Thank you, Kathy Anderson Foster Rd. Los Gatos Sent from my iPad On Mar 24, 2022, at 9:04 PM, Jeff Sung <jcsung@gmail.com> wrote: EXTERNAL SENDER Hi Marico, I know you have kids too, and was wondering if you had any thoughts regarding my email. Nobody from town council replied. I was hoping you would all consider the points I made in it though. Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you for your time. Respectfully, Jeff From: Jeff Sung <jcsung@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Mar 14, 2022, 10:30 PM Subject: No to cannabis To: <cannabis@losgatosca.gov>, Rob Rennie <rrennie@losgatosca.gov>, Marico Sayoc <msayoc@losgatosca.gov>, <mristow@losgatosca.gov>, <mbadame@losgatosca.gov>, <mhudes@losgatosca.gov> Dear Los Gatos Town Council, Years ago, it was cool to smoke. Joe Camel, the Marlboro Man... Members of our council should remember these figures. We've learned that people of that generation were brainwashed into smoking, with targeted ads by Big Tobacco. Only with lawsuits against tobacco, have we learned the true extent of how tobacco targeted children, targeted low income minorities for commercial profit. Governments went along for the ride, using "sin taxes" to pay for government programs, as these taxes were palatable to the general populace. Politicians didn't have to speak up for these poor individuals, suckered into smoking by focused campaigns, and caught in their addiction. These individuals could be portrayed as deserving the consequences of their "consenting adult" choices, while the general populace got to reap the benefits of their taxes. I fear that the same is happening now with marijuana. Yes, it is not right to put people in prison for using a small amount of marijuana. But it is not right to encourage its use by adding dispensaries, and it is absolutely not right for government to try to use marijuana as a way to raise tax revenue. This tax revenue is blood money. As a doctor, I see the people who pay this blood money. I am biopsying their lung cancers. I am putting feeding tubes in their stomachs because of the cancers growing in their throats. I am reading the scans of the cancers that have spread to their brain and bones. Make no mistake that smoking marijuana causes the same cancers as smoking tobacco. Marijuana causes brain damage. Marijuana accelerates cardiovascular disease. Marjauna causes mental illness. Marijuana gets into the hands of children. Nationwide, about 1 in 14 children aged 12 to 17 used marijuana in the past month. That figure was 24 percent in California, and increased to 26 percent after Proposition 64 was passed. Putting a dispensary in Los Gatos is going to make marijuana more accessible to children. We can't kid ourselves about this. We can't abrogate responsibility and say that this is the sole responsibility of parents. Nearly 60 percent of Los Gatos residents said they opposed having a dispensary in Los Gatos. Please listen to them. Listen to physicians. Stop listening to those with financial interests tied to marijuana. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Jeffrey Sung, M.D. From: lmharris@earthlink.net <lmharris@earthlink.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 6:45 PM To: 'Joanne Rodgers' <joannerodgers@mac.com>; 'Joe Rodgers' <jrodgers43@yahoo.com>; Rob Rennie <RRennie@losgatosca.gov>; Maria Ristow <MRistow@losgatosca.gov>; Mary Badame <MBadame@losgatosca.gov>; Matthew Hudes <MHudes@losgatosca.gov>; Marico Sayoc <MSayoc@losgatosca.gov>; Robert Schultz <RSchultz@losgatosca.gov>; Laurel Prevetti <LPrevetti@losgatosca.gov> Cc: 'Karla Albright' <kmalbright@gmail.com>; 'Sue Anawalt' <sue@anawalt.com>; 'Don Arnaudo' <dparnaudo@gmail.com>; 'Rose Arnaudo' <rmarnaudo@gmail.com>; Mary Badame <MBadame@losgatosca.gov>; 'Dru Barth' <barthdru@gmail.com>; 'Jim Barth' <jim.barth@gmail.com>; 'Kathy Bays' <baysmk@comcast.net>; 'Michael Bays' <bayslaw@gte.net>; 'Celia Bell' <celiabell@verizon.net>; 'Joanne Benjamin' <joanne.benjamin@verizon.net>; 'Marty Berk' <berkmarty@yahoo.com>; 'Toni Blackstock' <toniblackstock@gmail.com>; 'Jeffrey P. Blum' <blumesq@aol.com>; 'Nancy Boesenberg' <nancyntoga@yahoo.com>; 'Diana Bond' <bond.family@sbcglobal.net>; 'Franklin Bondonno' <FBondonno@scscourt.org>; 'Shannon Burnett' <shannonburnett@me.com>; 'Susan Burnett' <sann85@me.com>; 'Kelly Campbell' <kellyleecampbell@gmail.com>; 'Julio Casal' <jcasal@4iq.com>; 'Faustine Comstock' <ftcomst@gmail.com>; 'Robert Cowan' <rscowan@comcast.net>; 'Joan Cross' <jycross@aol.com>; 'Don Erba' <donerba88@gmail.com>; 'Lee Fagot' <leefagot@gmail.com>; 'Leslie Finch' <leslie.finch@comcast.net>; 'Karyn Gramling' <karyn.gramling@gmail.com>; 'R &L Hallinan' <larogato@gmail.com>; 'Mary Harvey' <marlouharvey@yahoo.com>; 'Stacey Hein' <staceywalkerhein@gmail.com>; 'Nancy Hernandez' <wstrgaardn@aol.com>; 'Margaret Hokeness' <mhokeness@gmail.com>; 'Garry Holst' <garryholst@gmail.com>; 'Patti Hughes' <gardengirlpatti@gmail.com>; 'Rupar Iyar' <peacockazure@gmail.com>; 'Jubie Jaramillo' <jubiejaramillo@gmail.com>; 'Troy Jaramillo' <troyjubie@yahoo.com>; 'Nancy Jobe' <nancyjobe@hotmail.com>; 'Sally Jones' <sallyparkerjones@me.com>; 'Judy Peterson' <jpeterson@losgatan.com>; 'Susan Kankel' <susankankel@comcast.net>; 'Bonnie Knopf' <baknopf@yahoo.com>; 'Carrie Knopf' <carrieknopf@comcast.net>; 'Phil Knopf' <pwknopf@yahoo.com>; 'William Lasher' <wlasher01@gmail.com>; 'Theresa Leiker' <tleiker1@comcast.net>; 'Steve Leonardis' <steve@blvdfinancial.com>; 'Celine Leroy' <celine.b.leroy@gmail.com>; 'Barbara Mesa' <barbmesalg@gmail.com>; 'Mike' <mike@dolcespazio.com>; 'Olga Montserratt' <olga.montv@gmail.com>; 'Pearl Norton' <pearlnorton@comcast.net>; 'Sally Paolini' <sallypao@aol.com>; 'Judy Peckler' <jpeckler@hotmail.com>; 'Gwen Pinkston' <gpinkston@comcast.net>; 'Diana Pleasant' <dgpleasant@earthlink.net>; 'Gladie Rabitz' <gladierabitz@gmail.com>; 'Joe Rodgers' <jrodgers43@yahoo.com>; 'Travis Rodgers' <travis@drdds.com>; 'Marshall Smith' <marshall@mbm- smith.com>; 'Doug Sporleder' <ss_ds@verizon.net>; 'Vicki Thorburn' <vtoffice@comcast.net>; 'Kirsten Trapani' <chriskirst@aol.com>; 'Terri Trotter' <ttrotter@stmaryslg.org>; 'Kathy Tumason' <kathytumason@gmail.com>; 'Susan Tuttle' <2subtle@comcast.net>; 'Carol Wallace' <c3wallace@aol.com>; 'Kim Wasserman' <kjwasserman@aol.com>; 'Lucy Wedemeyer' <lucy@lucywedemeyer.com>; 'Dave Wilde' <dave.wilde@comcast.net>; 'Kathy Winkelman' <Kathywinkelman@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: alarming information regarding HDL requiring immediate action EXTERNAL SENDER Dear Robert Schultz, and Rob Rennie, Maria Ristow, Mary Badame, Matthew Hudes, Marico Sayoc, Laurel Prevetti My name is Lisa Harris and I have been a homeowner in Los Gatos for over 20 years. I am part of a growing collective group of concerned residents in Los Gatos called CAD, Community Against Dispensaries. Recently we were made aware that the town of Los Gatos hired a Cannabis management company called HDL for initial consultation services. I looked on the HDL website to learn more about the cannabis management company that The Town of Los Gatos gave $50,000 to. I want to quote what HDL said on their website regarding the companies “Regulation, Development, and Support services.” “HDL, will help you develop cannabis regulations that maximize agency economic benefits while providing a framework for cannabis businesses to operate successfully. Services include fiscal analysis, land-use regulation development, regulatory and tax ordinance drafting, and ballot resolution preparation.” This is a biased for profit agency with regards to the cannabis industry. HDL plays a core part in orchestrating the approval of commercial cannabis businesses in towns. Upon further research I discovered that essentially they are a full service company that has contracts with towns over the course of many years . HDL makes the bulk of their profits off of towns if they allow cannabis businesses to operate. They also will work with cannabis companies in a towns jurisdiction on an ongoing basis to make sure the town is receiving their taxes. HDL is essentially a biased pro- cannabis company. If we don’t allow cannabis in the town of Los Gatos, than HDL can’t provide billable services. It’s in HDL’s best interest to convince the town of LG to allow cannabis businesses to operate. David Mc Pherson, Cannabis Compliance Director for HDL said in an interview with mjbizdaily.com, “ It makes no sense for this firm not to want cannabis businesses to succeed in the jurisdictions where it has contracts” According to consulting.us, the town of San Bernadino originally had a 5 year $750,000 contract with HDL. HDL was going to audit and oversee regulations of the cannabis businesses in the town. San Bernadino shortened the contract to 1 year at $150,000 . Here’s the interesting part. It was reported in the consulting.us article that “The remaining 4 year contract($600,000) will be paid using fees collected from various Cannabis Businesses during the commercial licensing process.” So HDL also bills cannabis businesses for providing their services, in addition to billing towns. This contradicts what Andy Nickerson President of HDL wrote in the cover letter to Robert Schultz Town Attorney on January 24, 2022. Nickerson wrote , “HDL works solely with public agencies and has no private-sector clients in the cannabis industry” In other words, HDL manages to still get paid by the local cannabis businesses even though a town might change their mind and not want a 5 year contract. No matter how you look at this, HDL’s sole fiscal survival is dependent upon towns allowing cannabis businesses. In addition, HDL has no concern regarding for safety for the communities. In an interview by The Californian the question to David Mc Pherson was asked, “Is public concern common in communities?” Mc Pherson answered, “They keep bringing it back to schools and kids but look at the state law, and public safety, and law enforcement. It has so little concern of manufacturing ( growing operations) being an issue.” HDL looks for legal loopholes or rewrites the town ordinances to get the cannabis businesses in the towns anyway they can. In the 1/24/22 proposal by HDL it said that the “Town Attorney held a series of 10 meetings with various community groups to gather input from the public. The majority of the public in attendance expressed an interest in allowing cannabis businesses within the town.” CAD is requesting information as to who attended those 10 meetings? This meeting ,to our knowledge, was never publicized within the community for the town to ”gather Input.” Furthermore, a survey was done recently by Surveymonkey asking if the town residents wanted dispensaries. Over %60 voted NO. ***CAD is asking Robert Shultz, Laurel Prevetti, or any member from the town council to please answer the following questions; 1) Why did the town council hire HDL knowing that it is a biased for-profit marijuana consultation company? 2) The town already did a survey on Surveymonkey and discovered that over 60% polled were against dispensaries in the town of Los Gatos. Your constituents have spoken. Why did the town hire HDL anyways? 3) In the future, How will you be communicating your intentions regarding allowing dispensaries in town? 4)Robert Schultz, Who were those 10 groups that you met with that expressed an interest in allowing cannabis businesses within the town? 5) What is the long term financial commitment that the town expects to spend with HDL if dispensaries are allowed? ***CAD is making a formal request asking the town to terminate it’s contract with HDL and find an unbiased consultation firm that doesn’t have any financial stake in the outcome of the survey. CAD is just getting started, this group has evolved and grown so quickly in spite of not advertising in our local communication resources or social media. We haven’t even gotten the word out to all of the parents in our local schools yet. I can guarantee you that there will be many concerned parents asking why does the town council and it’s leaders think having dispensaries in our town will enhance our quality of life. Kind regards, Lisa Harris From: susan burnett <sann85@me.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2022 3:26 PM To: Rob Rennie <RRennie@losgatosca.gov>; Maria Ristow <MRistow@losgatosca.gov>; Laurel Prevetti <LPrevetti@losgatosca.gov>; matthewhudes@losgatosca.gov; maricosayoc@losgatosca.gov; marybadame@losgatosca.gov Subject: Cannabis dispensaries EXTERNAL SENDER Good afternoon, After more research on the possible Cannabis Dispensaries in Los Gatos I have grave concerns! We are definitely not going to get an unbiased report if HDL is hired to take on this important issue for our town. I also have serioous reservations on the real possibility of increased crime, smash and grab! We already have an Apple Store that is frequently being hit and they grab cell phones! Please do not hire HDl, I am convinced this community does not want this for our town. The NYT had a front page article about California and the increasing crime around the dispensaries. How does our police feel about this and what is the cost for their increased services that will be needed? Thank-you, Susan Burnett Sent from my iPhone From: Keith Freeman <keithfree10@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 10:57 AM To: Holly Zappala <HZappala@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Marihuana dispensary in Los Gatos EXTERNAL SENDER Dear Town of Los Gatos, I have been given this email address to enquire about the proposal to allow marihuana stores in Los Gatos. Having lived in Los Gatos for 60+ years (University Avenue '61,Fisher '62, Wildcat '66). My children all went to LGHS. I have strong feelings about marihuana being sold in Los Gatos. Can you please advise me on how I can participate in this discussion. Thank you, Keith Freeman 759 Blossom Hill Road Los Gatos From: K. Deloumi <kdeloumi@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2022 8:25 AM To: Rob Rennie <RRennie@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Town Manager <Manager@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Fw: Hoboken must exercise more caution on recreational marijuana dispensaries | Opinion EXTERNAL SENDER Please share. Reflection into the future. Karen ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "K. Deloumi" <kdeloumi@yahoo.com> To: "Me Me Karen Deloumi" <kdeloumi@yahoo.com> Cc: Sent: Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 8:13 AM Subject: Hoboken must exercise more caution on recreational marijuana dispensaries | Opinion https://www.nj.com/opinion/2022/04/hoboken-must-exercise-more-caution-on-recreational-marijuana- dispensaries-opinion.html Karen From: Max Del Real <max@ammericann.com> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2022 11:50 AM To: Town Manager <Manager@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Arn Andrews <aandrews@losgatosca.gov>; Cannabis <cannabis@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Cannabis Inquiry EXTERNAL SENDER Ms. Prevetti, Good morning. I am interested in your Town’s new Cannabis Program in Los Gatos. I represent NUG Inc., a leading cannabis retail company in Northern California. We currently own and operate five (5) award-winning retail cannabis stores in Northern California - including licensed dispensaries in Sacramento, Redding, Oakland, El Cerrito, and San Leandro. Our company website is www.nug.com. My client, NUG, is very interested in applying for a retail cannabis permit in the Town of Los Gatos. Our business has been recognized for its industry success and “best practices.” Further, our business - if allowed to open in Los Gatos - would create thirty (30) new, local jobs and be an “economic driver” pertaining to new tax dollars for your Town. Further, our company has an active Community Outreach Plan, that provides $100,000 annually to local nonprofits and charities. I would like to schedule a ZOOM call and/or meeting with you to discuss the new Cannabis Program in the Town of Los Gatos and introduce my client, NUG Inc. Please let mew know when you are available. Best. M. Max Del Real President & CEO Ammericann Development LLC 833.335.7325 Toll Free 530.892.2998 Office 916.717.2664 Direct max@ammericann.com www.ammericann.com The information contained in this E-mail is confidential and may also contain privileged advocate-client information or work product. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this E-mail in error, please delete this message from your computer and immediately notify the sender. Thank you. GO GREEN, GO PAPER-FREE. From: RICHARD GASKILL <richardgaskill@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 7:35 PM To: Cannabis <cannabis@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Cannabis in Los Gatos EXTERNAL SENDER I think many cannabis users like to smoke it, which is definitely unhealthy for them and others. Also, I don't think there is evidence that it's better than regular meds for any condition. And it can be addictive. I also worry that it could become associated with criminal organizations. So I don't think it should be allowed in Los Gatos. J. Richard Gaskill, MD From: RICHARD GASKILL <richardgaskill@comcast.net> Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2022 4:24 PM To: Cannabis <cannabis@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Fwd: Cannabis in Los Gatos EXTERNAL SENDER For more information Google "Kaisers advice on marijuana" JRG ---------- Original Message ---------- From: RICHARD GASKILL <richardgaskill@comcast.net> To: "cannabis@losgatosca.gov" <cannabis@losgatosca.gov> Date: 04/22/2022 7:34 PM Subject: Cannabis in Los Gatos I think many cannabis users like to smoke it, which is definitely unhealthy for them and others. Also, I don't think there is evidence that it's better than regular meds for any condition. And it can be addictive. I also worry that it could become associated with criminal organizations. So I don't think it should be allowed in Los Gatos. J. Richard Gaskill, MD From: Patty Charles <pgcharles@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 2:58 PM To: Cannabis <cannabis@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Los Gatos dispensary - I'm against EXTERNAL SENDER I am writing as a Los Gatos citizen with 3 teenagers. I am not against dispensaries or the legalization of Marijuana, but I do not see the benefit of having one in Los Gatos. The dispensaries I have been too are not terrible places, but they have typically had a lot of security (armed guard) and I have never been to one where there was not a person or two of question around. Why is this the type of business we want in Los Gatos? Even just having a pharmacy attracts people looking for drugs. I have teenagers and I really do not want them having any easier access to drugs than they already do. I also don't want an armed guard outside of a dispensary. It is just an accident waiting to happen. My understanding is that as Dispensaries are not federally regulated they cannot have FDIC bank account. So having cash around also attracts people looking for easy answers. Surely we can find more viable less risky businesses for los gatos. So I am against. Patty From: W Stephen Sullins <wstephensullins@me.com> Sent: Thursday, May 5, 2022 9:47 AM To: Cannabis <cannabis@losgatosca.gov> Subject: NO Cannabis in Los Gatos EXTERNAL SENDER I’ve seen the plan to hire a cannabis consultant to explore the possibility of licensing cannabis dispensaries in Los Gatos. As a resident with school children, and as an adult that appreciates the mature and already vibrant retail and dining scene, I see NO benefit to the community by even considering the benefits of licensing dispensaries. PLEASE, lets stop this process in its tracks. We have enough abuse of alcohol amongst our children, we don’t need to open the door, even through legal channels, to the view that more substance abuse is acceptable. Thank you. Steve Sullins 17055 Los Robles Way Los Gatos Sent from my iPad From: caissie stephens <stephens5.caissie@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 6, 2022 8:19 PM To: Cannabis <cannabis@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Los Gatos Resident for over 50 years EXTERNAL SENDER I am in support of having a cannabis dispensary in Los Gatos. Many in our community use Cannabis legally, and to provide a local dispensary would be beneficial for the community.. Cannabis is used by so many and has so many good purposes if used correctly and legally. I have heard the push back due to the concern of sending the wrong message to adolescents. To address this concern I say, firstly, the dispensaries have very strict policies and you can not enter if you do not have I.D. Secondly, it has its own security. (Kids can run into Safeway and grab liqueur and run out. That will never happen at a dispensary). . Thirdly, I am a high school teacher and know teens will find pot and alcohol with or without a dispensary. At least this Cannabis is safe and regulated rather than what's on the street. Caissie Stephens From: lmharris@earthlink.net <lmharris@earthlink.net> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 6:01 PM To: 'Joanne Rodgers' <joannerodgers@mac.com>; 'Joe Rodgers' <jrodgers43@yahoo.com>; Rob Rennie <RRennie@losgatosca.gov>; Maria Ristow <MRistow@losgatosca.gov>; Mary Badame <MBadame@losgatosca.gov>; Matthew Hudes <MHudes@losgatosca.gov>; Marico Sayoc <MSayoc@losgatosca.gov>; Robert Schultz <RSchultz@losgatosca.gov>; Laurel Prevetti <LPrevetti@losgatosca.gov>; Cannabis <cannabis@losgatosca.gov> Cc: 'Karla Albright' <kmalbright@gmail.com>; 'Sue Anawalt' <sue@anawalt.com>; 'Don Arnaudo' <dparnaudo@gmail.com>; 'Rose Arnaudo' <rmarnaudo@gmail.com>; Mary Badame <MBadame@losgatosca.gov>; 'Dru Barth' <barthdru@gmail.com>; 'Jim Barth' <jim.barth@gmail.com>; 'Kathy Bays' <baysmk@comcast.net>; 'Michael Bays' <bayslaw@gte.net>; 'Celia Bell' <celiabell@verizon.net>; 'Joanne Benjamin' <joanne.benjamin@verizon.net>; 'Marty Berk' <berkmarty@yahoo.com>; 'Toni Blackstock' <toniblackstock@gmail.com>; 'Jeffrey P. Blum' <blumesq@aol.com>; 'Nancy Boesenberg' <nancyntoga@yahoo.com>; 'Diana Bond' <bond.family@sbcglobal.net>; 'Franklin Bondonno' <FBondonno@scscourt.org>; 'Shannon Burnett' <shannonburnett@me.com>; 'Susan Burnett' <sann85@me.com>; 'Kelly Campbell' <kellyleecampbell@gmail.com>; 'Julio Casal' <jcasal@4iq.com>; 'Faustine Comstock' <ftcomst@gmail.com>; 'Robert Cowan' <rscowan@comcast.net>; 'Joan Cross' <jycross@aol.com>; 'Don Erba' <donerba88@gmail.com>; 'Lee Fagot' <leefagot@gmail.com>; 'Leslie Finch' <leslie.finch@comcast.net>; 'Karyn Gramling' <karyn.gramling@gmail.com>; 'R &L Hallinan' <larogato@gmail.com>; 'Mary Harvey' <marlouharvey@yahoo.com>; 'Stacey Hein' <staceywalkerhein@gmail.com>; 'Nancy Hernandez' <wstrgaardn@aol.com>; 'Margaret Hokeness' <mhokeness@gmail.com>; 'Garry Holst' <garryholst@gmail.com>; 'Patti Hughes' <gardengirlpatti@gmail.com>; 'Rupar Iyar' <peacockazure@gmail.com>; 'Jubie Jaramillo' <jubiejaramillo@gmail.com>; 'Troy Jaramillo' <troyjubie@yahoo.com>; 'Nancy Jobe' <nancyjobe@hotmail.com>; 'Sally Jones' <sallyparkerjones@me.com>; 'Judy Peterson' <jpeterson@losgatan.com>; 'Susan Kankel' <susankankel@comcast.net>; 'Bonnie Knopf' <baknopf@yahoo.com>; 'Carrie Knopf' <carrieknopf@comcast.net>; 'Phil Knopf' <pwknopf@yahoo.com>; 'William Lasher' <wlasher01@gmail.com>; 'Theresa Leiker' <tleiker1@comcast.net>; 'Steve Leonardis' <steve@blvdfinancial.com>; 'Celine Leroy' <celine.b.leroy@gmail.com>; 'Barbara Mesa' <barbmesalg@gmail.com>; 'Mike' <mike@dolcespazio.com>; 'Olga Montserratt' <olga.montv@gmail.com>; 'Pearl Norton' <pearlnorton@comcast.net>; 'Sally Paolini' <sallypao@aol.com>; 'Judy Peckler' <jpeckler@hotmail.com>; 'Gwen Pinkston' <gpinkston@comcast.net>; 'Diana Pleasant' <dgpleasant@earthlink.net>; 'Gladie Rabitz' <gladierabitz@gmail.com>; 'Joe Rodgers' <jrodgers43@yahoo.com>; 'Travis Rodgers' <travis@drdds.com>; 'Marshall Smith' <marshall@mbm- smith.com>; 'Doug Sporleder' <ss_ds@verizon.net>; 'Vicki Thorburn' <vtoffice@comcast.net>; 'Kirsten Trapani' <chriskirst@aol.com>; 'Terri Trotter' <ttrotter@stmaryslg.org>; 'Kathy Tumason' <kathytumason@gmail.com>; 'Susan Tuttle' <2subtle@comcast.net>; 'Carol Wallace' <c3wallace@aol.com>; 'Kim Wasserman' <kjwasserman@aol.com>; 'Lucy Wedemeyer' <lucy@lucywedemeyer.com>; 'Dave Wilde' <dave.wilde@comcast.net>; 'Kathy Winkelman' <Kathywinkelman@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: requesting GIS study for dispensaries EXTERNAL SENDER Dear council members and staff, Last week on May 5, I attended a meeting with Marico Sayoc and Laurel Prevetti. The topic was marijuana dispensaries in Los Gatos. I am part of a group that is vehemently against marijuana dispensaries in town. I asked Laurel and Marico if the town has done a GIS study to even determine where one can go. Laurel said no, there was no plan thus far to conduct a study. This is mind boggling that not one person on your decision making team has requested to do this. Los Gatos is 11 square miles. I pointed out to Laurel and Marico that by the time you follow the current regulations of setback requirements away from schools, parks, hospitals, housing, etc. and staying in an industrial area, I think your group would be hard pressed to even find a suitable legal location in Los Gatos. Your team was so eager to hire HDL , a biased pro- cannabis consulting firm, at $50,000 looking for ways to make money for the town that they neglected to do this basic step. It seems to me that a GIS study should have been the first step. ***I am requesting that the town council and it‘s staff do a formal GIS study as to where you would legally place a dispensary based on current rules and regulations and when can we expect to see the published results for the public? I am still against a dispensary. Please vote NO on allowing dispensaries in Los Gatos. Kind regards, Lisa Harris From: lmharris@earthlink.net <lmharris@earthlink.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 6:45 PM To: 'Joanne Rodgers' <joannerodgers@mac.com>; 'Joe Rodgers' <jrodgers43@yahoo.com>; 'rrennie@losgatosca.gov' <rrennie@losgatosca.gov>; 'mristow@losgatosca.gov' <mristow@losgatosca.gov>; 'mbadame@losgatosca.gov' <mbadame@losgatosca.gov>; 'mhudes@losgatosca.gov' <mhudes@losgatosca.gov>; 'msayoc@losgatosca.gov' <msayoc@losgatosca.gov>; 'rschultz@losgatosca.gov' <rschultz@losgatosca.gov>; 'lprevetti@losgatosca.gov' <lprevetti@losgatosca.gov> Cc: 'Karla Albright' <kmalbright@gmail.com>; 'Sue Anawalt' <sue@anawalt.com>; 'Don Arnaudo' <dparnaudo@gmail.com>; 'Rose Arnaudo' <rmarnaudo@gmail.com>; Mary Badame <MBadame@losgatosca.gov>; 'Dru Barth' <barthdru@gmail.com>; 'Jim Barth' <jim.barth@gmail.com>; 'Kathy Bays' <baysmk@comcast.net>; 'Michael Bays' <bayslaw@gte.net>; 'Celia Bell' <celiabell@verizon.net>; 'Joanne Benjamin' <joanne.benjamin@verizon.net>; 'Marty Berk' <berkmarty@yahoo.com>; 'Toni Blackstock' <toniblackstock@gmail.com>; 'Jeffrey P. Blum' <blumesq@aol.com>; 'Nancy Boesenberg' <nancyntoga@yahoo.com>; 'Diana Bond' <bond.family@sbcglobal.net>; 'Franklin Bondonno' <FBondonno@scscourt.org>; 'Shannon Burnett' <shannonburnett@me.com>; 'Susan Burnett' <sann85@me.com>; 'Kelly Campbell' <kellyleecampbell@gmail.com>; 'Julio Casal' <jcasal@4iq.com>; 'Faustine Comstock' <ftcomst@gmail.com>; 'Robert Cowan' <rscowan@comcast.net>; 'Joan Cross' <jycross@aol.com>; 'Don Erba' <donerba88@gmail.com>; 'Lee Fagot' <leefagot@gmail.com>; 'Leslie Finch' <leslie.finch@comcast.net>; 'Karyn Gramling' <karyn.gramling@gmail.com>; 'R &L Hallinan' <larogato@gmail.com>; 'Mary Harvey' <marlouharvey@yahoo.com>; 'Stacey Hein' <staceywalkerhein@gmail.com>; 'Nancy Hernandez' <wstrgaardn@aol.com>; 'Margaret Hokeness' <mhokeness@gmail.com>; 'Garry Holst' <garryholst@gmail.com>; 'Patti Hughes' <gardengirlpatti@gmail.com>; 'Rupar Iyar' <peacockazure@gmail.com>; 'Jubie Jaramillo' <jubiejaramillo@gmail.com>; 'Troy Jaramillo' <troyjubie@yahoo.com>; 'Nancy Jobe' <nancyjobe@hotmail.com>; 'Sally Jones' <sallyparkerjones@me.com>; 'Judy Peterson' <jpeterson@losgatan.com>; 'Susan Kankel' <susankankel@comcast.net>; 'Bonnie Knopf' <baknopf@yahoo.com>; 'Carrie Knopf' <carrieknopf@comcast.net>; 'Phil Knopf' <pwknopf@yahoo.com>; 'William Lasher' <wlasher01@gmail.com>; 'Theresa Leiker' <tleiker1@comcast.net>; 'Steve Leonardis' <steve@blvdfinancial.com>; 'Celine Leroy' <celine.b.leroy@gmail.com>; 'Barbara Mesa' <barbmesalg@gmail.com>; 'Mike' <mike@dolcespazio.com>; 'Olga Montserratt' <olga.montv@gmail.com>; 'Pearl Norton' <pearlnorton@comcast.net>; 'Sally Paolini' <sallypao@aol.com>; 'Judy Peckler' <jpeckler@hotmail.com>; 'Gwen Pinkston' <gpinkston@comcast.net>; 'Diana Pleasant' <dgpleasant@earthlink.net>; 'Gladie Rabitz' <gladierabitz@gmail.com>; 'Joe Rodgers' <jrodgers43@yahoo.com>; 'Travis Rodgers' <travis@drdds.com>; 'Marshall Smith' <marshall@mbm- smith.com>; 'Doug Sporleder' <ss_ds@verizon.net>; 'Vicki Thorburn' <vtoffice@comcast.net>; 'Kirsten Trapani' <chriskirst@aol.com>; 'Terri Trotter' <ttrotter@stmaryslg.org>; 'Kathy Tumason' <kathytumason@gmail.com>; 'Susan Tuttle' <2subtle@comcast.net>; 'Carol Wallace' <c3wallace@aol.com>; 'Kim Wasserman' <kjwasserman@aol.com>; 'Lucy Wedemeyer' <lucy@lucywedemeyer.com>; 'Dave Wilde' <dave.wilde@comcast.net>; 'Kathy Winkelman' <Kathywinkelman@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: alarming information regarding HDL requiring immediate action Dear Robert Schultz, and Rob Rennie, Maria Ristow, Mary Badame, Matthew Hudes, Marico Sayoc, Laurel Prevetti My name is Lisa Harris and I have been a homeowner in Los Gatos for over 20 years. I am part of a growing collective group of concerned residents in Los Gatos called CAD, Community Against Dispensaries. Recently we were made aware that the town of Los Gatos hired a Cannabis management company called HDL for initial consultation services. I looked on the HDL website to learn more about the cannabis management company that The Town of Los Gatos gave $50,000 to. I want to quote what HDL said on their website regarding the companies “Regulation, Development, and Support services.” “HDL, will help you develop cannabis regulations that maximize agency economic benefits while providing a framework for cannabis businesses to operate successfully. Services include fiscal analysis, land-use regulation development, regulatory and tax ordinance drafting, and ballot resolution preparation.” This is a biased for profit agency with regards to the cannabis industry. HDL plays a core part in orchestrating the approval of commercial cannabis businesses in towns. Upon further research I discovered that essentially they are a full service company that has contracts with towns over the course of many years . HDL makes the bulk of their profits off of towns if they allow cannabis businesses to operate. They also will work with cannabis companies in a towns jurisdiction on an ongoing basis to make sure the town is receiving their taxes. HDL is essentially a biased pro- cannabis company. If we don’t allow cannabis in the town of Los Gatos, than HDL can’t provide billable services. It’s in HDL’s best interest to convince the town of LG to allow cannabis businesses to operate. David Mc Pherson, Cannabis Compliance Director for HDL said in an interview with mjbizdaily.com, “ It makes no sense for this firm not to want cannabis businesses to succeed in the jurisdictions where it has contracts” According to consulting.us, the town of San Bernadino originally had a 5 year $750,000 contract with HDL. HDL was going to audit and oversee regulations of the cannabis businesses in the town. San Bernadino shortened the contract to 1 year at $150,000 . Here’s the interesting part. It was reported in the consulting.us article that “The remaining 4 year contract($600,000) will be paid using fees collected from various Cannabis Businesses during the commercial licensing process.” So HDL also bills cannabis businesses for providing their services, in addition to billing towns. This contradicts what Andy Nickerson President of HDL wrote in the cover letter to Robert Schultz Town Attorney on January 24, 2022. Nickerson wrote , “HDL works solely with public agencies and has no private-sector clients in the cannabis industry” In other words, HDL manages to still get paid by the local cannabis businesses even though a town might change their mind and not want a 5 year contract. No matter how you look at this, HDL’s sole fiscal survival is dependent upon towns allowing cannabis businesses. In addition, HDL has no concern regarding for safety for the communities. In an interview by The Californian the question to David Mc Pherson was asked, “Is public concern common in communities?” Mc Pherson answered, “They keep bringing it back to schools and kids but look at the state law, and public safety, and law enforcement. It has so little concern of manufacturing ( growing operations) being an issue.” HDL looks for legal loopholes or rewrites the town ordinances to get the cannabis businesses in the towns anyway they can. In the 1/24/22 proposal by HDL it said that the “Town Attorney held a series of 10 meetings with various community groups to gather input from the public. The majority of the public in attendance expressed an interest in allowing cannabis businesses within the town.” CAD is requesting information as to who attended those 10 meetings? This meeting ,to our knowledge, was never publicized within the community for the town to ”gather Input.” Furthermore, a survey was done recently by Surveymonkey asking if the town residents wanted dispensaries. Over %60 voted NO. ***CAD is asking Robert Shultz, Laurel Prevetti, or any member from the town council to please answer the following questions; 1) Why did the town council hire HDL knowing that it is a biased for-profit marijuana consultation company? 2) The town already did a survey on Surveymonkey and discovered that over 60% polled were against dispensaries in the town of Los Gatos. Your constituents have spoken. Why did the town hire HDL anyways? 3) In the future, How will you be communicating your intentions regarding allowing dispensaries in town? 4)Robert Schultz, Who were those 10 groups that you met with that expressed an interest in allowing cannabis businesses within the town? 5) What is the long term financial commitment that the town expects to spend with HDL if dispensaries are allowed? ***CAD is making a formal request asking the town to terminate it’s contract with HDL and find an unbiased consultation firm that doesn’t have any financial stake in the outcome of the survey. CAD is just getting started, this group has evolved and grown so quickly in spite of not advertising in our local communication resources or social media. We haven’t even gotten the word out to all of the parents in our local schools yet. I can guarantee you that there will be many concerned parents asking why does the town council and it’s leaders think having dispensaries in our town will enhance our quality of life. Kind regards, Lisa Harris From: lmharris@earthlink.net <lmharris@earthlink.net> Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2022 5:36 PM To: 'Joanne Rodgers' <joannerodgers@mac.com>; 'Joe Rodgers' <jrodgers43@yahoo.com>; Rob Rennie <RRennie@losgatosca.gov>; Maria Ristow <MRistow@losgatosca.gov>; Mary Badame <MBadame@losgatosca.gov>; Matthew Hudes <MHudes@losgatosca.gov>; Marico Sayoc <MSayoc@losgatosca.gov>; Robert Schultz <RSchultz@losgatosca.gov>; Laurel Prevetti <LPrevetti@losgatosca.gov>; Cannabis <cannabis@losgatosca.gov> Cc: 'Karla Albright' <kmalbright@gmail.com>; 'Sue Anawalt' <sue@anawalt.com>; 'Don Arnaudo' <dparnaudo@gmail.com>; 'Rose Arnaudo' <rmarnaudo@gmail.com>; Mary Badame <MBadame@losgatosca.gov>; 'Dru Barth' <barthdru@gmail.com>; 'Jim Barth' <jim.barth@gmail.com>; 'Kathy Bays' <baysmk@comcast.net>; 'Michael Bays' <bayslaw@gte.net>; 'Celia Bell' <celiabell@verizon.net>; 'Joanne Benjamin' <joanne.benjamin@verizon.net>; 'Marty Berk' <berkmarty@yahoo.com>; 'Toni Blackstock' <toniblackstock@gmail.com>; 'Jeffrey P. Blum' <blumesq@aol.com>; 'Nancy Boesenberg' <nancyntoga@yahoo.com>; 'Diana Bond' <bond.family@sbcglobal.net>; 'Franklin Bondonno' <FBondonno@scscourt.org>; 'Shannon Burnett' <shannonburnett@me.com>; 'Susan Burnett' <sann85@me.com>; 'Kelly Campbell' <kellyleecampbell@gmail.com>; 'Julio Casal' <jcasal@4iq.com>; 'Faustine Comstock' <ftcomst@gmail.com>; 'Robert Cowan' <rscowan@comcast.net>; 'Joan Cross' <jycross@aol.com>; 'Don Erba' <donerba88@gmail.com>; 'Lee Fagot' <leefagot@gmail.com>; 'Leslie Finch' <leslie.finch@comcast.net>; 'Karyn Gramling' <karyn.gramling@gmail.com>; 'R &L Hallinan' <larogato@gmail.com>; 'Mary Harvey' <marlouharvey@yahoo.com>; 'Stacey Hein' <staceywalkerhein@gmail.com>; 'Nancy Hernandez' <wstrgaardn@aol.com>; 'Margaret Hokeness' <mhokeness@gmail.com>; 'Garry Holst' <garryholst@gmail.com>; 'Patti Hughes' <gardengirlpatti@gmail.com>; 'Rupar Iyar' <peacockazure@gmail.com>; 'Jubie Jaramillo' <jubiejaramillo@gmail.com>; 'Troy Jaramillo' <troyjubie@yahoo.com>; 'Nancy Jobe' <nancyjobe@hotmail.com>; 'Sally Jones' <sallyparkerjones@me.com>; 'Judy Peterson' <jpeterson@losgatan.com>; 'Susan Kankel' <susankankel@comcast.net>; 'Bonnie Knopf' <baknopf@yahoo.com>; 'Carrie Knopf' <carrieknopf@comcast.net>; 'Phil Knopf' <pwknopf@yahoo.com>; 'William Lasher' <wlasher01@gmail.com>; 'Theresa Leiker' <tleiker1@comcast.net>; 'Steve Leonardis' <steve@blvdfinancial.com>; 'Celine Leroy' <celine.b.leroy@gmail.com>; 'Barbara Mesa' <barbmesalg@gmail.com>; 'Mike' <mike@dolcespazio.com>; 'Olga Montserratt' <olga.montv@gmail.com>; 'Pearl Norton' <pearlnorton@comcast.net>; 'Sally Paolini' <sallypao@aol.com>; 'Judy Peckler' <jpeckler@hotmail.com>; 'Gwen Pinkston' <gpinkston@comcast.net>; 'Diana Pleasant' <dgpleasant@earthlink.net>; 'Gladie Rabitz' <gladierabitz@gmail.com>; 'Joe Rodgers' <jrodgers43@yahoo.com>; 'Travis Rodgers' <travis@drdds.com>; 'Marshall Smith' <marshall@mbm- smith.com>; 'Doug Sporleder' <ss_ds@verizon.net>; 'Vicki Thorburn' <vtoffice@comcast.net>; 'Kirsten Trapani' <chriskirst@aol.com>; 'Terri Trotter' <ttrotter@stmaryslg.org>; 'Kathy Tumason' <kathytumason@gmail.com>; 'Susan Tuttle' <2subtle@comcast.net>; 'Carol Wallace' <c3wallace@aol.com>; 'Kim Wasserman' <kjwasserman@aol.com>; 'Lucy Wedemeyer' <lucy@lucywedemeyer.com>; 'Dave Wilde' <dave.wilde@comcast.net>; 'Kathy Winkelman' <Kathywinkelman@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: NO dispensaries in Los Gatos EXTERNAL SENDER Dear Town Council members, I am writing to express concern regarding the topic of dispensaries in our town. I have been very outspoken that I think dispensaries will be a detriment to our town. It normalizes marijuana use and makes it more accessible to our youth. According to the Cannabis Research Report July 2020 by the NIH, Marijuana is linked to other substance use disorders. I would like to warn the council members to not be lulled in to a false sense of security when the dispensaries say that they check ID’s. Yes ,they check ID’s but I can tell you that black market fake ID’s have gotten very sophisticated and they are not only very convincing, but scannable. I know this because I have young adults in the house and I have spoken to many of their friends about this very topic. Some of the young adults have admitted to knowing people who have used their fake ID’s at Airfield and Caliva Dispensaries. Currently a trend in the Los Gatos High School is that students will gain access to alcohol in individual serving cans or bottles; beer, white claw, hard cider, etc. They then will sell them to other students. They are called “Alcohol Brokers”. If we have dispensaries in town, it will only make marijuana more accessible to our youth and a new branch of business called “Pot Brokers” will sprout in our high school. Oh, sorry, that’s already an existing business, they’re called drug dealers. You will just increase the number of “ Pot Brokers” at Los Gatos High School. As our elected representatives of Los Gatos, you have a duty and responsibility to make Safe and Healthy choices for our beloved town and all of it’s members. It will be grossly negligent if you allow dispensaries in our town ,thus making marijuana more accessible to our youth. Simply deciding to allow dispensaries for the sake of money to the town is short sighted and irresponsible. Some of you will be moving on from your position, is this the legacy that you want to leave behind? There’s a price to pay for everything. Our youth depends on you to make the right decision. Vote NO on allowing dispensaries in town. Kind regards, Lisa Harris From: lmharris@earthlink.net <lmharris@earthlink.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 6:45 PM To: 'Joanne Rodgers' <joannerodgers@mac.com>; 'Joe Rodgers' <jrodgers43@yahoo.com>; 'rrennie@losgatosca.gov' <rrennie@losgatosca.gov>; 'mristow@losgatosca.gov' <mristow@losgatosca.gov>; 'mbadame@losgatosca.gov' <mbadame@losgatosca.gov>; 'mhudes@losgatosca.gov' <mhudes@losgatosca.gov>; 'msayoc@losgatosca.gov' <msayoc@losgatosca.gov>; 'rschultz@losgatosca.gov' <rschultz@losgatosca.gov>; 'lprevetti@losgatosca.gov' <lprevetti@losgatosca.gov> Cc: 'Karla Albright' <kmalbright@gmail.com>; 'Sue Anawalt' <sue@anawalt.com>; 'Don Arnaudo' <dparnaudo@gmail.com>; 'Rose Arnaudo' <rmarnaudo@gmail.com>; Mary Badame <MBadame@losgatosca.gov>; 'Dru Barth' <barthdru@gmail.com>; 'Jim Barth' <jim.barth@gmail.com>; 'Kathy Bays' <baysmk@comcast.net>; 'Michael Bays' <bayslaw@gte.net>; 'Celia Bell' <celiabell@verizon.net>; 'Joanne Benjamin' <joanne.benjamin@verizon.net>; 'Marty Berk' <berkmarty@yahoo.com>; 'Toni Blackstock' <toniblackstock@gmail.com>; 'Jeffrey P. Blum' <blumesq@aol.com>; 'Nancy Boesenberg' <nancyntoga@yahoo.com>; 'Diana Bond' <bond.family@sbcglobal.net>; 'Franklin Bondonno' <FBondonno@scscourt.org>; 'Shannon Burnett' <shannonburnett@me.com>; 'Susan Burnett' <sann85@me.com>; 'Kelly Campbell' <kellyleecampbell@gmail.com>; 'Julio Casal' <jcasal@4iq.com>; 'Faustine Comstock' <ftcomst@gmail.com>; 'Robert Cowan' <rscowan@comcast.net>; 'Joan Cross' <jycross@aol.com>; 'Don Erba' <donerba88@gmail.com>; 'Lee Fagot' <leefagot@gmail.com>; 'Leslie Finch' <leslie.finch@comcast.net>; 'Karyn Gramling' <karyn.gramling@gmail.com>; 'R &L Hallinan' <larogato@gmail.com>; 'Mary Harvey' <marlouharvey@yahoo.com>; 'Stacey Hein' <staceywalkerhein@gmail.com>; 'Nancy Hernandez' <wstrgaardn@aol.com>; 'Margaret Hokeness' <mhokeness@gmail.com>; 'Garry Holst' <garryholst@gmail.com>; 'Patti Hughes' <gardengirlpatti@gmail.com>; 'Rupar Iyar' <peacockazure@gmail.com>; 'Jubie Jaramillo' <jubiejaramillo@gmail.com>; 'Troy Jaramillo' <troyjubie@yahoo.com>; 'Nancy Jobe' <nancyjobe@hotmail.com>; 'Sally Jones' <sallyparkerjones@me.com>; 'Judy Peterson' <jpeterson@losgatan.com>; 'Susan Kankel' <susankankel@comcast.net>; 'Bonnie Knopf' <baknopf@yahoo.com>; 'Carrie Knopf' <carrieknopf@comcast.net>; 'Phil Knopf' <pwknopf@yahoo.com>; 'William Lasher' <wlasher01@gmail.com>; 'Theresa Leiker' <tleiker1@comcast.net>; 'Steve Leonardis' <steve@blvdfinancial.com>; 'Celine Leroy' <celine.b.leroy@gmail.com>; 'Barbara Mesa' <barbmesalg@gmail.com>; 'Mike' <mike@dolcespazio.com>; 'Olga Montserratt' <olga.montv@gmail.com>; 'Pearl Norton' <pearlnorton@comcast.net>; 'Sally Paolini' <sallypao@aol.com>; 'Judy Peckler' <jpeckler@hotmail.com>; 'Gwen Pinkston' <gpinkston@comcast.net>; 'Diana Pleasant' <dgpleasant@earthlink.net>; 'Gladie Rabitz' <gladierabitz@gmail.com>; 'Joe Rodgers' <jrodgers43@yahoo.com>; 'Travis Rodgers' <travis@drdds.com>; 'Marshall Smith' <marshall@mbm- smith.com>; 'Doug Sporleder' <ss_ds@verizon.net>; 'Vicki Thorburn' <vtoffice@comcast.net>; 'Kirsten Trapani' <chriskirst@aol.com>; 'Terri Trotter' <ttrotter@stmaryslg.org>; 'Kathy Tumason' <kathytumason@gmail.com>; 'Susan Tuttle' <2subtle@comcast.net>; 'Carol Wallace' <c3wallace@aol.com>; 'Kim Wasserman' <kjwasserman@aol.com>; 'Lucy Wedemeyer' <lucy@lucywedemeyer.com>; 'Dave Wilde' <dave.wilde@comcast.net>; 'Kathy Winkelman' <Kathywinkelman@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: alarming information regarding HDL requiring immediate action Dear Robert Schultz, and Rob Rennie, Maria Ristow, Mary Badame, Matthew Hudes, Marico Sayoc, Laurel Prevetti My name is Lisa Harris and I have been a homeowner in Los Gatos for over 20 years. I am part of a growing collective group of concerned residents in Los Gatos called CAD, Community Against Dispensaries. Recently we were made aware that the town of Los Gatos hired a Cannabis management company called HDL for initial consultation services. I looked on the HDL website to learn more about the cannabis management company that The Town of Los Gatos gave $50,000 to. I want to quote what HDL said on their website regarding the companies “Regulation, Development, and Support services.” “HDL, will help you develop cannabis regulations that maximize agency economic benefits while providing a framework for cannabis businesses to operate successfully. Services include fiscal analysis, land-use regulation development, regulatory and tax ordinance drafting, and ballot resolution preparation.” This is a biased for profit agency with regards to the cannabis industry. HDL plays a core part in orchestrating the approval of commercial cannabis businesses in towns. Upon further research I discovered that essentially they are a full service company that has contracts with towns over the course of many years . HDL makes the bulk of their profits off of towns if they allow cannabis businesses to operate. They also will work with cannabis companies in a towns jurisdiction on an ongoing basis to make sure the town is receiving their taxes. HDL is essentially a biased pro- cannabis company. If we don’t allow cannabis in the town of Los Gatos, than HDL can’t provide billable services. It’s in HDL’s best interest to convince the town of LG to allow cannabis businesses to operate. David Mc Pherson, Cannabis Compliance Director for HDL said in an interview with mjbizdaily.com, “ It makes no sense for this firm not to want cannabis businesses to succeed in the jurisdictions where it has contracts” According to consulting.us, the town of San Bernadino originally had a 5 year $750,000 contract with HDL. HDL was going to audit and oversee regulations of the cannabis businesses in the town. San Bernadino shortened the contract to 1 year at $150,000 . Here’s the interesting part. It was reported in the consulting.us article that “The remaining 4 year contract($600,000) will be paid using fees collected from various Cannabis Businesses during the commercial licensing process.” So HDL also bills cannabis businesses for providing their services, in addition to billing towns. This contradicts what Andy Nickerson President of HDL wrote in the cover letter to Robert Schultz Town Attorney on January 24, 2022. Nickerson wrote , “HDL works solely with public agencies and has no private-sector clients in the cannabis industry” In other words, HDL manages to still get paid by the local cannabis businesses even though a town might change their mind and not want a 5 year contract. No matter how you look at this, HDL’s sole fiscal survival is dependent upon towns allowing cannabis businesses. In addition, HDL has no concern regarding for safety for the communities. In an interview by The Californian the question to David Mc Pherson was asked, “Is public concern common in communities?” Mc Pherson answered, “They keep bringing it back to schools and kids but look at the state law, and public safety, and law enforcement. It has so little concern of manufacturing ( growing operations) being an issue.” HDL looks for legal loopholes or rewrites the town ordinances to get the cannabis businesses in the towns anyway they can. In the 1/24/22 proposal by HDL it said that the “Town Attorney held a series of 10 meetings with various community groups to gather input from the public. The majority of the public in attendance expressed an interest in allowing cannabis businesses within the town.” CAD is requesting information as to who attended those 10 meetings? This meeting ,to our knowledge, was never publicized within the community for the town to ”gather Input.” Furthermore, a survey was done recently by Surveymonkey asking if the town residents wanted dispensaries. Over %60 voted NO. ***CAD is asking Robert Shultz, Laurel Prevetti, or any member from the town council to please answer the following questions; 1) Why did the town council hire HDL knowing that it is a biased for-profit marijuana consultation company? 2) The town already did a survey on Surveymonkey and discovered that over 60% polled were against dispensaries in the town of Los Gatos. Your constituents have spoken. Why did the town hire HDL anyways? 3) In the future, How will you be communicating your intentions regarding allowing dispensaries in town? 4)Robert Schultz, Who were those 10 groups that you met with that expressed an interest in allowing cannabis businesses within the town? 5) What is the long term financial commitment that the town expects to spend with HDL if dispensaries are allowed? ***CAD is making a formal request asking the town to terminate it’s contract with HDL and find an unbiased consultation firm that doesn’t have any financial stake in the outcome of the survey. CAD is just getting started, this group has evolved and grown so quickly in spite of not advertising in our local communication resources or social media. We haven’t even gotten the word out to all of the parents in our local schools yet. I can guarantee you that there will be many concerned parents asking why does the town council and it’s leaders think having dispensaries in our town will enhance our quality of life. Kind regards, Lisa Harris From: Judy McCool <judymccool@icloud.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2022 4:39 PM To: Cannabis <cannabis@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Stores in town EXTERNAL SENDER This is ridiculous! I don’t want to live in a town that hosts stores that sell this product! There are plenty of other towns that already host these types of stores! Los Gatos has always been a family town! A town of community. A place where kids walk safely up and down the town streets buying ice cream and pizza. Without worries from their parents. Because it’s safe- because it’s old fashioned Americana! Selling dope is not Americana- it’s stupid -it’s greedy- and it is disgusting that you are trying to normalize this type of business! You will not get my vote- and all who vote for this on our council- can guarantee they’ll be missing my vote for re- election! Regards, Judy McCool Sent from my iPhone From: Jaydon Barnett <jaydonjeff@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2022 12:32 PM To: Cannabis <cannabis@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Cannabis and Los Gatos (a good idea) EXTERNAL SENDER I am emailing who it may concern regarding of the addition of cannabis business to Los Gatos. I think that this would be a lovely idea and would bring lots of money to the town. Don’t listen to the naysayers ! From: Mary Imig <mlimig722@icloud.com> Sent: Friday, May 27, 2022 6:23 PM To: Cannabis <cannabis@losgatosca.gov> Subject: cannabis EXTERNAL SENDER I agree with allowing legal cannabis sales within Los Gatos From: Grasty, Kristina <kgrasty@lgsuhsd.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 1, 2022 4:13 PM To: Council <Council@losgatosca.gov> Subject: A request EXTERNAL SENDER Dear Los Gatos Town Council Members, I am writing to request that cannabis dispensaries not be allowed to operate in the Town of Los Gatos. It is important to be fiscally responsible in government decision-making and makes sense to examine ways to possibly increase revenues to the Town. However, in this case, I strongly believe that “the ends do not justify the means.” Additional revenue (and possible reductions in expenses) can be pursued in other ways than deriving it from cannabis retailers that you might be tempted to permit to operate in town. We face enough challenges as it is in trying to raise and educate our children in this community to develop into healthy, meaningfully-engaged young adults. Students are keenly sensitive to and influenced by decisions that adults make and the messages that come from those decisions. Currently, we are experiencing a time of crisis amongst our youth—a time of heightened mental health issues and increased drug overdoses, alongside impacts caused by the pandemic. With this context in mind, it particularly does not seem like the right move to allow cannabis retailers to operate in our town. The local environment plays a critical role in the propensity for young people to use and abuse substances. Recent research conducted by Firth, et al. (2022) examined the effects of neighborhood contexts on adolescent substance use. They concluded that exposure to a cannabis retail environment, including the presence of a cannabis retailer near one’s school, is associated with influencing cannabis use and the use of manufactured cannabis products, as well as riskier use behaviors, amongst high school-age students. I have attached some research including that mentioned in this letter as well as some slides showing statistics from recent administrations of the California Healthy Kids Survey revealing some of the challenging issues facing our students who are at statistically significant risk. Let’s work together to try to address these critical issues. Please make a decision in the best interest of our children. Respectfully, Kristi Grasty Health & Place 75 (2022) 102795 Available online 25 March 20221353-8292/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Retail cannabis environment and adolescent use: The role of advertising and retailers near home and school Caislin L. Firth a,b,*, Beatriz Carlinia, Julia Dilley b, Katarina Guttmannova c, Anjum Hajat d aAddictions, Drug & Alcohol Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA b Program Design & Evaluation Services, Multnomah County Health Department & Oregon Public Health Division, Portland, OR, USA c Center for the Study of Health and Risk Behaviors, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA d Epidemiology Department, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Adolescent substance use Cannabis School Environment Multi-level modeling Cannabis retailers ABSTRACT Youth cannabis use is influenced by overlapping environmental contexts. We examined the associations between proximity to cannabis retailers and seeing cannabis advertisements and cannabis use behaviors in Oregon, a state with adult cannabis legalization. We used 2017 anonymous survey data from 24,154 Oregon 8th and 11th grade students. After adjustments for student and school district characteristics, advertising for 8th graders and presence of a retailer within a mile from school for 11th graders were associated with cannabis use and perceived harm. Additional policy efforts may further reduce youth exposure to cannabis. Role of funding source Data collection efforts and work on this paper were supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA039293) awarded to Julia Dilley. In addition, Caislin Firth was supported by the Horowitz Foun-dation for Social Policy as a 2018 PhD Fellow. Contributors All authors contributed to the conceptualization and design of the study. Julia Dilley and Caislin Firth secured funding for the research. Caislin Firth performed the statistical analysis, presentation of results, and drafted the manuscript. Beatriz Carlini, Julia Dilley, Katarina Guttmannova, and Anjum Hajat provided scientific revisions to the manuscript. 1.Introduction More than one-third of the US population live in states with legalized production and retail sales of cannabis for adults (21+years) as of November 2020 (Fertig and Zhang, 2020). There are concerns that the presence of cannabis retail outlets may influence youth by normalizing cannabis use, exposing them to pro-use messages, and increasing availability and variety of cannabis products. Nationally, adolescent treatment admission for cannabis have declined (Mennis, 2020), yet rates of cannabis use disorder among youth (12–17 years) have increased by 25% in states with adult use cannabis laws, despite no measurable increases in youth cannabis use, compared to changes in youth living in states without these laws (Cerd´a et al., 2020). Disordered cannabis use during adolescence is linked to developing major depres-sion and anxiety (Gobbi et al., 2019). These findings suggest that the modes and products youth are using in legalized states may be influ-encing increases in disordered use or addiction (Tormohlen et al., 2019). Manufactured cannabis products such as edibles and concentrates, used for dabbing and vaping, account for a substantial and growing share of cannabis retail sales (Firth et al., 2020b). Adult cannabis con-sumers were more likely to consume edibles, use concentrates, partic-ularly for vaping, and use these products more frequently if they lived in legalized states, compared to adults living in states without legal access (Hammond and Goodman, 2020). Manufactured cannabis products typically contain high doses of THC (Raber et al., 2015) which may lead to adverse experiences like panic attacks, anxiety, or acute psychotic episodes (Cao et al., 2016; Kim and Monte, 2016). Calls to U.S. poison centers for manufactured cannabis products are increasing (Dilley et al., 2021) and there is some evidence of increases in underage use of these products (Tormohlen et al., 2019). For adolescents, use of manufactured *Corresponding author.1107 NE 45th St Suite 120, Seattle, WA, 98105, USA. E-mail addresses: caislin@uw.edu (C.L. Firth), bia@uw.edu (B. Carlini), julia.dilley@dhsoha.state.or.us (J. Dilley), kg27@uw.edu (K. Guttmannova), anjumh@ uw.edu (A. Hajat). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Health and Place fkqnj]hfdkial]ca6fsss*ahoarean*_ki+hk_]pa+da]hpdlh]_af https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2022.102795 Received 22 October 2021; Received in revised form 10 March 2022; Accepted 15 March 2022 Health and Place 75 (2022) 102795 2 products creates specific concerns. In addition to general adverse effects of cannabis use in adolescence on cognitive, socio-emotional and physical health, high doses of THC may also amplify youth risk for developing psychotic and cannabis use disorders (van der Steur et al., 2020). Environment plays a key role in adolescent substance use, including through exposure to retail outlets and advertising (Bostean et al., 2016; Cederbaum et al., 2015). Substance use behaviors often initiate during adolescence and are influenced by overlapping social and built envi-ronment contexts: where adolescents live, study, and socialize (Huang et al., 2020). Estimating the simultaneous effects of school and neigh-borhood contexts on adolescent substance use is a growing area of research (Huang et al., 2020). For example, liquor store density around adolescents’ homes has been correlated with binge drinking (Chen et al., 2010) and tobacco outlet density with cigarette use (Finan et al., 2019). Similarly, retail outlet density around schools has also been correlated with substance use: having vaping stores near high schools was associ-ated with adolescent e-cigarette use (Giovenco et al., 2016). In addition to their presence, advertising related to these markets may also influ-ence underage product use and perceptions of harm (Giovenco et al., 2016). Consistent with studies that have examined the influence of to-bacco and alcohol advertising exposure on behaviors (DiFranza et al., 2006; Finan et al., 2020), recent studies of retail cannabis advertising exposure, both online and on storefronts, have shown associations with adolescent cannabis use (Fiala et al., 2020) and intentions to use (Hust et al., 2020). Oregon was one of the first states to legalize adult use and establish a retail cannabis market, where legal sales began in October 2015. Un-incorporated counties and cities within Oregon can prohibit cannabis retailers and manufactures from operating in their jurisdictions. After the first year of licensed cannabis retailers, 96% percent of the Oregon state population lived in a county with at least one retailer (Dilley, 2022). To protect youth, Oregon requires cannabis retailers to be at least 1000 feet (i.e., 0.19 miles) from schools, and restricts advertisements that appeal to children (e.g., ads that feature cartoons or images of minors) (Fiala et al., 2020). Previous work has demonstrated that county-level density of cannabis retailers in Oregon was associated with adolescent cannabis use (Paschall and Grube, 2020) and more than half of Oregon’s 8th and 11th graders have seen cannabis advertising in the past month (Fiala et al., 2020). However, no study has simultaneously examined proximity of retailers from home and school environments and exposure to cannabis advertising as related to adolescent cannabis behaviors. The present study is guided by developmental socio-ecological and life-course theories (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Catalano and Hawkins, 1996; Elder, 1998) that recognize development is embedded in multiple interconnected contexts that may independently and jointly influence behaviors; moreover, the salience of these ecological contexts and the interactional associations among them and the developing individual can change over time. This theoretical framework has been used widely in the study of etiology of substance use behaviors (for review, see e.g., Nargiso et al., 2015; Trucco, 2020) as well as in the planning of pre-vention and intervention efforts aimed at reducing adolescent substance use and promoting adolescent health (e.g., (Catalano et al., 2012; Cor-bett, 2001; Hawkins et al., 1992). Regarding cannabis use, macro-level contexts that include societal forces such as state-level legalization of cannabis may influence other, more proximal, contexts such as schools and communities in which the lives of adolescents are embedded and which in turn may increase the risk of adolescent substance use (Cata-lano et al., 2018; Johnson and Guttmannova, 2019). For example, the commercialization of cannabis may influence adolescent use by increasing access to cannabis and variety of manufactured products near schools and their homes and also by promoting – through advertising – beliefs that cannabis use is safe and normative (D’Amico et al., 2015; Lipperman-Kreda and Grube, 2018). The objective of this study is to assess whether multidimensional cannabis environment measures are associated with youth cannabis use and perceptions of harm caused by cannabis. We hypothesize that 8th and 11th grade students who live or go to school near cannabis retailers and students who have reported seeing cannabis advertising on storefronts will be more likely to use manufactured cannabis products available in retail stores (e.g., edibles, vapes, concentrates) than students attending schools in different environments. 2.Methods 2.1.Data sources This multi-level cross-sectional study drew from three existing data sources. First, Oregon Healthy Teens (OHT) is an anonymous, school- based survey administered to 8th and 11th grade students during odd- numbered school years (Oregon Health Authority, n.d.). Surveys are intended to monitor the health and well-being of Oregon youth and include questions specific to cannabis use. During the 2016–2017 school year, 84 Oregon school districts participated in the survey; representing 68% of the statewide population. When weighted, survey data are representative of all students in the state of Oregon. Our analysis used unweighted OHT data to understand how students’ exposures to cannabis environment, at the school and school district level, were associated with cannabis outcomes. Second, addresses for licensed cannabis retail outlets were obtained from the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC), a state agency that regulates the market, on June 16th, 2017 (Oregon Liquor Control Commission, 2017). Third, we ob-tained school building addresses from the Oregon Department of Edu-cation (ODE) and school district demographic data from ODE’s 2016–2017 School District Report Cards (Oregon Department of Edu-cation, 2019). This study was determined as exempt from review by the Oregon State Institutional Review Board. 2.2.Measures We examined five cannabis-related outcomes: four modes of cannabis use (smoking, dabbing, eating (i.e., using edibles), and vaping) and perceived harm of cannabis use, which is a risk factor for future cannabis use. To assess modes of cannabis use, students who reported any cannabis use in the past 30 days were asked how they consumed cannabis (multiple responses were allowed so students could indicate all the ways they had used). We created a binary variable for each cannabis mode (1: used that mode 1+times in the past 30 days, 0: did not use that mode in the past 30 days or did not use any cannabis in the past 30 days). Our fifth outcome was perceived harm (1: moderate or great risk, 0: slight or no risk), from responses to the question “How much do you think people risk harming themselves (physically or in other ways) if they use cannabis at least once or twice a week?” Dichotomizing the perceived harm outcomes aligns with reporting from the National Sur-vey on Drug Use and Health (Mariani and Williams, 2021). 2.3.Cannabis retail environment measures We developed two proximity-based measures–for school and com-munity–and one advertising measure to capture different aspects of the Oregon retail cannabis environment in 2017. We relied on built envi-ronment, social ecology, and adolescent health research, including the roles of tobacco and cannabis retailers, to inform how we operational-ized proximity to cannabis retailers from school and community. Prior work has used data-driven and contextual approaches to determine thresholds for calculating cannabis retailer exposure. Such methods include using percentiles to create cut points from the distribution of distances to outlets (e.g., categorized cannabis retailer access by ventiles (Everson et al., 2019)), counting the number of retailers at administra-tive spatial units (e.g. number of retailers within Portland, Oregon, neighborhoods (Firth et al., 2020a)), or proximity to a retailer by road C.L. Firth et al. Health and Place 75 (2022) 102795 3 network distance (e.g., at least one retailer within 1 or 2 km, 0.6 to 1.2 miles, from home (Rhew et al., 2022)). Beyond cannabis research, built environment features, such as recreational facilities, that are within 2 km of home were correlated with youth physical activity (Loh et al., 2019), and tobacco outlets within ¾ and 1 mile from home were asso-ciated with smoking frequency (Lipperman-Kreda et al., 2014). A walkable neighborhood includes amenities that are within a 1-mile or 20-min walk from home (Talen and Koschinsky, 2013). These studies were conducted in urban areas which may not be generalizable to youth living in rural communities. Data from the 2017 U.S. National House-hold Travel Survey points to differences in travel behaviors between youth living in urban and rural areas, such as, 29% of rural students walk to school when it’s within a mile compared to 22% of urban stu-dents (Kontou et al., 2020). Based on these studies, we operationalized proximity as having at least one cannabis retailer within 1 mile from school or at the community-level, using a dichotomized measure in analysis. We chose a 1-mile buffer, as opposed to a shorter threshold, because half of the Oregon school districts included in our study were in rural counties (40/82 districts), where population and road network density is lower than in metropolitan areas. The school-based measure approximated exposure to retailers around students’ schools. Retailers’ distance from school buildings was calculated from the minimum Euclidean distance between edge of school campus and cannabis retailer. Addresses were geocoded in Arc-GIS Pro, and the Near tool was used to calculate distance. Proximity to a school building was dichotomized as 1: <1 mile; 0: �1 miles. The school proximity measure was joined to OHT survey data by school. The school district area (community) measure approximated expo-sure to retailers near students’ homes. School district areas are catch-ment areas for Oregon public schools. Community proximity was assessed as the minimum distance to a cannabis retailer, on average, at the school district area-level. This method has been used previously to calculate zip code-level proximity to cannabis retailers (Everson et al., 2019). Community proximity was created with three steps. First, a grid of 5000 square-foot cells was overlaid on the state of Oregon and the minimum distance between the center of each grid cell and geocoded cannabis retailer was calculated. We used a 5000 square-foot resolution to create aggregate measures for different administrative spatial scales (e.g., school districts, zip codes) that do not align with census-defined boundaries (e.g., census tracts). Then, we joined 2010 U.S. Census data to weigh each grid cell by population. Finally, these weighted measures were aggregated to the school district-level and represent the average proximity of all grid cells across the district. The final variable was dichotomized as 1: average proximity was <1 mile and 0: average proximity �1 mile and linked to OHT survey data by school district. Exposure to cannabis storefront advertising was based on the OHT question: had students seen “advertisement for marijuana products or stores: on a storefront or on the sidewalk (like signs or people wearing/ waving signs)” in the past 30 days. Advertising exposure was coded ‘1’ for students who reported seeing storefront advertisements and ‘0’ for students who did not report seeing any advertisement or were unsure they had seen a relevant ad. 2.3.1.Socio-demographic characteristics We adjusted for student gender (male, female, non-binary), race/ ethnicity (non-Latinx white, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Black/African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, and multira-cial, and Latinx), socioeconomic status, and whether an adult used cannabis at home in our multi-level logistic regression models. Student socioeconomic status was measured with the Family Affluence scale (Currie et al., 2008) by aggregating responses from four questions: whether the student’s family owns a car, traveled on vacation in the past year, how many computers they own, and whether the student has their own bedroom. The distribution of the family affluence scale was divided into tertiles: ranging from “least” to “most” affluence. We used ODE data to adjust for school district-level characteristics that represent the environments where students lived, including pro-portion of students who are economically disadvantaged (i.e., students who are eligible for free or reduced lunch) and proportion of non-Latinx white students for each grade. We selected these two measures because cannabis retailers were more common in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods in Portland, Oregon (C. Firth et al., 2020), and students of color were more likely to receive exclusionary discipline compared to white students in Oregon (Burke and Nishioka, 2014) which may in-fluence their willingness to respond to questions on substance use. In addition, we included a county density variable, based on whether the school district was within an urban or rural/frontier county, using the Oregon Office of Rural Health Geographic Definitions (Oregon Health & Science University, n.d.). 2.4.Statistical analysis First, we described the socio-demographic characteristics of students using weighted data to be representative of students in the state. Then, we used unweighted survey data in multi-level logistic regression models to assess the relationships between cannabis retailer environ-ment and our five cannabis outcomes. Survey weights are intended for statewide prevalence estimates and were not appropriate for our infer-ential analysis that examined individual-level cannabis outcomes within schools and school districts. We stratified our models by grade, because 8th grade students attended middle schools and 11th graders in high schools. In each model, we included the three cannabis retail environ-ment measures and adjusted for individual-level socio-demographic (gender, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, adult used cannabis at home) and school district-level (% economically disadvantaged, % non- Latinx white, urban school district) covariates. We included random intercepts at the school and school district levels to account for clustering between students within the same school and district and estimate the contextual effects of these environments. The results of our fixed effects are reported as prevalence odds ratios (PORs) and interpreted as the prevalence of each cannabis outcome among students exposed to each retail environment measure compared to students who were not exposed. We presented the school and school district level random intercepts on the logit scale and as median odds ratios (MOR) (Merlo et al., 2006), which can be interpreted like an odds ratio, and correspond to the median value of school and school district level residuals for each outcome. It helps to understand variation in outcomes that were not explained by other model covariates. A MOR >1.0 suggests that different environments, such as schools where cannabis use is more common, is correlated with the probability that a student would adopt the behavior. In addition, we conducted sensitivity analyses that considered proximity to retailers from schools and at the school-district level at ½ mile, ¾ mile, and 2 mile thresholds. All analyses were conducted in Stata/IC 15.1. 3.Results Our study included 24,154 students who completed the 2016–2017 OHT survey and responded to question on cannabis use in the past 30 days (11.0% or 1628 8th graders and 8.1% or 965 11th graders skipped cannabis questions, see Supplemental Table 1 for analysis of missing survey data). Student demographic characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Cannabis use in the past 30 days was more common among 11th grade students (20.3%) than 8th graders (6.5%). Smoking cannabis was the most common mode in both grades, 87.6% of 8th grade and 92.1% of 11th grade cannabis users smoked. Over 40% of cannabis users in either grade reported using manufactured products in the past 30 days (i.e., dabbing, using edibles, and/or vaping cannabis products, Table 2), and 86% of students who used manufactured cannabis products also smoked cannabis in the past month (data not shown). The most common C.L. Firth et al. Health and Place 75 (2022) 102795 4 manufactured products used were edibles by 8th graders and dabs by 11th graders. Most 8th grade students perceived cannabis use as harmful (62.7%), and about half of 11th graders (48.1%). The average distance between a school and cannabis retailer in Oregon during 2017 was 8.7 miles (range: 0.3 miles to 159.6 miles, data not shown). Using the community proximity measure, students lived an average of 6.3 miles from a retailer (range: 0.5 miles to 117.6 miles, data not shown). There was no pattern in retail proximity by grade: 31.8% of 8th grade students and 32.1% of 11th graders had a cannabis retailer within 1 mile of their school, and about half as many lived in commu-nities where cannabis retailers were within 1 mile of homes (15.3% among 8th grade and 12.1% among 11th grade students, Table 2). Seeing storefront cannabis advertising was more common than living or going to school near a retailer; 35.9% of 8th grade students and 41.5% of 11th grade students reported seeing advertising in the past 30 days. 3.1.Associations for 8th grade students None of the five cannabis outcomes were significantly associated with middle schools that had a cannabis retailer within 1 mile away (Table 3, full model results in Supplemental Table 2). Though, com-munity proximity was associated with perceiving cannabis as less harmful (POR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.66,0.94). Exposure to cannabis storefront advertising was associated with all five outcomes; the prevalence of using edibles, dabbing, or vaping cannabis was almost twice as high for students who reported seeing advertising compared to students who did not see advertising (used edibles POR: 1.80, 95% CI: 1.34,2.42; dabbed POR: 1.94, 95% CI: 1.40,2.69; vaped POR: 1.85, 95% CI: 1.23,2.78). Advertising exposure was also associated with smoking cannabis (POR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.11,1.55) and perceiving cannabis as less harmful (POR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.80,0.95). The residual heterogeneity between schools, as measured by MOR, was 1.83 in the edible model (Table 3) and can be interpreted as similar students may be nearly twice as likely to use edibles if they are in a school where edible use was more common. Similarly, school environ-ment was associated with smoking, dabbing, and perception of harm, but not vaping. 3.2.Associations for 11th grade students The prevalence of 11th grade students using edibles, dabbing, and smoking cannabis, but not vaping, were significantly associated with having a cannabis retailer within one mile of high school (Table 4, full Table 1 Demographic characteristics of Oregon 8th and 11th grade students who responded to cannabis questions on the Oregon Healthy Teens survey, 2016–2017. 8th grade students N =13,224 11th grade students N =10,930 Individual student characteristics Unweighted count Weighted % Unweighted count Weighted % Gender Male 6111 45.9% 4945 45.4% Female 6389 49.0% 5340 49.0% Non binary/gender nonconforming 665 5.1% 613 5.7% Race/ethnicity Non Latinx (NL) American Indian/ Alaska Native 493 3.6% 224 2.2% NL Asian 517 4.1% 412 3.7% NL Black/African American 280 2.2% 216 2.1% NL Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 121 0.9% 92 0.9% Latinx 3161 27.4% 2416 24.3% NL Multiracial 520 4.1% 338 3.1% NL White 7645 57.8% 6938 63.6% Socio-economic status (Family Affluence Scale) 1: Least affluence 1305 10.6% 990 9.8% 2 4047 32.4% 3722 35.0% 3: Most affluence 7511 56.9% 6051 55.2% Adult use cannabis at home 2252 17.6% 2041 19.7% Urban school district 9626 77.6% 7516 76.7% Student characteristics within School Districts median 25th – 75th percentile median 25th – 75th percentile % of non-Latinx white students 64% (51%– 77%) 66% (54%– 78%) % of students enrolled in free and reduced meals programs 53% (42%– 66%) 45% (38%– 55%) Note: Table 1 describes the student sample in the OHT 2016–2017 survey and uses state-level weights to report statewide prevalance estimates of each socio- demographic factor. Table 2 Cannabis outcomes and cannabis retail environment measures, Oregon 8th and 11th grade students, 2016–17 school year. 8th grade 11th grade Unweighted count Unweighted % Unweighted count Unweighted % Cannabis outcomes Used any cannabis in the past 30 days 855 6.5% 2224 20.3% Manufactured cannabis product use (any) 375 2.8% 933 8.5% Ate 237 1.8% 534 4.9% Dabbed 202 1.5% 575 5.3% Vaped 123 0.9% 246 2.3% Smoked cannabis 749 5.7% 2049 18.7% Used 2+cannabis modes in past 30 days 314 2.4% 814 7.5% Smoked +manufactured cannabis use 312 2.4% 809 7.5% Used 2+manufactured cannabis modes and did not smoke 63 0.5% 124 1.1% No cannabis use in past 30 days 12,369 93.5% 8706 79.7% Perceived regular cannabis use as harmful 7763 62.7% 5054 48.1% Cannabis retail environment exposures School building proximity: <1 mile to retailer 4163 31.8% 3475 32.1% School district area (community) proximity: <1 mile to retailer 2020 15.3% 1326 12.1% Self reported storefront cannabis ad exposure 4754 35.9% 4541 41.5% C.L. Firth et al. Health and Place 75 (2022) 102795 5 model results in Supplemental Table 3). Specifically, the prevalence of using edibles was 45% higher and dabbing and smoking cannabis were 43% higher among students who attended a high school within 1 mile from a cannabis retailer. Students also perceived cannabis as less harmful when there was a retailer within 1 mile from their high school (POR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.61,0.83), although the opposite relationship was observed with community proximity (POR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.01,1.60). Exposure to storefront cannabis advertising was associated with using edibles, dabbing, and vaping cannabis (POR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.15,1.70; POR: 1.39, 95% CI: 1.15,1.68; POR: 1.45, 95% CI: 1.10,1.92, respec-tively), but not smoking or perceptions of harm. The MOR for schools exceeded 1 in all models, which suggested that normative school environments—schools where students were more likely to engage in cannabis outcomes or perceive cannabis as less harmful—could influence a student’s behavior, even after adjustment for measured cannabis retail environment factors. 3.3.Sensitivity analyses Relationships between cannabis proximity measures, at the school and school district (community) level, and cannabis outcomes fluctu-ated with the addition of more restrictive (½ mile and ¾ mile) and less restrictive (2 mile) thresholds. There were 9 schools and 1 community with at least one retailer within ½ mile and 40 schools and 2 commu-nities with a retailer within ¾ mile. Roughly, 60% of our student sample attended school or lived in a community within two miles from a retailer. There were no correlations between school or community level proximity and cannabis outcomes for 8th graders at the ½, ¾, or 2 mile thresholds, this is consistent with results using 1 mile threshold; except for a positive correlation between retailers within ½ mile of school and consuming edibles (POR: 2.63, 95% CI: 1.10,6.30) (Supplemental Table 4). For 11th graders, more restrictive buffers were generally consistent with using a 1-mile threshold; smoking cannabis and consuming edibles were positively correlated with school (at ½ and ¾ mile thresholds) and community proximity (at ½ mile threshold) (Sup-plemental Table 5). Though, the link between dabbing and school proximity at the 1-mile level was not observed in sensitivity analyses. Perceived harm of cannabis was negatively correlated with community proximity at the ½ mile threshold and school proximity within ¾ and 2 miles. 4.Discussion This is the first study to simultaneously consider the links between adolescent cannabis behaviors and various aspects of cannabis retail environment, namely exposure to storefront advertising and access to cannabis retailers at multiple spatial scales. We accounted for students living and attending school near cannabis retailers and examined how these relationships varied by student grade. Furthermore, this study examined use of manufactured cannabis products, which were made more common by the commercialized cannabis industry. Different aspects of the cannabis retail environment were relevant at different grades. For younger students, community advertising may be a crucial factor. Cannabis use was uncommon among Oregon 8th graders but is slightly higher than national trends (using weighted data for 2017, 7% of Oregon 8th graders reported current cannabis use compared to 6% among 14 and 15 year olds, nationally)(Oregon Public Health Division, 2019; Substance Use and Mental Health Administration, 2019). The national average age for initiating cannabis use is 10th grade (Rich-mond-Rakerd et al., 2017), yet eighth graders were more likely to smoke, use edibles, dab, or vape cannabis if they had seen storefront advertising in the past month, but living or going to school near a cannabis retailer was not associated with any particular mode of cannabis use. The absence of associations between proximity to retailers and cannabis outcomes was unexpected, but it demonstrates that the presence of cannabis retailers, after adjustment for advertisement Table 3 Associations between cannabis outcomes and retail environment exposures, Oregon 8th grade students, 2016–2017a. Consumed cannabis edibles Dabbed cannabis Vaped cannabis Smoked cannabis Moderate/great risk School building proximity: <1 mile to retailer (POR) 1.00 (0.62–1.61) 0.87 (0.56–1.35) 1.21 (0.80–1.84) 0.86 (0.63–1.17) 0.98 (0.85–1.12) School district area (community) proximity: <1 mile to retailer (POR) 1.30 (0.62–2.76) 1.40 (0.73–2.66) 0.98 (0.54–1.80) 1.44 (0.96–2.15) 0.79 (0.66–0.94) Self reported storefront cannabis ad exposure (POR) 1.80 (1.34–2.42) 1.94 (1.40–2.69) 1.85 (1.23–2.78) 1.31 (1.11–1.55) 0.87 (0.80–0.95) School-level (MOR) b 1.83 (1.44–2.72) 1.53 (1.22–2.45) . 1.62 (1.45–1.85) 1.22 (1.15–1.31) Note: results of each model are presented as Prevalence Odds Ratio (POR) (95% Confidence Interval). Bold results indicate statistical significance (p-value <0.05). a Each model was adjusted for student covariates (gender, race/ethnicity, socio-economic status, adult used cannabis at home) and school-district covariates (% non- Latinx white students, % economically disadvantaged students, urban school district). Full models are in supplemental materials. b The median value of school-level residuals in each model is reported as the Median Odds Ratio (MOR) and is interpreted like an odds ratio that represent the probabiliy of a cannabis outcome attributed to the school environment. Table 4 Associations between cannabis outcomes and retail environment exposures, Oregon 11th grade students, 2016–2017a. Consumed cannabis edibles Dabbed cannabis Vaped cannabis Smoked cannabis Moderate/great risk School building proximity: <1 mile to retailer (POR) 1.45 (1.05–1.98) 1.43 (1.11–1.83) 1.05 (0.73–1.52) 1.43 (1.14–1.78) 0.71 (0.61–0.83) School district area (community) proximity: <1 mile to retailer (POR) 0.71 (0.43–1.17) 0.75 (0.51–1.10) 1.09 (0.65–1.83) 0.87 (0.61–1.23) 1.27 (1.01–1.60) Self reported storefront cannabis ad exposure (POR) 1.40 (1.15–1.70) 1.39 (1.15–1.68) 1.45 (1.10–1.92) 1.09 (0.97–1.21) 1.06 (0.97–1.16) School-level (MOR)b 1.55 (1.38–1.81) 1.27 (1.13–1.61) 1.37 (1.17–1.88) 1.42 (1.27–1.67) 1.24 (1.17–1.34) Note: results of each model are presented as Prevalence Odds Ratio (POR) (95% Confidence Interval). Bold results indicate statistical significance (p-value <0.05). a Each model was adjusted for student covariates (gender, race/ethnicity, socio-economic status, adult used cannabis at home) and school-district covariates (% non- Latinx white students, % economically disadvantaged students, urban school district). Full models are in supplemental materials. b The median value of school-level residuals in each model is reported as the Median Odds Ratio (MOR) and is interpreted like an odds ratio that represent the probabiliy of a cannabis outcome attributed to the school environment. C.L. Firth et al. Health and Place 75 (2022) 102795 6 exposure, may not influence 8th grade cannabis use. In addition, our sensitivity analyses supported these findings, with the exception that 8th graders who attended schools within ½ mile of a retailer had a higher prevalence of consuming edibles. This finding extends those from a study on medical marijuana advertising which showed that advertising exposure was associated with intentions to use and cannabis use among middle school students(D’Amico et al., 2015). In another study, retail cannabis advertising has been associated with adolescents (13–17 years old) intentions to use cannabis, particularly among adolescents who lived near a cannabis retailer (Hust et al., 2020). In contrast, 11th graders who attended high school within 1 mile from a cannabis retailer were more likely to use edibles, dab, or smoke cannabis. These findings were consistent with our hypothesis, proximity to retailers would be associated with higher prevalence of cannabis outcomes. In sensitivity analysis, high schools that were within ½ or ¾ mile from retailers was also positively correlated with 11th graders consuming edibles and smoking cannabis. Cannabis advertising was not associated with smoking cannabis or perceived harm among 11th graders. Oregon law requires cannabis retailers to be �1000 feet from schools (Dilley et al., 2016), yet students still used edibles, dabbed and vaped cannabis which require concentrated products that are sold by cannabis retailers. Existing studies are mixed; evidence from Colorado showed no association between cannabis use and retailers within 2 miles of schools (Harpin et al., 2018) while a study in Los Angeles showed frequent use of concentrated cannabis products (e.g., waxes used for dabbing) even before cannabis retailers were legally operating (Bar-rington-Trimis et al., 2020). Of note, cannabis use among 11th grade Oregon students is substantially higher than national estimates, using weighted data from 2017, 21% of Oregon 11th graders reported using in the past 30 days compared to 13% among 16 and 17 year olds, na-tionally, which may affect the generalizability of our study findings outside of Oregon (Oregon Public Health Division, 2019; Substance Use and Mental Health Administration, 2019). Grade differences may be driven by changes in socializing over the course of adolescence that influence cannabis use (Guttmannova et al., 2019), but longitudinal studies are needed to disentangle how this relates to cannabis environ-ment exposures and specific modes of cannabis use. Having a retailer near home, as measured in our study, was not associated with any mode of cannabis use, except in sensitivity analyses of ½ mile, having a retailer near home was positively correlated with 11th grade edible use and smoking cannabis–exposure was rare, 3.2% of students lived with a retailer within ½ mile. It is possible that our community proximity measure did not adequately capture exposure near homes, or alternatively that it does not contribute meaningfully after inclusion of school proximity. Though, prior work has shown that having a retailer within 1-km, or 0.6 miles, of home was associated with perceived cannabis access and use among young adults living in Washington state (Rhew et al., 2022). However, 8th graders who lived near a cannabis retailer perceived cannabis as less harmful than students who lived farther from retailers (Lipari et al., 2016). This finding is supported by previous ecological studies which found that Oregon counties with licensed cannabis retailers had more students who used cannabis in the past 30 days (Paschall and Grube, 2020) and time-varying proximity to cannabis retailers at the zipcode-level was associated with increased adult cannabis use in Washington state after legalization (Everson et al., 2019). Our study examined different dimensions of “risky behaviors” for youth rather than “any cannabis use” alone. We examined use of man-ufactured cannabis products because they are both increasingly avail-able in legal cannabis outlets and pose potentially more health risks for adolescents than using dried cannabis flower due to higher THC con-centration. Our finding that using these specific products increased with exposure to retail environments supports the concern that retail envi-ronments are influencing not only any underage cannabis use, but also riskier use behaviors. Though we did not assess how youth obtained different cannabis products, our findings suggest that legal efforts to curb youth exposure through land use and advertisement restrictions may not be enough to prevent youth from using cannabis products that are sold in licensed adult-use retailers. We also examined perceived harm because reductions in perception of harm from cannabis use are associated with future likelihood of use. In our study, community proximity to cannabis retailers was linked to reduced perceptions of risk among younger students, but increased perceptions of risk among older students. This paradox could be explained by education efforts targeted toward high school students in communities with cannabis markets, or it may be spurious. Future studies should examine consumption patterns in more detail (e.g., days used per month) to further inform under-standing about how retail environments affect youths’ perceptions of risk and subsequent behavior choices. Data collection for our study took place during the 2016-17 school year, one year after legal retail sales began in Oregon (October 2015). Other studies have documented that reported exposure to cannabis marketing was very prevalent among young people at this time (Fiala et al., 2020). One consideration when interpreting our study’s findings is that data collection occurred when the market was still relatively “new”; thus, advertising from this nascent industry may be more noticeable. The influence of cannabis retail markets on youth may change as the market becomes more established. Further study in different settings and over time is needed. 4.1.Limitations Some limitations need to be considered when interpreting the find-ings of our study. First, the cross-sectional design limits the ability to infer a temporal relationship between cannabis retail environment and underage cannabis use and perceptions of harm. For example, students who already use cannabis may be more likely to notice cannabis advertising compared to students who do not use, or more cannabis retailers may be in areas with higher underage cannabis use. Second, licensed retailers are likely not the only source of cannabis for youth. Despite efforts to eliminate prominent unlicensed cannabis retailers, illicit markets are difficult to monitor. In addition, Oregon allows for adults (21+years) to grow cannabis at home and store useable product, which could be another unmeasured source for youth (Dilley et al., 2016). Influence of these other sources would likely have attenuated our findings. Third, we relied on students to self-report cannabis use, and students may be less forthcoming given that underage cannabis use is illegal. Using school-based survey data also limits the generalizability of findings. Youth who have dropped out of school or are institutionalized are excluded from the OHT survey and are also at higher risk of sub-stance use (Tice, 2013). Last, modeling specific modes of cannabis use, particularly for rare outcomes like vaping (less than 2% of students re-ported vaping in the past 30 days), may have contributed to the wide confidence intervals of our estimates. There is no ‘gold standard’ for calculating GIS-based cannabis retailer exposures or proximity measures. Different contexts, across places and populations, will likely require different distance-based thresholds. For example, larger buffers may be more relevant in studies among young adults because the size of activity spaces tend to decline with age (Morency et al., 2011). While car-dependent metro-politan areas may rely on thresholds derived from driving times, whereas areas with greater population and amenity density may use road network buffers, at relatively smaller spatial scales. Despite work in this area being heterogeneous, our study adds two contributions: 1) measuring proximity to cannabis retailers at two spatial scales, repre-senting different environmental contexts that influence adolescent be-haviors (Johnson and Guttmannova, 2019), and 2) including sensitivity analyses, using different distance-based thresholds, to assess the robustness of our findings. C.L. Firth et al. Health and Place 75 (2022) 102795 7 5.Conclusion We found that exposure to Oregon’s cannabis retail environment was correlated with adolescent cannabis use and beliefs in 2017, including specifically use of manufactured cannabis products that are becoming common in a legal cannabis market. Younger student cannabis use was most often linked to cannabis advertising exposure, while older student cannabis use was more common among students who attended high schools within 1 mile from a cannabis retailer. These findings have direct implications for policy makers as they develop rules for where cannabis retailers operate and how they are allowed to advertise, while also protecting the health of youth. Furthermore, findings related to youths’ perception of harm suggest that prevention and intervention efforts should include education about the effects of cannabis use and specific products on adolescents. Declaration of competing interest The authors report no declarations of interest. Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowledge Julie E. Maher, PhD, Director of Program Design & Evaluation Services (PDES), Multnomah County Health Department & Oregon Public Health Division for their critical review of the article. We would also like to thank Curtis E. Mack, Looking Glass Analytics, and Susan M Richardson, PDES, for assembling cannabis retailer data. Appendix A.Supplementary data Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2022.102795. References Barrington-Trimis, J., Cho, J., Ewusi-Boisvert, E., Hasin, D., Unger, J.B., Miech, R.A., Adam, M., Leventhal, P., 2020. Risk of persistence and progression of use of 5 cannabis products after experimentation among adolescents. JAMA Netw. Open 3. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.19792. Bostean, G., Crespi, C.M., Vorapharuek, P., McCarthy, W.J., 2016. E-cigarette use among students and e-cigarette specialty retailer presence near schools. Health Place 42, 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2016.09.012. Bronfenbrenner, U., 1977. Toward an experimental ecology of human development. Am. Psychol. 32. Burke, A., Nishioka, V., 2014. Suspension and Expulsion Patterns in Six Oregon School Districts Key Findings. Cao, D., Srisuma, S., Bronstein, A.C., Hoyte, C.O., 2016. Characterization of edible marijuana product exposures reported to United States poison centers. Clin. Toxicol. 54, 840–846. https://doi.org/10.1080/15563650.2016.1209761. Catalano, R.F., Fagan, A.A., Gavin, L.E., Greenberg, M.T., Irwin, C.E., Ross, D.A., Shek, D. T., 2012. Worldwide application of prevention science in adolescent health. Lancet 379, 1653–1664. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60238-4. Catalano, R.F., Hawkins, J.D., 1996. The social development model: a theory of antisocial behavior. In: Cambridge Criminology Series. Delinquency and Crime: Current Theories. Cambridge University Press, pp. 149–197. Catalano, R.F., Speaker, E.C., Skinner, M.L., Bailey, J.A., Hong, G., Haggerty, K.P., Guttmannova, K., Harrop, E.N., 2018. Risk factors for adolescent marijuana use. In: Contemporary Health Issues on Marijuana. Oxford University Press, pp. 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1093/med-psych/9780190263072.003.0009. Cederbaum, J.A., Petering, R., Katherine Hutchinson, M., He, A.S., Wilson, J.P., Jemmott, J.B., Sweet Jemmott, L., 2015. Alcohol outlet density and related use in an urban Black population in Philadelphia public housing communities. Health Place 31, 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2014.10.007. Cerd´a, M., Mauro, C., Hamilton, A., Levy, N.S., Santaella-Tenorio, J., Hasin, D., Wall, M. M., Keyes, K.M., Martins, S.S., 2020. Association between recreational marijuana legalization in the United States and changes in marijuana use and cannabis use disorder from 2008 to 2016. JAMA Psychiatr. 77, 165–171. https://doi.org/ 10.1001/JAMAPSYCHIATRY.2019.3254. Chen, M., Grube, J.W., Gruenewald, P.J., 2010. Community alcohol outlet density and underage drinking Meng-Jinn. Addiction 105, 270–278. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1360-0443.2009.02772.x.Community. Corbett, K.K., 2001. Susceptibility of youth to tobacco: a social ecological framework for prevention. Respir. Physiol. 128, 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-5687 (01)00269-9. Currie, C., Molcho, M., Boyce, W., Holstein, B., Torsheim, T., Richter, M., 2008. Researching health inequalities in adolescents: the development of the health behaviour in school-aged children (HBSC) family affluence scale. Soc. Sci. Med. 66, 1429–1436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.11.024. D’Amico, E.J., Miles, J.N.V., Tucker, J.S., 2015. Gateway to curiosity: medical marijuana ads and intention and use during middle school. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 29, 613–619. https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000094. DiFranza, J.R., Wellman, R.J., Sargent, J.D., Weitzman, M., Hipple, B.J., Winickoff, J.P., 2006. Tobacco promotion and the initiation of tobacco use: assessing the evidence for causality. Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2005–1817. Dilley, J., 2022. From Gray Market to Green: Describing Changes in Cannabis Outlet Distribution between Washington State’s Unregulated Medical Market and Legal Retail Market. Dilley, J., Fiala, S., Everson, E., Firth, C., Maher, J., 2016. Marijuana Report. OR, Portland. Dilley, J.A., Graves, J.M., Brooks-Russell, A., Whitehill, J.M., Liebelt, E.L., 2021. Trends and characteristics of manufactured cannabis product and cannabis plant product exposures reported to US poison Control centers, 2017-2019. JAMA Netw. Open 4, e2110925. https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMANETWORKOPEN.2021.10925 e2110925. Elder, G.H., 1998. The life course as developmental theory. Child Dev. 69, 1. https://doi. org/10.2307/1132065. Everson, E.M., Dilley, J.A., Maher, J.E., Mack, C.E., 2019. Post-legalization opening of retail cannabis stores and adult cannabis use in Washington state, 2009-2016. Am. J. Publ. Health 109, 1294–1301. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305191. Fertig, N., Zhang, M., 2020, 1 in 3 Americans now lives in a state where recreational marijuana is legal - POLITICO [WWW Document]. Politico. URL. https://www.politi co.com/news/2020/11/04/1-in-3-americans-lives-where-recreational-marijuana- legal-434004. (Accessed March 2020). Fiala, S.C., Dilley, J.A., Everson, E.M., Firth, C.L., Maher, J.E., 2020. Youth exposure to marijuana advertising in Oregon’s legal retail marijuana market. Prev. Chronic Dis. https://doi.org/10.5888/PCD17.190206. Finan, L.J., Lipperman-Kreda, S., Abadi, M., Grube, J.W., Kaner, E., Balassone, A., Gaidus, A., 2019. Tobacco outlet density and adolescents’ cigarette smoking: a meta- analysis. Tobac. Control 28, 27–33. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017- 054065. Finan, L.J., Lipperman-Kreda, S., Grube, J.W., Balassone, A., Kaner, E., 2020. Alcohol marketing and adolescent and young adult alcohol use behaviors: a systematic review of cross-sectional studies. J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs 42–56. https://doi.org/ 10.15288/jsads.2020.s19.42. Supplement Sup. 19. Firth, C., Carlini, B., Dilley, J., Hajat, A., 2020a. What about equity? Neighborhood deprivation and cannabis retailers in Portland, Oregon. Cannabis 3. https://doi.org/ 10.26828/cannabis.2020.02.003. Firth, C.L., Davenport, S., Smart, R., Dilley, J.A., 2020b. How high: differences in the developments of cannabis markets in two legalized states. Int. J. Drug Pol. 75 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.102611. Giovenco, D.P., Casseus, M., Duncan, D.T., Coups, E.J., Lewis, M.J., Delnevo, C.D., 2016. Association between electronic cigarette marketing near schools and E-cigarette use among youth. J. Adolesc. Health 59, 627–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jadohealth.2016.08.007. Gobbi, G., Atkin, T., Zytynski, T., Wang, S., Askari, S., Boruff, J., Ware, M., Marmorstein, N., Cipriani, A., Dendukuri, N., Mayo, N., 2019. Association of cannabis use in adolescence and risk of depression, anxiety, and suicidality in young adulthood: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatr. 76, 426–434. https://doi.org/10.1001/JAMAPSYCHIATRY.2018.4500. Guttmannova, K., Skinner, M.L., Oesterle, S., White, H.R., Catalano, R.F., Hawkins, J.D., 2019. The interplay between marijuana-specific risk factors and marijuana use over the course of adolescence. Prev. Sci. 20, 235–245. Hammond, D., Goodman, S., 2020. Knowledge of Tetrahydrocannabinol and Cannabidiol Levels Among Cannabis Consumers in the United States and Canada. Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research. https://doi.org/10.1089/can.2020.0092. Harpin, S.B., Brooks-Russell, A., Ma, M., James, K.A., Levinson, A.H., 2018. Adolescent marijuana use and perceived ease of access before and after recreational marijuana implementation in Colorado. Subst. Use Misuse 53. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10826084.2017.1334069. Hawkins, J.D., Catalano, R.F., Miller, J.Y., 1992. Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychol. Bull. 112, 64–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0033-2909.112.1.64. Huang, Y., Edwards, J., Laurel-Wilson, M., 2020. The shadow of context: neighborhood and school socioeconomic disadvantage, perceived social integration, and the mental and behavioral health of adolescents. Health Place 66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. healthplace.2020.102425. Hust, S.J.T., Willoughby, J.F., Li, J., Couto, L., 2020. Youth’s proximity to marijuana retailers and advertisements: factors associated with Washington state adolescents’ intentions to use marijuana. J. Health Commun. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10810730.2020.1825568. Johnson, R.M., Guttmannova, K., 2019. Marijuana Use Among Adolescents and Emerging Adults in the Midst of Policy Change: Introduction to the Special Issue. Prevention Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-019-0989-7. Kim, H.S., Monte, A.A., 2016. Colorado cannabis legalization and its effect on emergency care. Ann. Emerg. Med. 68, 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. annemergmed.2016.01.004. Kontou, E., McDonald, N.C., Brookshire, K., Pullen-Seufert, N.C., LaJeunesse, S., 2020. U. S. active school travel in 2017: prevalence and correlates. Preventive Medicine Reports 17, 101024. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PMEDR.2019.101024. C.L. Firth et al. Health and Place 75 (2022) 102795 8 Lipari, R.N., Williams, M.R., Copello, E.A.P., Pemberton, M.R., 2016. Risk and Protective Factors and Estimates of Substance Use Initiation: Results from the 2015 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. CBHSQ Data Review. Lipperman-Kreda, S., Grube, J.W., 2018. Impacts of Marijuana Commercialization on Adolescents’ Marijuana Beliefs, Use, and Co-use with Other Substances. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.05.003. Lipperman-Kreda, S., Mair, C., Grube, J.W., Friend, K.B., Jackson, P., Watson, D., 2014. Density and proximity of tobacco outlets to homes and schools: relations with youth cigarette smoking. Prev. Sci. 15, 738–744. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11121-013- 0442-2/TABLES/2. Loh, V.H.Y., Veitch, J., Salmon, J., Cerin, E., Thornton, L., Mavoa, S., Villanueva, K., Timperio, A., 2019. Built environment and physical activity among adolescents: the moderating effects of neighborhood safety and social support. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Activ. 16, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/S12966-019-0898-Y/FIGURES/1. Mariani, A.C., Williams, A.R., 2021. Perceived risk of harm from monthly cannabis use among US adolescents: national Survey on drug Use and Health. Preventive Medicine Reports 23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101436, 2017. Mennis, J., 2020. Trends in adolescent treatment admissions for marijuana in the United States, 2008–2017. Prev. Chronic Dis. 17 https://doi.org/10.5888/ pcd17.200156external icon. Merlo, J., Chaix, B., Ohlsson, H., Beckman, A., Johnell, K., Hjerpe, P., Råstam, L., Larsen, K., 2006. A brief conceptual tutorial of multilevel analysis in social epidemiology: using measures of clustering in multilevel logistic regression to investigate contextual phenomena. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 60, 290–297. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2004.029454. Morency, C., Paez, A., Roorda, M.J., Mercado, R., Farber, S., 2011. Distance traveled in three Canadian cities: spatial analysis from the perspective of vulnerable population segments. J. Transport Geogr. 19 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.09.013. Nargiso, J.E., Ballard, E.L., Skeer, M.R., 2015. A systematic review of risk and protective factors associated with nonmedical use of prescription drugs among youth in the United States: a social ecological perspective. J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs 76. Oregon Department of Education, 2019. Media Page [WWW Document]. URL. https ://www.ode.state.or.us/data/reportcard/Media.aspx. (Accessed 4 September 2019). Oregon Health & Science University. n.d. Oregon Office of rural health [WWW Document]. URL. https://www.ohsu.edu/xd/outreach/oregon-rural-health/abo ut-rural-frontier/index.cfm. (Accessed 17 January 2019). Oregon Health Authority, n.d. Oregon Healthy Teen 2017 Results [WWW Document]. URL healthoregon.org/oht (accessed 5.20.18). Oregon Liquor Control Commission, 2017. Active Marijuana Retail Licenses Approved as of 3/10/2017 [WWW Document]. URL. https://www.oregon.gov/olcc/marijuana/ Documents/Approved_Retail_Licenses.pdf. (Accessed 14 March 2017). Oregon Public Health Division, 2019. Youth Marijuana Use, Attitudes and Related Behaviors in Oregon. Portland. Paschall, M.J., Grube, J.W., 2020. Recreational marijuana availability in Oregon and use among adolescents. Am. J. Prev. Med. 58, e63–e69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. amepre.2019.09.020. Raber, J.C., Elzinga, S., Kaplan, C., 2015. Understanding dabs: contamination concerns of cannabis concentrates and cannabinoid transfer during the act of dabbing. J. Toxicol. Sci. 40, 797–803. https://doi.org/10.2131/jts.40.797. Rhew, I.C., Guttmannova, K., Kilmer, J.R., Fleming, C.B., Hultgren, B.A., Hurvitz, P.M., Dilley, J.A., Larimer, M.E., 2022. Associations of cannabis retail outlet availability and neighborhood disadvantage with cannabis use and related risk factors among young adults in Washington State. Drug Alcohol Depend. 232, 109332. https://doi. org/10.1016/J.DRUGALCDEP.2022.109332. Richmond-Rakerd, L.S., Slutske, W.S., Wood, P.K., 2017. Age of initiation and substance use progression: a multivariate latent growth analysis. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 31 https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000304. Substance Use and Mental Health Administration, 2019. Results from the 2017 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Detailed Tables [WWW Document]. Talen, E., Koschinsky, J., 2013. The walkable neighborhood: a literature review. International Journal of Sustainable Land Use and Urban Planning 1. https://doi. org/10.24102/ijslup.v1i1.211. Tice, P., 2013. Substance use among 12th grade Aged youths by dropout status. The CBHSQ Report 1–10. Tormohlen, K.N., Schneider, K.E., Johnson, R.M., Ma, M., Levinson, A.H., Brooks- Russell, A., 2019. Changes in prevalence of marijuana consumption modes among Colorado high school students from 2015 to 2017. JAMA Pediatr. https://doi.org/ 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.2627. Trucco, E.M., 2020. A review of psychosocial factors linked to adolescent substance use. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 196. van der Steur, S.J., Batalla, A., Bossong, M.G., 2020. Factors moderating the association between cannabis use and psychosis risk: a systematic review. Brain Sci. 10, 97. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci10020097. C.L. Firth et al. ���������������� ���������������������� �������������������������� ��������������������������� ����������� ����������������������� ������������������������ ������������� ����������������� ��������������������������� �������������������� ���������������������������������������� ���������������������������� ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� �������������������������� ����������������� ��������������������������� �������������������� ���������������������������������������� ���������������������������� Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents National Institute on Drug Abuse Karen L. Bierman, Ph.D. Pennsylvania State University C. Hendricks Brown, Ph.D. University of South Florida Richard R. Clayton, Ph.D. University of Kentucky Thomas J. Dishion, Ph.D. University of Oregon E. Michael Foster, Ph.D. Pennsylvania State University Meyer D. Glantz, Ph.D. National Institute on Drug Abuse Mark T. Greenberg, Ph.D. Pennsylvania State University Hyman Hops, Ph.D. Oregon Research Institute Eugene R. Oetting, Ph.D. Colorado State University Zili Sloboda, Sc.D. University of Akron Richard Spoth, Ph.D. Iowa State University John B. Reid, Ph.D. Oregon Social Learning Center Thomas A. Wills, Ph.D. Albert Einstein College of Medicine NIDA also would like to thank the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America for helping organize a focus group of community leaders in reviewing this publication. This publication was written by Elizabeth B. Robertson, Ph.D., Susan L. David, M.P.H. (retired), and Suman A. Rao, Ph.D., National Institute on Drug Abuse. All materials in this volume are in the public domain and may be used or reproduced without permission from NIDA or the authors. Citation of the source is appreciated. The U.S. government does not endorse or favor any specific commercial product or company. Trade, proprietary, or company names appearing in the publication are used only because they are considered essential in the context of the studies described here. NIH Publication No. 04-4212(A) Printed 1997 Reprinted 1997, 1999, 2001 Second Edition October 2003 NIDA wishes to thank the following individuals for their guidance and comments during the development and review of this publication: Acknowledgments ii Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents National Institute on Drug Abuse Acknowledgments ii Preface v Introduction 1 Prevention Principles 2 Chapter 1: Risk Factors and Protective Factors 6 What are risk factors and protective factors? 6 What are the early signs of risk that may predict later drug abuse? 8 What are the highest risk periods for drug abuse among youth? 9 When and how does drug abuse start and progress? 10 Chapter 2: Planning for Drug Abuse Prevention in the Community 12 How can the community develop a plan for research-based prevention? 12 How can the community use the prevention principles in prevention planning? 12 How can the community assess the level of risk for drug abuse? 14 Is the community ready for prevention? 15 How can the community be motivated to implement research-based prevention programs? 16 How can the community assess the effectiveness of current prevention efforts? 17 Chapter 3: Applying Prevention Principles to Drug Abuse Prevention Programs 18 How are risk and protective factors addressed in prevention programs? 18 What are the core elements of effective research-based prevention programs? 21 How can the community implement and sustain effective prevention programs? 24 How can the community evaluate the impact of its program on drug abuse? 24 What are the cost-benefits of community prevention programs? 25 Contents iii iv Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents National Institute on Drug Abuse Chapter 4: Examples of Research-Based Drug Abuse Prevention Programs 26 Universal Programs 26 Elementary School • Caring School Community Program • Classroom-Centered (CC) and Family-School Partnership (FSP) Intervention • Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) • Skills, Opportunity, And Recognition (SOAR) Middle School • Guiding Good Choices • Life Skills Training (LST) Program • Lions-Quest Skills for Adolescence (SFA) • Project ALERT • Project STAR • The Strengthening Families Program: For Parents and Youth 10–14 (SFP 10–14) High School • Life Skills Training: Booster Program • Lions-Quest Skills for Adolescence • Project ALERT Plus • The Strengthening Families Program: For Parents and Youth 10–14 Selective Programs 31 Elementary School • Focus on Families (FOF) • The Strengthening Families Program (SFP) Middle School • Coping Power High School • Adolescents Training and Learning to Avoid Steroids (ATLAS) Indicated Programs 33 High School • Project Towards No Drug Abuse (Project TND) • Reconnecting Youth Program (RY) Tiered Programs 34 Elementary School • Early Risers “Skills for Success” Risk Prevention Program • Fast Track Prevention Trial for Conduct Problems Middle School • Adolescent Transitions Program (ATP) Chapter 5: Selected Resources and References 36 Selected Resources 36 Selected References 38 ivPreventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents National Institute on Drug Abuse Preface v Today’s youth face many risks, including drug abuse, violence, and HIV/AIDS. Responding to these risks before they become problems can be difficult. One of the goals of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) is to help the public understand the causes of drug abuse and to prevent its onset. Drug abuse has serious consequences in our homes, schools, and communities. From NIDA’s perspective, the use of all illicit drugs and the inappropriate use of licit drugs is considered drug abuse. Prevention science has made great progress in recent years. Many prevention interventions are being tested in “real-world” settings so they can be more easily adapted for community use. Scientists are studying a broader range of populations and topics. They have identified, for example, effective interventions with younger populations to help prevent risk behaviors before drug abuse occurs. Researchers are also studying older teens who are already using drugs to find ways to prevent further abuse or addiction. Practical issues, such as cost-benefit analyses, are being studied. Presenting these findings to the public is one of NIDA’s most important responsibilities. We are pleased to offer our newest edition of the publication, Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents: A Research-Based Guide for Parents, Educators, and Community Leaders, Second Edition. This edition includes updated principles, new questions and answers, new program information, and expanded references and resources. We also invite you to visit our Web site at www.drugabuse.gov where this publication and other materials related to the consequences, prevention, and treatment of drug abuse are offered. We hope that you will find the guide useful and helpful to your work. Nora D. Volkow, M.D. Director National Institute on Drug Abuse National Institute on Drug Abuse National Institute on Drug Abuse In 1997, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) published the first edition of Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents: A Research-Based Guide to share the latest NIDA-funded prevention research findings with parents, educators, and community leaders. The guide introduced the concept of “research-based prevention” with questions and answers on risk and protective factors, community planning and implementation, and 14 prevention principles derived from effective drug abuse prevention research. Examples of research-tested prevention programs were also featured. The purpose was to help prevention practitioners use the results of prevention research to address drug abuse among children and adolescents in communities across the country. Since then, NIDA’s prevention research program has more than doubled in size and scope to address all stages of child development, a mix of audiences and settings, and the delivery of effective services at the community level. The Institute now focuses on risks for drug abuse and other problem behaviors that occur throughout a child’s development. Prevention interventions designed and tested to address risks can help children at every step along their developmental path. Working more broadly with families, schools, and communities, scientists have found effective ways to help people gain the skills and approaches to stop problem behaviors before they occur. Research funded by NIDA and other Federal research organizations— such as the National Institute of Mental Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention— shows that early intervention can prevent many adolescent risk behaviors. This second edition, reflecting NIDA’s expanded research program and knowledge base, is more than double the size of the first edition. The prevention principles have been expanded to provide more understanding about the latest research, and principles relevant to each chapter accompany the discussion. Additional questions and answers, a new chapter on community planning, and more information on the core elements in research-based prevention programs have been added. Each chapter ends with a “Community Action Box” for primary readers— parents, educators, and community leaders. As in the first edition, the descriptions of prevention programs are presented as examples of research-based programs currently available. The expanded Selected Resources section offers Web sites, sponsored by Federal and private-sector agencies. Some feature registries of effective prevention programs with agency-specific selection criteria and other resources for community planning. The Selected References section includes up-to-date books and journal articles that provide more information on prevention research. NIDA hopes that this revised guide is helpful to drug abuse prevention efforts among children and adolescents in homes, schools, and communities nationwide. Introduction 1 Prevention Principles These revised prevention principles have emerged from research studies funded by NIDA on the origins of drug abuse behaviors and the common elements found in research on effective prevention programs. Parents, educators, and community leaders can use these principles to help guide their thinking, planning, selection, and delivery of drug abuse prevention programs at the community level. The references following each principle are representative of current research. 3National Institute on Drug Abuse Risk Factors and Protective Factors Prevention programs should enhance protective factors and reverse or reduce risk factors (Hawkins et al. 2002). • The risk of becoming a drug abuser involves the relationship among the number and type of risk factors (e.g., deviant attitudes and behaviors) and protective factors (e.g., parental support) (Wills and McNamara et al. 1996). • The potential impact of specific risk and protective factors changes with age. For example, risk factors within the family have greater impact on a younger child, while association with drug-abusing peers may be a more significant risk factor for an adolescent (Gerstein and Green 1993; Kumpfer et al. 1998). • Early intervention with risk factors (e.g., aggressive behavior and poor self-control) often has a greater impact than later intervention by changing a child’s life path (trajectory) away from problems and toward positive behaviors (Ialongo et al. 2001). • While risk and protective factors can affect people of all groups, these factors can have a different effect depending on a person’s age, gender, ethnicity, culture, and environment (Beauvais et al. 1996; Moon et al. 1999). Prevention programs should address all forms of drug abuse, alone or in combination, including the underage use of legal drugs (e.g., tobacco or alcohol); the use of illegal drugs (e.g., marijuana or heroin); and the inappropriate use of legally obtained substances (e.g., inhalants), prescription medications, or over-the-counter drugs (Johnston et al. 2002). Prevention programs should address the type of drug abuse problem in the local community, target modifiable risk factors, and strengthen identified protective factors (Hawkins et al. 2002). Prevention programs should be tailored to address risks specific to population or audience characteristics, such as age, gender, and ethnicity, to improve program effectiveness (Oetting et al. 1997). 2 Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents PRINCIPLE 1 PRINCIPLE 2 PRINCIPLE 3 PRINCIPLE 4 Prevention Principles These revised prevention principles have emerged from research studies funded by NIDA on the origins of drug abuse behaviors and the common elements found in research on effective prevention programs. Parents, educators, and community leaders can use these principles to help guide their thinking, planning, selection, and delivery of drug abuse prevention programs at the community level. The references following each principle are representative of current research. 3National Institute on Drug Abuse Prevention Planning Family Programs Family-based prevention programs should enhance family bonding and relationships and include parenting skills; practice in developing, discussing, and enforcing family policies on substance abuse; and training in drug education and information (Ashery et al. 1998). Family bonding is the bedrock of the relationship between parents and children. Bonding can be strengthened through skills training on parent supportiveness of children, parent-child communication, and parental involvement (Kosterman et al. 1997). • Parental monitoring and supervision are critical for drug abuse prevention. These skills can be enhanced with training on rule-setting; techniques for monitoring activities; praise for appropriate behavior; and moderate, consistent discipline that enforces defined family rules (Kosterman et al. 2001). • Drug education and information for parents or caregivers reinforces what children are learning about the harmful effects of drugs and opens opportunities for family discussions about the abuse of legal and illegal substances (Bauman et al. 2001). • Brief, family-focused interventions for the general population can positively change specific parenting behavior that can reduce later risks of drug abuse (Spoth et al. 2002b). School Programs Prevention programs can be designed to intervene as early as preschool to address risk factors for drug abuse, such as aggressive behavior, poor social skills, and academic difficulties (Webster-Stratton 1998; Webster-Stratton et al. 2001). Prevention programs for elementary school children should target improving academic and social-emotional learning to address risk factors for drug abuse, such as early aggression, academic failure, and school dropout. Education should focus on the following skills (Ialongo et al. 2001; Conduct Problems Prevention Work Group 2002b): • self-control; • emotional awareness; • communication; • social problem-solving; and • academic support, especially in reading. Prevention programs for middle or junior high and high school students should increase academic and social competence with the following skills (Botvin et al.1995; Scheier et al. 1999): • study habits and academic support; • communication; • peer relationships; • self-efficacy and assertiveness; • drug resistance skills; • reinforcement of antidrug attitudes; and • strengthening of personal commitments against drug abuse. PRINCIPLE 5 PRINCIPLE 6 PRINCIPLE 7 PRINCIPLE 8 Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 5National Institute on Drug Abuse Community Programs Prevention programs aimed at general populations at key transition points, such as the transition to middle school, can produce beneficial effects even among high-risk families and children. Such interventions do not single out risk populations and, therefore, reduce labeling and promote bonding to school and community (Botvin et al. 1995; Dishion et al. 2002). Community prevention programs that combine two or more effective programs, such as family-based and school-based programs, can be more effective than a single program alone (Battistich et al. 1997). Community prevention programs reaching populations in multiple settings—for example, schools, clubs, faith-based organizations, and the media—are most effective when they present consistent, community-wide messages in each setting (Chou et al. 1998). Prevention Program Delivery When communities adapt programs to match their needs, community norms, or differing cultural requirements, they should retain core elements of the original research-based intervention (Spoth et al. 2002b), which include: • Structure (how the program is organized and constructed); • Content (the information, skills, and strategies of the program); and • Delivery (how the program is adapted, implemented, and evaluated). Prevention programs should be long-term with repeated interventions (i.e., booster programs) to reinforce the original prevention goals. Research shows that the benefits from middle school prevention programs diminish without followup programs in high school (Scheier et al. 1999). PRINCIPLE 10 4 PRINCIPLE 9 PRINCIPLE 11 PRINCIPLE 12 PRINCIPLE 13 Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 5National Institute on Drug Abuse Prevention programs should include teacher training on good classroom management practices, such as rewarding appropriate student behavior. Such techniques help to foster students’ positive behavior, achievement, academic motivation, and school bonding (Ialongo et al. 2001). Prevention programs are most effective when they employ interactive techniques, such as peer discussion groups and parent role-playing, that allow for active involvement in learning about drug abuse and reinforcing skills (Botvin et al. 1995). Research-based prevention programs can be cost-effective. Similar to earlier research, recent research shows that for each dollar invested in prevention, a savings of up to $10 in treatment for alcohol or other substance abuse can be seen (Pentz 1998; Hawkins 1999; Aos et al. 2001; Spoth et al. 2002a). PRINCIPLE 14 PRINCIPLE 15 PRINCIPLE 16 6 Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 7National Institute on Drug Abuse Chapter 1:Risk Factors and Protective Factors This chapter describes how risk and protective factors influence drug abuse behaviors, the early signs of risk, transitions as high-risk periods, and general patterns of drug abuse among children and adolescents. A major focus is how prevention programs can strengthen protection or intervene to reduce risks. What are risk factors and protective factors? Studies over the past two decades have tried to determine the origins and pathways of drug abuse and addiction—how the problem starts and how it progresses. Many factors have been identified that help differentiate those more likely to abuse drugs from those less vulnerable to drug abuse. Factors associated with greater potential for drug abuse are called “risk” factors, while those associated with reduced potential for abuse are called “protective” factors. Please note, however, that most individuals at risk for drug abuse do not start using drugs or become addicted. Also, a risk factor for one person may not be for another. As discussed in the Introduction, risk and protective factors can affect children in a developmental risk trajectory, or path. This path captures how risks become evident at different stages of a child’s life. For example, early risks, such as out-of-control aggressive behavior, may be seen in a very young child. If not addressed through positive parental actions, this behavior can lead to additional risks when the child enters school. Aggressive behavior in school can lead to rejection by peers, punishment by teachers, and academic failure. Again, if not addressed through preventive interventions, these risks can lead to the most immediate behaviors that put a child at risk for drug abuse, such as skipping school and associating with peers who abuse drugs. In focusing on the risk path, research-based prevention programs can intervene early in a child’s development to strengthen protective factors and reduce risks long before problem behaviors develop. The table below provides a framework for characterizing risk and protective factors in five domains, or settings. These domains can then serve as a focus for prevention. As the first two examples suggest, some risk and protective factors are mutually exclusive—the presence of one means the absence of the other. For example, in the Individual domain, early aggressive behavior, a risk factor, indicates the absence of impulse control, a key protective factor. Helping a young child learn to control impulsive behavior is a focus of some prevention programs. Early Aggressive Behavior Individual Impulse Control Lack of Parental Supervision Family Parental Monitoring Substance Abuse Peer Academic Competence Drug Availability School Antidrug Use Policies Poverty Community Strong Neighborhood Attachment Risk Factors Domain Protective Factors 6Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 7National Institute on Drug Abuse Other risk and protective factors are independent of each other, as demonstrated in the table as examples in the peer, school, and community domains. For example, in the school domain, drugs may be available, even though the school has “antidrug policies.” An intervention may be to strengthen enforcement so that school policies create the intended school environment. Risk factors for drug abuse represent challenges to an individual’s emotional, social, and academic development. These risk factors can produce different effects, depending on the individual’s personality traits, phase of development, and environment. For instance, many serious risks, such as early aggressive behavior and poor academic achievement, may indicate that a young child is on a negative developmental path headed toward problem behavior. Early intervention, however, can help reduce or reverse these risks and change that child’s developmental path. For young children already exhibiting serious risk factors, delaying intervention until adolescence will likely make it more difficult to overcome risks. By adolescence, children’s attitudes and behaviors are well established and not easily changed. Risk factors can influence drug abuse in several ways. They may be additive: The more risks a child is exposed to, the more likely the child will abuse drugs. Some risk factors are particularly potent, yet may not influence drug abuse unless certain conditions prevail. Having a family history of substance abuse, for example, puts a child at risk for drug abuse. However, in an environment with no drug-abusing peers and strong antidrug norms, that child is less likely to become a drug abuser. And the presence of many protective factors can lessen the impact of a few risk factors. For example, strong protection—such as parental support and involvement—can reduce the influence of strong risks, such as having substance-abusing peers. An important goal of prevention, then, is to change the balance between risk and protective factors so that protective factors outweigh risk factors. Chapter 1 Principles Risk Factors and Protective Factors Prevention programs should enhance protective factors and reverse or reduce risk factors. • The risk of becoming a drug abuser involves the relationship among the number and type of risk factors (e.g., deviant attitudes and behaviors) and protective factors (e.g., parental support). • The potential impact of specific risk and protective factors changes with age. For example, risk factors within the family have greater impact on a younger child, while association with drug-abusing peers may be a more significant risk factor for an adolescent. • Early intervention with risk factors (e.g., aggressive behavior and poor self-control) often has a greater impact than later intervention by changing a child’s life path (trajectory) away from problems and toward positive behaviors. • While risk and protective factors can affect people of all groups, these factors can have a different effect depending on a person’s age, gender, ethnicity, culture, and environment. Prevention programs should address all forms of drug abuse, alone or in combination, including the underage use of legal drugs (e.g., tobacco or alcohol); the use of illegal drugs (e.g., marijuana or heroin); and the inappropriate use of legally obtained substances (e.g., inhalants), prescription medications, or over-the-counter drugs. Prevention programs should address the type of drug abuse problem in the local community, target modifiable risk factors, and strengthen identified protective factors. Prevention programs should be tailored to address risks specific to population or audience characteristics, such as age, gender, and ethnicity, to improve program effectiveness. PRINCIPLE 1 PRINCIPLE 2 PRINCIPLE 3 PRINCIPLE 4 8 Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 9National Institute on Drug Abuse Gender may also determine how an individual responds to risk factors. Research on relationships within the family shows that adolescent girls respond positively to parental support and discipline, while adolescent boys sometimes respond negatively. Research on early risk behaviors in the school setting shows that aggressive behavior in boys and learning difficulties in girls are the primary causes of poor peer relationships. These poor relationships, in turn, can lead to social rejection, a negative school experience, and problem behaviors including drug abuse. What are the early signs of risk that may predict later drug abuse? Some signs of risk can be seen as early as infancy. Children’s personality traits or temperament can place them at increased risk for later drug abuse. Withdrawn and aggressive boys, for example, often exhibit problem behaviors in interactions with their families, peers, and others they encounter in social settings. If these behaviors continue, they will likely lead to other risks. These risks can include academic failure, early peer rejection, and later affiliation with deviant peers, often the most immediate risk for drug abuse in adolescence. Studies have shown that children with poor academic performance and inappropriate social behavior at ages 7 to 9 are more likely to be involved with substance abuse by age 14 or 15. In the Family Children’s earliest interactions occur within the family and can be positive or negative. For this reason, factors that affect early development in the family are probably the most crucial. Children are more likely to experience risk when there is: • lack of mutual attachment and nurturing by parents or caregivers; • ineffective parenting; • a chaotic home environment; • lack of a significant relationship with a caring adult; and • a caregiver who abuses substances, suffers from mental illness, or engages in criminal behavior. These experiences, especially the abuse of drugs and other substances by parents and other caregivers, can impede bonding to the family and threaten feelings of security that children need for healthy development. On the other hand, families can serve a protective function when there is: • a strong bond between children and their families; • parental involvement in a child’s life; • supportive parenting that meets financial, emotional, cognitive, and social needs; and • clear limits and consistent enforcement of discipline. Finally, critical or sensitive periods in development may heighten the importance of risk or protective factors. For example, mutual attachment and bonding between parents and children usually occurs in infancy and early childhood. If it fails to occur during those developmental stages, it is unlikely that a strong positive attachment will develop later in the child’s life. 8Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 9National Institute on Drug Abuse Outside the Family Other risk factors relate to the quality of children’s relationships in settings outside the family, such as in their schools, with their peers, teachers, and in the community. Difficulties in these settings can be crucial to a child’s emotional, cognitive, and social development. Some of these risk factors are: • inappropriate classroom behavior, such as aggression and impulsivity; • academic failure; • poor social coping skills; • association with peers with problem behaviors, including drug abuse; and • misperceptions of the extent and acceptability of drug-abusing behaviors in school, peer, and community environments. Association with drug-abusing peers is often the most immediate risk for exposing adolescents to drug abuse and delinquent behavior. Research has shown, however, that addressing such behavior in interventions can be challenging. For example, a recent study (Dishion et al. 2002) found that placing high-risk youth in a peer group intervention resulted in negative outcomes. Current research is exploring the role that adults and positive peers can play in helping to avoid such outcomes in future interventions. Other factors—such as drug availability, drug trafficking patterns, and beliefs that drug abuse is generally tolerated—are also risks that can influence young people to start to abuse drugs. Family has an important role in providing protection for children when they are involved in activities outside the family. When children are outside the family setting, the most salient protective factors are: • age-appropriate parental monitoring of social behavior, including establishing curfews, ensuring adult supervision of activities outside the home, knowing the child’s friends, and enforcing household rules; • success in academics and involvement in extracurricular activities; • strong bonds with prosocial institutions, such as school and religious institutions; and • acceptance of conventional norms against drug abuse. What are the highest risk periods for drug abuse among youth? Research has shown that the key risk periods for drug abuse occur during major transitions in children’s lives. These transitions include significant changes in physical development (for example, puberty) or social situations (such as moving or parents divorcing) when children experience heightened vulnerability for problem behaviors. The first big transition for children is when they leave the security of the family and enter school. Later, when they advance from elementary school to middle or junior high school, they often experience new academic and social situations, such as learning to get along with a wider group of peers and having greater expectations for academic performance. It is at this stage—early adolescence—that children are likely to encounter drug abuse for the first time. 10 Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 11National Institute on Drug Abuse Then, when they enter high school, young people face additional social, psychological, and educational challenges. At the same time, they may be exposed to greater availability of drugs, drug abusers, and social engagements involving drugs. These challenges can increase the risk that they will abuse alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. A particularly challenging situation in late adolescence is moving away from home for the first time without parental supervision, perhaps to attend college or other schooling. Substance abuse, particularly of alcohol, remains a major public health problem for college populations. When young adults enter the workforce or marry, they again confront new challenges and stressors that may place them at risk for alcohol and other drug abuse in their adult environments. But these challenges can also be protective when they present opportunities for young people to grow and pursue future goals and interests. Research has shown that these new lifestyles can serve as protective factors as the new roles become more important than being involved with drugs. Risks appear at every transition from early childhood through young adulthood; therefore, prevention planners need to consider their target audiences and implement programs that provide support appropriate for each developmental stage. They also need to consider how the protective factors involved in these transitions can be strengthened. When and how does drug abuse start and progress? Studies such as the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, formerly called the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, reported by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, indicate that some children are already abusing drugs by age 12 or 13, which likely means that some may begin even earlier. Early abuse includes such drugs as tobacco, alcohol, inhalants, marijuana, and psychotherapeutic drugs. If drug abuse persists into later adolescence, abusers typically become more involved with marijuana and then advance to other illegal drugs, while continuing their abuse of tobacco and alcohol. Studies have also shown that early initiation of drug abuse is associated with greater drug involvement, whether with the same or different drugs. Note, however, that both one-time and long-term surveys indicate that most youth do not progress to abusing other drugs. But among those who do progress, their drug abuse history can vary by neighborhood drug availability, demographic groups, and other characteristics of the abuser population. In general, the pattern of abuse is associated with levels of social disapproval, perceived risk, and the availability of drugs in the community. Scientists have proposed several hypotheses as to why individuals first become involved with drugs and then escalate to abuse. One explanation is a biological cause, such as having a family history of drug or alcohol abuse, which may genetically predispose a person to drug abuse. Another explanation is that starting to abuse a drug may lead to affiliation with more drug-abusing peers which, in turn, exposes the individual to other drugs. Indeed, many factors may be involved. 10Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 11National Institute on Drug Abuse Parents can use information on risk and protection to help them develop positive preventive actions (e.g. talking about family rules) before problems occur. Educators can strengthen learning and bonding to school by addressing aggressive behaviors and poor concentration—risks associated with later onset of drug abuse and related problems. Community Leaders can assess community risk and protective factors associated with drug problems to best target prevention services. COMMUNITY ACTION BOXDifferent patterns of drug initiation have been identified based on gender, race or ethnicity, and geographic location. For example, research has found that the circumstances in which young people are offered drugs can depend on gender. Boys generally receive more drug offers and at younger ages. Initial drug abuse can also be influenced by where drugs are offered, such as parks, streets, schools, homes, or parties. Additionally, drugs may be offered by different people including, for example, siblings, friends, or even parents. While most youth do not progress beyond initial use, a small percentage rapidly escalate their substance abuse. Researchers have found that these youth are the most likely to have experienced a combination of high levels of risk factors with low levels of protective factors. These adolescents were characterized by high stress, low parental support, and low academic competence. However, there are protective factors that can suppress the escalation to substance abuse. These factors include self-control, which tends to inhibit problem behavior and often increases naturally as children mature during adolescence. In addition, protective family structure, individual personality, and environmental variables can reduce the impact of serious risks of drug abuse. Preventive interventions can provide skills and support to high-risk youth to enhance levels of protective factors and prevent escalation to drug abuse. 12 Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 13National Institute on Drug Abuse Chapter 2:Planning for Drug Abuse Prevention in the Community This chapter presents a process to help communities as they plan to implement research-based prevention programs. It provides guidance on applying the prevention principles, assessing needs and community readiness, motivating the community to take action, and evaluating the impact of the programs implemented. Additional planning resources are highlighted in Selected Resources and References. How can the community develop a plan for research-based prevention? Prevention research suggests that a well-constructed community plan incorporates the characteristics outlined in the following box. Planning Process Planning usually starts with an assessment of drug abuse and other child and adolescent problems, which includes measuring the level of substance abuse in the community as well as examining the level of other community risk factors (e.g., poverty) [see section on “How can the community assess the level of risk for drug abuse?” for more details]. The results of the assessment can be used to raise community awareness of the nature and seriousness of the problem and guide the selection of programs most relevant to the community’s needs. This is an important process, whether a community is selecting a school-based prevention curriculum or planning multiple interventions that cut across the entire community. Next, an assessment of the community’s readiness for prevention can help determine additional steps that are needed to educate the community before beginning the prevention effort. Then, a review of existing programs is needed to determine gaps in addressing community needs and identifying additional resources. Finally, community planning can benefit from contributions of community organizations that provide services to youth. Convening a meeting of leaders of youth-serving organizations can aid in coordinating ideas, resources, and expertise to help implement and sustain research-based programs. Planning for implementation and sustainability requires resource development for staffing and management, long-term funding commitments, and linkages with existing delivery systems. How can the community use the prevention principles in prevention planning? Several prevention principles provide a framework for effective prevention planning and programming by presenting key concepts in implementing research- THE COMMUNITY PLAN • Identifies the specific drugs and other child and adolescent problems in a community; • Builds on existing resources (e.g., current drug abuse prevention programs); • Develops short-term goals relevant to implementation of research-based prevention programs; • Projects long-term objectives so that plans and resources are available for the future; and • Incorporates ongoing assessments to evaluate the effectiveness of prevention strategies. 12Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 13National Institute on Drug Abuse based prevention. Consider, for example, Principle 3: “Prevention programs should address the type of drug abuse problem in the local community, target modifiable risk factors, and strengthen identified protective factors.” This principle describes how the plan should reflect the reality of the drug problem in that community and, importantly, what needs to be done to address it. Community-wide efforts also can be guided by Principle 9: “Prevention programs aimed at general populations at key transition points . . . can produce beneficial effects, even among high-risk families and children.” With carefully structured programs, the community can provide services to all populations, including those at high risk, without labeling or stigmatizing them. In implementing a more specific program, such as a family program within the educational system, the principles address some of the required content areas. For instance, Principle 5 states, “Family-based prevention programs should enhance family bonding and relationships and include parenting skills; practice in developing, discussing, and enforcing family policies on substance abuse; and training in drug education and information.” The principles offer guidance for selecting or adapting effective programs that meet specific community needs. It is important to recognize, however, that not every program that seems consistent with these research-based prevention principles is necessarily effective. To be effective, programs need to incorporate the core elements identified in research (see Chapter 3). These include appropriate structure and content, adequate resources for training and materials, and other implementation requirements. For more information on resources to help communities in prevention planning and the research underlying the prevention principles, see Selected Resources and References. Principles for Prevention Planning Prevention programs should address all forms of drug abuse, alone or in combination, including the underage use of legal drugs (e.g., tobacco or alcohol); the use of illegal drugs (e.g., marijuana or heroin); and the inappropriate use of legally obtained substances (e.g., inhalants), prescription medications, or over-the-counter drugs. Prevention programs should address the type of drug abuse problem in the local community, target modifiable risk factors, and strengthen identified protective factors. Prevention programs should be tailored to address risks specific to population or audience characteristics, such as age, gender, and ethnicity, to improve program effectiveness. Prevention programs aimed at general populations at key transition points, such as the transition to middle school, can produce beneficial effects even among high-risk families and children. Such interventions do not single out risk populations and, therefore, reduce labeling and promote bonding to school and community. Community prevention programs that combine two or more effective programs, such as family- based and school-based programs, can be more effective than a single program alone. Community prevention programs reaching populations in multiple settings—for example, schools, clubs, faith-based organizations, and the media—are most effective when they present consistent, community-wide messages in each setting. Chapter 2 Principles PRINCIPLE 2 PRINCIPLE 3 PRINCIPLE 4 PRINCIPLE 9 PRINCIPLE 10 PRINCIPLE 11 14 Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 15National Institute on Drug Abuse How can the community assess the level of risk for drug abuse? To assess the level of risk of youth engaging in drug abuse, it is important to: • measure the nature and extent of drug abuse patterns and trends; • collect data on the risk and protective factors throughout the community; • understand the community’s culture and how that culture affects and is affected by drug abuse; • consult with community leaders working in drug abuse prevention, treatment, law enforcement, mental health, and related areas; • assess community awareness of the problem; and • identify existing prevention efforts already under way to address the problem. Researchers have developed many tools to assess the extent of a community’s drug problem. Most of these tools assess the nature of the problem—what drugs are available and who is abusing them. Some of them assess the extent of abuse by estimating how many people are abusing drugs. Others assess factors associated with abuse, such as juvenile delinquency, school absenteeism, and school dropout rates. Researchers have also developed instruments that assess individual risk status. It is important when beginning the assessment process to collect sufficient information to help local planners target the intervention by population and geographic area. As an example, the Communities That Care prevention operating system, developed by Hawkins and colleagues at the University of Washington (Hawkins et al. 2002), is based on epidemiological methods. An assessment is conducted to collect data on the distribution of risk and protective factors at the community level. This approach helps local planners identify geographic areas with the highest levels of risk and the lowest levels of protective resources. This analysis tool assists planners in selecting the most effective prevention interventions to address the specific risks of neighborhoods. Other data sources and measurement instruments (such as questionnaires) that can help in community planning include the following resources. • Public access data. Several large national surveys provide data to help local communities understand how their drug problems relate to the national picture. These include the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, Monitoring the Future Study, and Youth Behavior Risk Study. Information on accessing these data is provided in Selected Resources and References. • Public access questionnaires. The studies listed above and many other federally sponsored data sets make the data collection instruments available for adaptation and use by the public. Communities can conduct local studies using these instruments to collect uniform data that can often be compared with national findings. • Archival data. Data from public access files from school systems, health departments, hospital emergency rooms, law enforcement agencies, and drug abuse treatment facilities can be analyzed to identify the nature of the local drug problem and other youth problems. 14Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 15National Institute on Drug Abuse • Ethnographic studies. Ethnographic approaches use systematic, observational processes to describe behaviors in natural settings, such as studying the abuse of drugs by youth gangs, and documenting the individual perspectives of those under observation. • Other qualitative methods. Other qualitative methods, such as convening focus groups of representatives of drug-abusing subpopulations or key interviews with community officials, can be used to gain a greater understanding of the local drug abuse problem. As each of these methods has advantages and disadvantages, it is advisable, permitting resources, to use multiple strategies to assess community risk to provide the best information possible. The Community Epidemiology Work Group (CEWG), another data source pioneered in the early 1970s by NIDA and communities nationwide, is composed of researchers from 21 U.S. cities who collect or use archival data to characterize the nature of the drug problem in their locations. CEWG representatives meet with NIDA biannually to inform the Institute and fellow CEWG members of changing drug trends in their cities. The work group has developed a Guide for Community Epidemiology Surveillance Networks on Drug Abuse to help other communities use this approach to provide up-to-date information on local drug abuse problems. Using information obtained through these many sources can help community leaders make sound decisions about programs and policies. Analyzing these data before implementing new programs can also help establish a baseline for evaluating results. To be most informative, periodic assessments need to be made routinely. For more information on how communities can assess the level or risk of drug abuse in their community, see Selected Resources and References. Is the community ready for prevention? Identifying a serious level of risk in a community does not always translate into community readiness to take action. Based on studies of many small communities, researchers have identified nine stages of readiness that can guide prevention planning (Plested et al. 1999). Applying measures to assess readiness, prevention planners can then identify the critical steps needed to implement programs (see table on page 20). Although much of the research on the stages of community readiness has examined small communities, large communities find that these stages provide a structure to describe levels of awareness of drug issues in their community and readiness to embrace a prevention program. Awareness is assessed at two levels: that of the public (by examining the nature and level of drug coverage in the news) and that of officials (by determining if they have taken a position on drug abuse in the community). Community leaders can begin assessing their community’s readiness by interviewing key informants in their community. Additional planning and program sources can be found in Selected Resources and References. Web sites, contact information, and publications offer further information to guide community efforts. 16 Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 17National Institute on Drug Abuse How can the community be motivated to implement research-based prevention programs? The methods needed to motivate a community to act depend on the particular community’s stage of readiness. At lower stages of readiness, individual and small group meetings may be needed to attract support from those with great influence in the community. At higher levels of readiness, it may be possible to establish a community board or coalition of key leaders from public- and private-sector organizations. This can provide the impetus for action. Community coalitions can and do hold community- wide meetings, develop public education campaigns, present data that support the need for research-based prevention programming, and attract sponsors for comprehensive drug abuse prevention strategies. But care is needed in organizing a community-level coalition to ensure that its programming incorporates research-tested strategies and programs—at the individual, school, and community levels. Having a supportive infrastructure that includes representatives across the community can reinforce prevention messages, provide resources, and sustain prevention programming. Introducing a school-based curriculum, however, requires less community involvement, but is still a focused preventive effort. Research has shown that prevention programs can use the media to raise public awareness of the seriousness of a community’s drug problem and prevent drug abuse among specific populations. Using local data and speakers from the community demonstrates that the drug problem is real and that action is needed. Providing some of the examples of research-based programs described in Chapter 4 can help mobilize the community for change. ASSESSING READINESS*COMMUNITY ACTION Community Response Relative tolerance of drug abuse Not happening here, can’t do anything about it Awareness, but no motivation Leaders aware, some motivation Active energetic leadership and decisionmaking Data used to support prevention actions Community generally supports existing program Decisionmakers support improving or expanding programs Knowledgeable of community drug problem; expect effective solutions Ideas Create motivation. Meet with community leaders involved with drug abuse prevention; use the media to identify and talk about the problem; encourage the community to see how it relates to community issues; begin preplanning. Work together. Develop plans for prevention programming through coalitions and other community groups. Identify and implement research-based programs. Evaluate and improve ongoing programs. Institutionalize and expand programs to reach more populations. Put multicomponent programs in place for all audiences. * Plested et al. 1999. Readiness Stage 1. No awareness 2. Denial 3. Vague awareness 4. Preplanning 5. Preparation 6. Initiation 7. Stabilization 8. Confirmation/ 9. Professionalization Expansion 16Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 17National Institute on Drug Abuse How can the community assess the effectiveness of current prevention efforts? Assessing prevention efforts can be challenging for a community, given limited resources and limited access to expertise in program evaluation. Many communities begin the process with a structured review of current prevention programs to determine: a What programs are currently in place in the community? a Were strict scientific standards used to test the programs during their development? a Do the programs match community needs? a Are the programs being carried out as designed? a What percentage of at-risk youth is being reached by the program? Another evaluation approach is to track existing data over time on drug abuse among students in school, rates of truancy, school suspensions, drug- abuse arrests, and drug-related emergency room admissions. The use of the information obtained in the initial community drug abuse assessment can serve as a baseline for measuring change in long- term trends. Because the nature and extent of drug abuse problems can change with time, it is wise to periodically assess community risk and protective factors to help ensure that the programs in place appropriately address current community needs. Communities may wish to consult with State and county prevention authorities for assistance in planning and implementation efforts. Also, federally supported publications and other resources are available, as noted in Selected Resources and References. In assessing the impact of individual programs, it is important for communities to document how well the program is delivered and the level of intervention participants receive. For example, in assessing a school-based prevention program, key questions to be asked include: a Have the teachers mastered the content and interactive teaching strategies needed for the selected curriculum? a How much exposure have the students had to each content area? a Is there an assessment component? The community plan should guide actions for prevention over time. Once communities are mobilized, program implementation and sustainability require clear, measurable goals, long-term resources, sustained leadership, and community support to maintain momentum for preventive change. Continuing evaluations keep the community informed and allow for periodic reassessment of needs and goals. Parents can work with others in their community to increase awareness about the local drug abuse problem and the need for research-based prevention programs. Educators can work with others in their school and school system to review current programs, and identify research-based prevention interventions appropriate for students. Community Leaders can organize a community group to develop a community prevention plan, coordinate resources and activities, and support research-based prevention in all sectors of the community. COMMUNITY ACTION BOX 18 Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 19National Institute on Drug Abuse Chapter 3:Applying Prevention Principles to Drug Abuse Prevention Programs This chapter describes how the prevention principles have been applied to create effective family, school, and community programs. It offers information on working with risk and protective factors, adapting programs while maintaining fidelity to core elements, implementing and evaluating programs, and understanding the cost-benefits of research-based prevention. The goal is to help communities implement research-based prevention programs. How are risk and protective factors addressed in prevention programs? Risk and protective factors are the primary targets of effective prevention programs used in the family, school, and community settings. Prevention programs are usually designed to reach specific populations in their primary settings, such as reaching children at school or through recreational or after-school programs. However, in recent years it has become more common to find programs for any given target group in a variety of settings, such as holding a family-based program in a school or a church. The goal of these programs is to build new and strengthen existing protective factors and reverse or reduce modifiable risk factors in youth. Prevention programs can be described by the audience or intervention level for which they are designed: • Universal programs are designed for the general population, such as all students in a school. • Selective programs target groups at risk, or subsets of the general population such as children of drug abusers or poor school achievers. • Indicated programs are designed for people who are already experimenting with drugs. Tiered programs, such as the Adolescent Transitions Program, incorporate all three levels of intervention. Others, such as Early Risers “Skills for Success” Prevention Program, may have only two levels of intervention. Details of the programs used as examples in the following sections are provided in Chapter 4. In the Family Prevention programs can strengthen protective factors among young children by teaching parents better family communication skills, developmentally appropriate discipline styles, firm and consistent rule enforcement, and other family management skills. Parents also can be taught how to increase their emotional, social, cognitive, and material support, which includes, for example, meeting their children’s financial, transportation, health care, and homework needs. Research confirms the benefit of parents taking a more active role in their children’s lives, by talking with them about drugs, monitoring their activities, getting to know their friends, understanding their problems and concerns, providing consistent rules and discipline, and being involved in their learning and education. The importance of the parent-child relationship continues through adolescence and beyond. An example of a universal family-based program is the Strengthening Families Program For Parents and Youth, 10–14, which provides rural parents guidance on family management skills, communication, 18Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 19National Institute on Drug Abuse academic support, and parent-child relationships. Recognizing that it can be difficult to attract parents to this program, the researchers encourage participation through flexibility in scheduling and location. Offering conveniences such as babysitting, transportation, and meals make participation more practical for many rural parents, while enhancing the program’s success in reaching its goals. Another type of family program operates within a school setting. The Adolescent Transitions Program, for example, is a tiered intervention family program. All families can get involved with the universal intervention, which makes available a Family Resource Room where information on parenting is provided. The Family Check-Up, the selective level of this program, is an assessment process to identify and help families at greater risk by providing them with information and interventions specific to their needs. Families already engaged in problem behaviors and identified as needing an indicated intervention are provided more intense assistance and information tailored to their problem. Such assistance might include, for example, individual or family therapy, intensive parent coaching, therapeutic foster care, or other family-specific interventions. The uniqueness of the tiered approach is that the whole school participates in the program and all individuals or families receive the appropriate level of help without being labeled in the process. In School Prevention programs in schools focus on children’s social and academic skills, including enhancing peer relationships, self-control, coping skills, social behaviors, and drug offer refusal skills. School-based prevention programs should be integrated within the school’s own goal of enhanced academic performance. Evidence is emerging that a major risk for school failure is a child’s inability to read by the third and fourth grades (Barrera et al. 2002), and school failure is strongly associated with drug abuse. Integrated programs strengthen students’ bonding to school and reduce their likelihood of dropping out. Most prevention curricula include a normative education component designed to correct the misperception that many students are abusing drugs. Principles for Programs Family-based prevention programs should enhance family bonding and relationships and include parenting skills; practice in developing, discussing, and enforcing family policies on substance abuse; and training in drug education and information. Prevention programs can be designed to intervene as early as preschool to address risk factors for drug abuse, such as aggressive behavior, poor social skills, and academic difficulties. Prevention programs for elementary school children should target improving academic and social- emotional learning to address risk factors for drug abuse, such as early aggression, academic failure, and school dropout. Prevention programs for middle or junior high and high school students should increase academic and social competence. Prevention programs aimed at general populations at key transition points, such as the transition to middle school, can produce beneficial effects even among high-risk families and children. Such interventions do not single out risk populations and, therefore, reduce labeling and promote bonding to school and community. Community prevention programs that combine two or more effective programs, such as family- based and school-based programs, can be more effective than a single program alone. Community prevention programs reaching populations in multiple settings—for example, schools, clubs, faith-based organizations, and the media—are most effective when they present consistent, community-wide messages in each setting. Chapter 3 Principles PRINCIPLE 5 PRINCIPLE 6 PRINCIPLE 7 PRINCIPLE 8 PRINCIPLE 9 PRINCIPLE 10 PRINCIPLE 11 21National Institute on Drug AbusePreventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents20 Chapter 3 Principles Principles for Program Delivery When communities adapt programs to match their needs, community norms, or differing cultural requirements, they should retain core elements of the original research-based intervention. Prevention programs should be long-term with repeated interventions (i.e., booster programs) to reinforce the original prevention goals. Research shows that the benefits from middle school prevention programs diminish without followup programs in high school. Prevention programs should include teacher training in good classroom management practices, such as rewarding appropriate student behavior. Such techniques help to foster student’s positive behavior, achievement, academic motivation, and school bonding. Prevention programs are most effective when they employ interactive techniques, such as peer discussion groups and parent role-playing, that allow for active involvement in learning about drug abuse and reinforcing skills. Research-based prevention programs can be cost-effective. Similar to earlier research, recent research shows that for each dollar invested in prevention, a savings of up to $10 in treatment for alcohol or other substance abuse can be seen. Most research-based prevention interventions in schools include curricula that teach many of the behavioral and social skills described above. The Life Skills Training Program exemplifies universal classroom programs that are provided to middle- schoolers. The program teaches drug resistance, self-management, and general social skills in a 3-year curriculum, with the third year a booster session offered when students enter high school. The Caring School Community Program is another type of school-based intervention. This universal elementary school program focuses on establishing a “sense of community” among the classroom, school, and family settings. The community support that results helps children succeed in school and cope with stress and other problems when they occur. An indicated intervention that reaches high school students, Project Towards No Drug Abuse focuses on students who have failed to succeed in school and are engaged in drug abuse and other problem behaviors. The program seeks to rebuild students’ interest in school and their future, correct their misperceptions about drug abuse, and strengthen protective factors, including positive decisionmaking and commitment. Recent research suggests caution when grouping high-risk teens in peer group interventions for drug abuse prevention. Such groups have been shown to produce negative effects, as participants appear to reinforce substance abuse behaviors over time (Dishion et al. 2002). Research is examining how to prevent such effects, with a particular focus on the role of adults and positive peers. In the Community Prevention programs work at the community level with civic, religious, law enforcement, and other government organizations to enhance antidrug norms and prosocial behaviors. Strategies to change key aspects of the environment are often employed at the community level. These can involve instituting new policies, such as the drug-free school concept, or strengthening community practices, such as asking for proof of age to buy cigarettes. PRINCIPLE 12 PRINCIPLE 13 PRINCIPLE 14 PRINCIPLE 15 PRINCIPLE 16 21National Institute on Drug Abuse Many programs coordinate prevention efforts across settings to communicate consistent messages through school, work, religious institutions, and the media. Research has shown that programs that reach youth through multiple sources can strongly impact community norms (Chou et al. 1998). Community- based programs also typically include development of policies or enforcement of regulations, mass media efforts, and community-wide awareness programs. Examples include establishing youth curfew, having advertising restrictions, reducing the density of alcohol outlets in the community, raising cigarette prices, and creating drug-free school zones. Some carefully structured and targeted media interventions have proven to be very effective in reducing drug abuse. For example, a mass media campaign targeting sensation-seeking youth reduced marijuana abuse by 27 percent among high sensation-seeking youth (Palmgreen et al. 2001). Project STAR is an example of a multicomponent drug abuse prevention program for the community. This project tested whether a coordinated effort that encompassed schools, parents, community organizations, health policies, and the media could make a difference in preventing drug abuse among youth. Project STAR reached all children and families in the community. The middle school curriculum was the core of the program and was reinforced by homework and other activities of the parent component. Health policies and mass media components were incorporated as well. Long-term followup studies have shown significant impacts in reducing substance abuse, with benefits lasting well into participants’ adult years. What are the core elements of effective research-based prevention programs? In recent years, many research-based prevention programs have proven effective. These programs were tested with rigorous designs in diverse communities in a wide variety of settings, and with a variety of populations. The most rigorous design tests the program’s effects on a group that receives the intervention (i.e., “experimental group”) and compares results to a second group that did not receive the intervention (i.e., “control group”). As communities review prevention programs to determine which best fit their needs, the following core elements of effective research-based programs should be considered. • Structure—how each program is organized and constructed; • Content—how the information, skills, and strategies are presented; and • Delivery—how the program is selected or adapted and implemented, as well as how it is evaluated in a specific community. When adapting programs to match community characteristics, it is important to retain these core elements to ensure that the most effective aspects of the program remain intact. Core elements help build effective research-based prevention programs. Each core element contains descriptive features, which are presented in the following sections. Tables are included in each section to provide examples of how these features fit together in programs. 22 Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 23National Institute on Drug Abuse Content of Prevention Programs Program Types Community School Family Information Drug Trends Drug Effects Drug Abuse Symptoms Skills Development Social Skills Resistance Skills Parenting Skills Methods Tolerance Policies Norms Change Home Drug-Testing; Curfew Services Drug-Free Zones School Counseling and Assistance Family Therapy The setting describes where the program takes place. Prevention programs are usually designed to reach target populations in their primary setting, such as reaching children at school. It is becoming more common, however, for effective programs to be conducted in settings other than their primary setting—for example, holding a family-based program in a school or a school-based program in a youth organization such as Boys/Girls Clubs. Multicomponent programs reach populations in a variety of settings. Content Content is composed of information, skills development, methods, and services. Information can include facts about drugs and their effects, as well as drug laws and policies. Drug information alone, however, has not been found to be effective in deterring drug abuse. Combining information with skills, methods, and services produces more effective results. Programs include skills development training to build and improve behaviors in important areas, such as communication within the family, social and emotional development, academic and social competence in children, and peer resistance strategies in adolescents. Methods are oriented toward structural change, such as establishing and enforcing school rules on substance abuse, or enforcing existing laws, such as those on tobacco sales to minors. Services could include school counseling and assistance, peer counseling, family therapy, and health care. These content areas are designed to reduce modifiable risk factors and strengthen protective factors. The table below describes the type of content included in programs. Structure Structure addresses program type, audience, and setting. Several program types have been shown to be effective in preventing drug abuse. School- based programs, the first to be fully developed and tested, have become the primary approach for reaching all children. Family-based programs have proven effective in reaching both children and their parents in a variety of settings. Media and computer technology programs are beginning to demonstrate effectiveness in reaching people at the community level as well as the individual level. Research also shows that combining two or more effective programs, such as family and school programs, can be even more effective than a single program alone. These are called multicomponent programs. The following examples illustrate program structure: Within these categories, programs have been designed to specifically target the needs of a particular audience, such as an indicated prevention program for high- risk boys. Examples of other subcategories would include urban or rural populations, racial and ethnic minorities, and different age groups. Researchers are testing how to modify effective programs to best address such audience differences. Structure of Prevention Programs Program Type Audience Setting Community(Universal) School(Selective) Family(Indicated) All Youth Middle School Students High-RiskYouth and Their Families Billboards After-School Clinic 22Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 23National Institute on Drug Abuse Delivery Delivery includes program selection or adaptation and implementation. The following table describes various delivery approaches. During the selection process, communities match effective research-based programs to their community needs. In Chapter 2, it was suggested that communities conduct a structured review of existing programs to determine what gaps remain, given risk and protective factors in the community and the community’s drug problems and needs. This information can then be incorporated into the community plan, which guides the selection of new research-based programs. For initial guidance to aid the selection process, communities can refer to the description of programs in several categories found in Chapter 4. Additional planning and program resources can be found in Selected Resources and References, which offers Web sites, contact information, and publications to guide community efforts. Adaptation involves shaping a program to fit the needs of a specific population in various settings. Scientists have been exploring how best to culturally adapt effective programs to a specific environment (such as a rural environment) and population (only boys, for example). In the process of adaptation, the program’s core elements are maintained to ensure the effectiveness of the intervention, while addressing the community’s needs. Several research-based adapted programs are now available, such as the Life Skills Training Program for inner-city minority youth. For programs that have not yet been adapted and studied in a research protocol, it is best to implement the program as designed to ensure the most effective outcomes. Implementation refers to how the program is delivered, including the number of sessions, methods used, and program followup. Research has found that how a program is implemented can determine its effectiveness in preventing drug abuse. Use of interactive methods and appropriate booster sessions helps to reinforce earlier program content and skills to maintain program benefits. Delivery of Prevention Programs Program Type Community School Family Program Selection or Adaptation Spanish-Speaking Population Gender Rural Implementation Features Consistent Multimedia Messages Booster Sessions Recruitment/Retention 24 Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 25National Institute on Drug Abuse How can the community evaluate the impact of its program on drug abuse? Conducting evaluations of community prevention programs can be challenging. Many community leaders have consulted with university faculty members and other local and State evaluation experts to assist in designing and implementing evaluation procedures. Ensuring appropriate evaluation design is important because errors can result in findings that do not show a clear relationship between the program and the outcomes. Were the results truly attributable to the program’s effects and not some other source, such as other community events or the maturation of the target groups? An evaluation should identify what was accomplished in the program, how it was carried out, and its effects. To ensure a thorough evaluation, the program implementer and staff should assess ongoing adherence to program elements. Keeping records of content delivered, session attendance, content feedback quizzes, and independent observations of implementation fidelity can help monitor the effectiveness of program implementation and provide key information on why a program is or is not achieving its intended effects. How can the community implement and sustain effective prevention programs? After considering risk and protective factors within the community and selecting and adapting prevention programs to address those risks, the community must begin to implement those programs. In many communities, coalitions formed during the community planning process remain involved in overseeing program implementation. They continue to review progress toward goals and objectives set out in the community plan. Responsibility for actual implementation, however, generally resides within the local public or private community-based organization in the educational, social service, or other local system implementing the programs. To ensure effective implementation, research-based school and family programs often require extensive human and financial resources and a serious commitment to training and technical assistance. In addition to resources, special attention is needed to attract and keep program participants interested and involved in the programs. This is especially important when involving families in rural and poverty settings. Research has shown that extra effort in providing incentives, maximal schedule flexibility, minimal time demands, free meals, transportation, baby-sitting, personal contact, and endorsement from important community leaders all help to attract and retain program participants. In short, how a program is delivered to specific audiences is critical to its success. 24Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 25National Institute on Drug Abuse Parents can work with others in the community to use the prevention principles in selecting drug abuse programs. Educators can incorporate research-based content and delivery into their regular classroom curricula. Community Leaders can work with evaluation experts to evaluate program progress and develop improvements in outcomes. COMMUNITY ACTION BOX Evaluation pitfalls can be avoided by consulting with experts who can guide the evaluation design by: • using tested data-collection instruments; • obtaining good baseline, or preintervention, information; • using control or comparison groups who did not receive the intervention, but whose characteristics are similar to those who did receive it; • monitoring the quality of program implementation; • ensuring that postintervention followup includes a large percentage of the target population; and • using appropriate statistical methods to analyze the data. In addition to assessing program impact, evaluation is an ongoing process that can provide guidance on maintaining the program’s responsiveness to changing community needs. The evaluation process needs to answer questions about the program and its outcomes, including: a What was accomplished in the program? a How was the program carried out? a Who participated in it? a How much of the program was received by participants? a Is there a connection between the amount of program received and outcomes? a Was the program implemented as intended? a Did the program achieve what was expected in the short term? a Did the program produce the desired long-term effects? What are the cost-benefits of community prevention programs? Research has demonstrated that preventing substance abuse and other problem behaviors can have a net benefit after accounting for costs. In a recent study, Spoth and associates (2002a) performed cost-effectiveness and benefit-cost analyses on data from two long-term interventions already shown to be effective in preventing substance abuse: Iowa Strengthening Families Program (ISFP; now called The Strengthening Families Program: For Parents and Youth 10–14), and Preparing for the Drug-Free Years (PDFY; now called Guiding Good Choices). Both interventions were found to have net benefits by preventing adult cases of alcohol abuse and thus saving future costs for alcohol abuse treatment. Benefit-to-cost ratios were $9.60 for each dollar invested in prevention for the ISFP group, and $5.85 per dollar invested in prevention for the PDFY group. For each family in the ISFP condition, there was a benefit of $5,923; and the PDFY condition resulted in a benefit of $2,697 per family. In addition, an analysis of the Skills, Opportunity, And Recognition (SOAR) program had a benefit-to-cost ratio of $4.25 for every dollar spent (Hawkins et al. 1999; Aos et al. 2001). An earlier study (Pentz 1998) found that for every dollar spent on drug abuse prevention, communities could save from $4 to $5 in costs for drug abuse treatment and counseling. 26 Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 27National Institute on Drug Abuse Universal Programs Elementary School Caring School Community Program (Formerly, Child Development Project) (Battistich et al. 1997; U.S. Department of Education 2001). This is a universal family-plus-school program to reduce risk and bolster protective factors among elementary school children. The program focuses on strengthening students’ “sense of community,” or connection, to school. Research has shown that this sense of community has been pivotal to reducing drug use, violence, and mental health problems, while promoting academic motivation and achievement. The program consists of a set of mutually reinforcing classroom, school, and family involvement approaches. These promote positive peer, teacher-student, and home- school relationships and the development of social, emotional, and character-related skills. The program provides detailed instructional and implementation materials and accompanying staff development. Contact for Materials and Research: Eric Schaps, Ph.D. Caring School Community Program Developmental Studies Center 2000 Embarcadero, Suite 305 Oakland, CA 94606-5300 Phone: 510-533-0213 Fax: 510-464-3670 E-mail: Eric_Schaps@devstu.org Web site: www.devstu.org Chapter 4:Examples of Research-Based Drug Abuse Prevention Programs To help those working in drug abuse prevention, NIDA, in cooperation with prevention scientists, presents the following examples of research-based programs that use a variety of strategies proven effective in preventing drug abuse. Each program was developed as part of a research protocol in which an intervention group and a comparison group were matched on important characteristics, such as age, grade in school, parents’ level of education, family income, community size, and risk and protective factors. The interventions were tested in a family, school, or community setting, all with positive results. Prevention research continues to identify effective programs and strategies, thus this list is not meant to be exhaustive. Many of these research-based programs include approaches to identifying early risk factors and addressing them long before a child encounters substance abuse. Whether the intervention focuses on improving teachers’ skills in classroom management and academic support or on parents’ communication skills, early positive support can reduce risks and increase protection. Also, recent research is focused on adapting interventions to address specific risks by gender, ethnic or racial identification, and geographic settings to improve the effectiveness of programs for specific audiences. The programs are presented within their audience category (universal, selective, indicated, or tiered) and for whom they are designed (elementary, middle, or high school students). Since these programs are only examples, community planners may wish to explore additional programs and planning resources, which are highlighted in Selected Resources and References. With NIDA’s continued support of research on effective prevention strategies at all levels of prevention, new research-based programs will continue to be made available in the future. 26Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 27National Institute on Drug Abuse Classroom-Centered (CC) and Family-School Partnership (FSP) Intervention (Ialongo et al. 2001). The CC and FSP interventions are multicomponent, universal first-grade interventions to reduce later onset of violence and aggressive behavior and to improve academic performance. The CC intervention combines two effective classroom programs, the “Good Behavior Game” and “Mastery Learning,” and includes classroom management and organizational strategies, as well as reading and mathematics curricula. The CC intervention also focuses on enhancing teachers’ behavior management and instructional skills. The FSP intervention targets the same risk factors of aggression and learning problems, but directly involves parents. It seeks to improve parent-teacher communication, parental teaching, and children’s behavior management strategies in the home. Findings show that sixth-graders exposed to the CC intervention in first grade had significantly reduced their aggressive behavior, as compared with control students. Contact for Materials and Research: Nicholas Ialongo, Ph.D. Department of Mental Health Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Johns Hopkins University 624 N. Broadway Baltimore, MD 21205 Phone: 410-550-3441 Fax: 410-550-3461 E-mail: nialongo@jhsph.edu Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) (Greenberg and Kusché 1998). PATHS is a comprehensive program for promoting emotional health and social competencies and reducing aggression and behavior problems in elementary school children, while enhancing the educational process in the classroom. This K–5 curriculum is designed for use by educators and counselors in a multiyear, universal prevention model. Although primarily for use in school and classrooms, information and activities are also included for use with parents. PATHS has been shown to improve protective factors and reduce behavioral risk factors that impact youth problem behaviors. Studies report reduced aggressive behaviors, increased self-control, and an improved ability to tolerate frustration and use conflict- resolution strategies. Contact for Materials: Channing Bete Company One Community Place South Deerfield, MA 01373-0200 Phone: 877-896-8532 Fax: 800-499-6464 E-mail: PrevSci@channing-bete.com Web site: www.channing-bete.com Contact for Research: Mark T. Greenberg, Ph.D. Prevention Research Center Pennsylvania State University 110 Henderson Building-South University Park, PA 16802-6504 Phone: 814-863-0112 Fax: 814-865-2530 E-mail: mxg47@psu.edu Web site: www.prevention.psu.edu/PATHS Contact for Training: PATHS Training, LLC Carol A. Kusché, Ph.D. 927 10th Avenue E. Seattle, WA 98102 Phone and Fax: 206-323-6688 E-mail: ckusche@attglobal.ne Skills, Opportunity, And Recognition (SOAR) (Formerly, Seattle Social Development Program) (Lonczak et al. 2002; U.S. Department of Education 2001; Hawkins et al. 1999). This universal school- based intervention for grades one through six seeks to reduce childhood risks for delinquency and drug abuse by enhancing protective factors. The multicomponent intervention combines training for teachers, parents, and children during the elementary grades to promote children’s bonding to school, positive school behavior, and academic achievement. These strategies are designed to enhance opportunities, skills, and rewards for children’s prosocial involvement in school and their families. 28 Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 29National Institute on Drug Abuse Long-term followup results show positive outcomes for participants, including reduced antisocial behavior, misbehavior, alienation and teen pregnancy, and improved academic skills, commitment to school, and positive relationships with people. Contact for Materials: Channing Bete Company One Community Place South Deerfield, MA 01373-0200 Phone: 877-896-8532 Fax: 800-499-6464 E-mail: PrevSci@channing-bete.com Web site: www.channing-bete.com Contact for Research: J. David Hawkins, Ph.D. Social Development Research Group University of Washington 9725 Third Avenue NE, Suite 401 Seattle, WA 98115 Phone: 206-543-7655 Fax: 206-543-4507 E-mail: jdh@u.washington.edu Web site: www.depts.washington.edu/sdrg Middle School Guiding Good Choices (GGC) (Formerly, Preparing for the Drug-Free Years) (Hawkins et al. 1999; Kosterman et al. 1997; U.S. Department of Education 2001; Spoth et al. 2002b). This curriculum was first researched as part of the Seattle Social Development Project at the University of Washington to educate parents on how to reduce risk factors and strengthen bonding in their families. In five 2-hour sessions, parents are shown how to (1) create age-appropriate opportunities for family involvement and interaction; (2) set clear expectations, monitor children, and apply discipline; (3) teach their children peer coping strategies; (4) adopt family conflict management approaches; and (5) express positive feelings to enhance family bonding. Dr. Richard Spoth of Iowa State University independently tested this intervention for rural parents and found the program to be effective in inhibiting alcohol and marijuana use. Special efforts were made to ensure recruitment and retention of study participants. Contact for Research: J. David Hawkins, Ph.D. Social Development Research Group University of Washington 9725 Third Avenue NE, Suite 401 Seattle, WA 98115 Phone: 206-543-7655 Fax: 206-543-4507 E-mail: jdh@u.washington.edu Web site: www.depts.washington.edu/sdrg Contact for Materials: Channing Bete Company One Community Place South Deerfield, MA 01373-0200 Phone: 877-896-8532 Fax: 800-499-6464 E-mail: PrevSci@channing-bete.com Web site: www.channing-bete.com Life Skills Training (LST) Program (Botvin et al. 1995, 1997, 2003; U.S. Department of Education 2001). LST is designed to address a wide range of risk and protective factors by teaching general personal and social skills, along with drug resistance skills and normative education. This universal program consists of a 3-year prevention curriculum for students in middle or junior high school. LST contains 15 sessions during the first year, 10 booster sessions during the second, and 5 sessions during the third year. The program can be taught either in grades 6, 7, and 8 (for middle school) or grades 7, 8, and 9 (for junior high schools). LST covers three major content areas: (1) drug resistance skills and information, (2) self-management skills, and (3) general social skills. The program has been extensively tested over the past 20 years and found to reduce the prevalence of tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drug use relative to controls by 50 to 87 percent. When combined with booster sessions, LST was shown to reduce the prevalence of substance abuse long term by as much as 66 percent, with benefits still in place beyond the high school years. Although LST was originally tested predominantly with White youth, several studies have shown that the LST program is also effective 28Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 29National Institute on Drug Abuse with inner-city minority youth. Moreover, an age-appropriate version of the LST program for upper elementary school students was recently developed and shown to reduce tobacco and alcohol use (Botvin et al. 2003). It contains 24 classes (8 classes per year) to be taught during either grades 3 to 5 or 4 to 6. Contact for Materials and Training: National Health Promotion Associates, Inc. Life Skills Training 711 Westchester Avenue White Plains, NY 10604 Phone: 914-421-2525 Fax: 914-683-6998 E-mail: LSTinfo@nhpanet.com Web site: www.lifeskillstraining.com Contact for Research: Gilbert Botvin, Ph.D. Institute for Prevention Research Weill Medical College of Cornell University 411 East 69th Street, Room 203 New York, NY 10021 Phone: 212-746-1270 Fax: 212-746-8390 E-mail: gjbotvin@.med.cornell.edu Lions-Quest Skills for Adolescence (SFA) (Eisen et al. 2002; U.S. Department of Education 2001). SFA is a commercially available, universal, life skills education program in use in schools nationwide. A rigorous school-based trial of SFA funded by a NIDA research grant compared the effectiveness of SFA delivered in sixth grade with “standard” drug prevention programs in preventing or delaying the onset of students’ tobacco, alcohol, and illegal substance use through middle school. The 40-session version of SFA tested includes social influence and social cognitive approaches to teaching cognitive-behavioral skills for building self-esteem and personal responsibility, communicating effectively, making better decisions, resisting social influences and asserting rights, and increasing drug use knowledge and consequences (Quest International, 3rd edition 1992.) Some of the results after 1 year indicate that exposure to the program can help deter initiation of regular cigarette smoking and marijuana use; these results held across all racial/ethnic groups studied. Additional findings after 2 years indicate lower initiation and regular marijuana use across all groups, as well as lower binge drinking rates among Hispanic students. Contact for Materials: Greg Long Lions-Quest 1984-B Coffman Road Newark, OH 43055 Phone: 740-522-6405 or 800-446-2700 Fax: 740-522-6580 E-mail: info@lions-quest.org Web site: www.lions-quest.org Contact for Research: Marvin Eisen, Ph.D. Population Studies Center The Urban Institute 2100 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20037 Phone: 202-261-5858 Fax: 202-452-1840 E-mail: meisen@ui.urban.org Project ALERT (U.S. Department of Education 2001). This drug prevention curriculum is a 2-year, universal program for middle school students that reduces the onset and regular use of substances among youth. The 14-lesson program is designed to prevent drug use initiation and the transition to regular use. It focuses on substances that adolescents typically use first and most widely—alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and inhalants. Project ALERT uses participatory activities and videos to help students establish nondrug norms, develop reasons not to use, and resist prodrug pressures. The program has prevented marijuana use initiation, decreased current and heavy smoking, curbed alcohol misuse, reduced prodrug attitudes and beliefs, and helped smokers quit. The program has proven successful with high- and low-risk youth from a variety of communities. Contact for Materials: G. Bridget Ryan Project ALERT 725 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 970 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 800-253-7810 Fax: 213-623-0585 E-mail: info@projectalert.best.org Web site: www.projectalert.best.org 30 Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 31National Institute on Drug Abuse Contact for Research: Phyllis L. Ellickson, Ph.D. Director, Center for Research on Maternal, Child, and Adolescent Health The RAND Corporation 1700 Main Street P.O. Box 2138 Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 Phone: 310-393-0411 Fax: 310-451-7062 E-mail: Phyllis_ellickson@rand.org Web site: www.rand.org Project STAR (Chou et al. 1998; U.S. Department of Education 2001). Project STAR is a comprehensive drug abuse prevention community program with components for schools, parents, community organizations, and health policymakers. An additional component targets mass media to encourage publicizing positive efforts for drug prevention. The middle school component is a social influence curriculum that is incorporated into classroom instruction by trained teachers over a 2-year timetable. In the parent program, parents work with children on homework, learn family communication skills, and get involved in community action. Strategies range from individual-level change, such as teaching youth drug resistance skills, to school and community-change, including limiting youth access to alcohol or drugs. Long-term followup studies showed significant reductions in drug use among participants, when compared with adolescents in the community who had not received prevention intervention. Contact for Materials and Research: Karen Bernstein, M.P.H. University of Southern California Institute for Prevention Research 1000 S. Fremont Avenue, Unit #8 Alhambra, CA 91803 Phone: 626-457-6687 Fax: 626-457-6695 E-mail: Karenber@usc.edu The Strengthening Families Program: For Parents and Youth 10–14 (SFP 10–4) (Formerly, the Iowa Strengthening Families Program) (Spoth, Redmond, and Shin 2000, 2001). This program offers seven sessions, each attended by youth and their parents. Program implementation and evaluation have been conducted through partnerships that include state university researchers, Cooperative Extension System staff, local schools, and community implementers. Longitudinal study of comparisons with control group families showed positive effects on parents’ child management practices (for example, setting standards, monitoring children, and applying consistent discipline) and on parent-child affective quality. In addition, a recent evaluation found delayed initiation of substance use at the 6-year followup. Other findings showed improved youth resistance to peer pressure to use alcohol, reduced affiliation with antisocial peers, and reduced levels of problem behaviors. Importantly, conservative benefit- cost calculations indicate returns of $9.60 per dollar invested in SFP. Contact for Materials and Research: Virginia Molgaard, Ph.D. Prevention Program Development The Strengthening Families Program: For Parents and Youth 10–14 Institute for Social and Behavioral Research Iowa State University 2625 North Loop Drive, Suite 500 Ames, IA 50010-8296 Phone: 515-294-8762 Fax: 515-294-3613 E-mail: vmolgaar@iastate.edu Web site: www.extension.iastate.edu/sfp/ Contact for Research and Evaluation Information: Richard Spoth, Ph.D. c/o Pandora Lamar Institute for Social and Behavioral Research Iowa State University 2625 North Loop Drive, Suite 500 Ames, IA 50010-8296 Phone: 515-294-5383 Fax: 515-294-3613 E-mail: rlspoth@iastate.edu; cc: plamar@iastate.edu Web site: www.projectfamily.isbr.iastate.edu 30Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 31National Institute on Drug Abuse High School Life Skills Training: Booster Program. The 3-year LST universal classroom program contains 15 booster sessions during the first year, 10 during the second, and 5 during the third year. See the Life Skills Training description above for background and contact information. Lions-Quest Skills for Adolescence. (Eisen 2002; U.S. Department of Education 2001). See description above for background and contact information. Project ALERT Plus. An enhanced version of Project ALERT has been added as a high school component and is being tested in 45 rural communities. See the Project ALERT description above for background and contact information. The Strengthening Families Program: For Parents and Youth 10–14. (Formerly, the Iowa Strengthening Families Program). See description above for background and contact information. Selective Programs Elementary School Focus on Families (FOF) (Catalano et al. 1999, 2002). A selective program for parents receiving methadone treatment and their children, FOF seeks to reduce parents’ use of illegal drugs by teaching them skills for relapse prevention and coping. Parents are also taught how to better manage their families to reduce their children’s risk for future drug abuse. The parent training consists of a 5-hour family retreat and 32 parent training sessions of 1.5 hours each. Children attend 12 of the sessions to practice developmentally appropriate skills with their parents. Results from an experimental evaluation of FOF found positive program effects on parents at the 1-year followup, especially in parenting skills, rule-setting, domestic conflict, drug refusal skills, and drug use. At the 1-year assessment, significantly fewer children in the experimental condition reported having stolen something in the previous 6 months. After 2 years of family skills training, positive effects were still evident in parents’ drug refusal skills, and positive effects had emerged in parent problemsolving skills in general situations. No statistically significant differences in drug use were found between those in experimental versus control conditions, although the direction of difference still favored experimental par- ticipants. Importantly, the strength of program effects on children was substantially stronger at the 2-year followup. Note that the direction of differences on all primary child outcome measures were stronger at the second-year assessment than at the end of the first year. These findings suggest that interventions to prevent relapse among parents and substance abuse among their children may produce immediate, as well as delayed, or “sleeper” effects on targeted risk and protective factors and substance use. The promise of the FOF program is evident in the early reduction in family-related risk factors—particularly for very high-risk families—with an overall trend toward positive program effects on child outcomes. Contact for Materials and Research: Richard F. Catalano, Ph.D. Social Development Research Group 9725 Third Avenue, NE, Suite 401 University of Washington Seattle, WA 98115 Phone: 206-543-6382 Fax: 206-543-4507 E-mail: catalano@u.washington.edu Web site: depts.washington.edu/sdrg 32 Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 33National Institute on Drug Abuse The Strengthening Families Program (SFP) (Kumpfer et al. 1996, 2002). SFP, a universal and selective multicomponent, family-focused prevention program, provides support for families with 6- to 11-year-olds. The program began as an effort to help drug-abusing parents improve their parenting skills and reduce their children’s risk for subsequent problems. It has shown success in elementary schools and communities. Strengthening Families has three components: a behavioral parent training program, children’s skills training program, and family skills training program. In each of the 14 weekly sessions, parents and children are trained separately in the first hour. During the second hour, parents and children come together in the family skills training portion. The session begins with families sharing dinner. Barriers to attendance are reduced by providing child care, transportation, and small incentives. This approach has been evaluated in a variety of settings and with several racial and ethnic groups. Spanish- language manuals are available. Primary outcomes include reduced family conflict, youth conduct disorders, aggressiveness, and substance abuse, as well as improved youth social skills, parenting skills, and family communication and organization. Contact for Materials and Research: Karol Kumpfer, Ph.D. University of Utah Department of Health Promotion 300 S. 1850 E. Room 215 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0920 Phone: 801-581-7718 Fax: 801-581-5872 E-mail: karol.kumpfer@health.utah.edu Web site: www.strengtheningfamiliesprogram.org Contact for Training: Henry O. Whiteside, Ph.D. Lutragroup 5215 Pioneer Fork Road Salt Lake City, UT 84108-1678 Phone: 801-583-4601 Fax: 801-583-7979 E-mail: hwhiteside@lutragroup.com Middle School Coping Power (Lochman and Wells 2002). Coping Power is a multicomponent child and parent preventive intervention directed at preadolescent children at high risk for aggressiveness and later drug abuse and delinquency. The child component is derived from an anger coping program, primarily tested with highly aggressive boys and shown to reduce substance use. The Coping Power Child Component is a 16-month program for fifth- and sixth-graders. Group sessions usually occur before or after school or during nonacademic periods. Training focuses on teaching children how to identify and cope with anxiety and anger; controlling impulsiveness; and developing social, academic, and problemsolving skills at school and home. Parents are also provided training throughout the program. Results indicate that the intervention produced relatively lower rates of substance use at postintervention than seen among the controls. Also, children of families receiving the Coping Power child and parent components significantly reduced aggressive behavior, as rated by parents and teachers. Contact for Materials and Research: John E. Lochman, Ph.D. Department of Psychology University of Alabama P.O. Box 870348 Tuscaloosa, AL 35487 Phone: 205-348-7678 Fax: 205-348-8648 E-mail: jlochman@gp.as.ua.edu 32Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 33National Institute on Drug Abuse High School Adolescents Training and Learning to Avoid Steroids (ATLAS) (Goldberg et al. 2000). ATLAS is a multicomponent selective program for male high school athletes, designed to reduce risk factors for use of anabolic steroids and other drugs, while providing healthy sports nutrition and strength-training alternatives to illicit use of athletic-enhancing substances. Coaches and peer teammates facilitate curriculum delivery with scripted manuals in small cooperative learning groups, taking advantage of an influential coaching staff and the team atmosphere where peers share common goals. Seven 45-minute classroom sessions and seven physical training periods involve role-playing, student-created campaigns, and educational games. Instructional aids include pocket-sized food and exercise guides and easy-to- follow student workbooks. Parents are involved through parent-student homework and are given the booklet, Family Guide to Sports Nutrition. Attitudes and alcohol and illicit drug use, as well as nutrition behaviors and exercise self-efficacy, remained significantly healthier among ATLAS program participants at a 1-year followup. Contact for Materials: Division of Health Promotion and Sports Medicine Oregon Health & Science University Phone: 503-494-7900 Web site: www.ohsu.edu/som-hpsm/atlas.html Contact for Research: Linn Goldberg, M.D., FACSM Division of Health Promotion and Sports Medicine Oregon Health & Science University 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road Portland, OR 97201-3098 Phone: 503-494-8051 Fax: 503-494-1310 E-mail: goldberl@ohsu.edu Web site: www.atlasprogram.com Indicated Programs High School Project Towards No Drug Abuse (Project TND) (Sussman et al. 2002). This indicated prevention intervention targets high school age youth who attend alternative or traditional high schools. The goal is to prevent the transition from drug use to drug abuse, considering the developmental issues faced by older teens, particularly those at risk for drug abuse. At the core of Project TND is a set of 12 in-class sessions that provide motivation and cognitive misperception correction, social and self- control skills, and decisionmaking material targeting the use of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and hard drugs and violence-related behavior, such as carrying a weapon. The classroom program has been found to be effective at 1-year followup across three true experimental field trials. The 12-session version is effective across outcome variables, and many effects are maintained at 2-year followup. Contact for Materials and Research: Steve Sussman, Ph.D., FAAHB Institute for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research Departments of Preventive Medicine and Psychology University of Southern California 1000 S. Fremont Avenue, Unit 8 Building A-4, Room 4124 Alhambra, CA 91803 Phone: 626-457-6635 Fax: 626-457-4012 E-mail: ssussma@hsc.usc.edu Reconnecting Youth Program (RY) (Eggert et al. 1995, 2001; Thompson et al. 1997). RY is a school- based indicated prevention program for high school students with poor school achievement and potential for dropping out. Participants may also show signs of multiple problem behaviors, such as substance abuse, depression, aggression, or suicidal behaviors. Students are screened for eligibility and then invited to participate in the program. The program goals are to increase school performance, reduce drug use, and 34 Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 35National Institute on Drug Abuse learn skills to manage mood and emotions. RY blends small group work (10–12 students per class) to foster positive peer bonding, with social skills training in a daily, semester-long class. RY skills, taught by an RY specially trained teacher or group leader, include self-esteem enhancement, decisionmaking, personal control, and interpersonal communication. Early experiments have shown that participation in RY improved school performance (20-percent increase in GPA), decreased school dropout, reduced hard drug use (by 60 percent), and decreased drug use control problems, such as adverse consequences and progression to heavier drug use. Recent studies of a refined RY program model (with skills training on depression and anger management and increased monitoring of drug use) have found greater decreases in hard drug use, depression, perceived stress, and anger control problems. Contact for Materials: Reconnecting Youth: A Peer Group Approach to Building Life Skills (Revised Edition) National Educational Service 304 West Kirkwood Avenue, Suite 2 Bloomington, IN 47404 Phone: 800-733-6786 or 812-336-7790 Fax: 812-336-7790 E-mail: nes@nesonline.com Web site: www.nesonline.com Contact for Research and Program Evaluation: Jerald R. Herting, Ph.D. Reconnecting Youth Prevention Research Program Psychosocial and Community Health University of Washington School of Nursing 9709 Third Avenue NE, Suite 510 Seattle, WA 98115 Phone: 206-543-3810 or 206-616-6478 Fax: 206-221-3674 E-mail: herting@u.washington.edu Web site: www.son.washington.edu/department/pch/ry Contact for Training: Leona L. Eggert or Liela J. Nicholas, Program Developers Reconnecting Youth Prevention Programs Phone: 425-861-1177 Fax: 425-861-8071 E-mail: RYprog@verizon.net Tiered Programs Elementary School Early Risers “Skills for Success” Risk Prevention Program (August et al. 2001; August et al. 2002; August et al., in press). Early Risers is a selective, multicomponent, preventive intervention for children at heightened risk for early onset of serious conduct problems, including licit and illicit drug use. The program’s focus is on elementary school children with early aggressive behavior. It is designed to deflect children from the “early starter” developmental pathway toward normal development by effecting positive change in academic competence, behavioral self-regulation, social competence, and parent investment in the child. Early Risers has two broad components: CORE, a set of child-focused intervention components delivered continuously in school and over the summer for 2 or 3 years, implemented in tandem with FLEX, a family support and empowerment component tailored to meet family-specific needs and delivery through home visits. Recent findings reveal that program participants showed greater gains in social skills, peer reputation, prosocial friendship selection, academic achievement, and parent discipline than did controls. Contact for Materials and Research: Gerald J. August, Ph.D. Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry University of Minnesota Medical School P256/2B West, 2450 Riverside Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55454-1495 Phone: 612-273-9711 Fax: 612-273-9779 E-mail: augus001@tc.umn.edu Fast Track Prevention Trial for Conduct Problems (Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group 2002c). Fast Track is a comprehensive preventive intervention for young children at high risk for long-term antisocial behavior. Based on a developmental model, the intervention includes a universal classroom program (adapted from the PATHS curriculum) for high-risk children selected in kindergarten; it also includes training for parents. Children receive social skills training, academic tutoring, and home visits to improve 34Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 35National Institute on Drug Abuse academic and social competencies and reduce problems. In first grade, the classroom intervention builds skills in (1) emotional understanding and communication, (2) friendship, (3) self-control, and (4) social problemsolving. The selective intervention reaches parents and children at higher risk for conduct problems. Parenting strategies provide skills to support school adjustment, improve the child’s behavior, build parents’ self-control, promote appropriate expectations for the child’s behavior, and improve parent-child interaction. By the end of third grade, 37 percent of the intervention group were free of serious conduct problems, compared with 27 percent of the control group. Contact for Materials and Research: Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group Karen L. Bierman, Ph.D. Pennsylvania State University Prevention Research Center 110 Henderson-Building South University Park, PA 16802-6504 Phone: 814-865-3879 Fax: 814-865-3246 E-mail: prevention@psu.edu Middle School Adolescent Transitions Program (ATP) (Dishion et al. 2002). ATP is a school-based program that uses a tiered approach to provide prevention services to students in middle and junior high school and their parents. The universal intervention level, directed to parents of all students in a school, establishes a Family Resource Room to engage parents, establish norms for parenting practices, and disseminate information about risks for problem behavior and substance use. The selective intervention level, the Family Check-Up, offers family assessment and professional support to identify families at risk for problem behavior and substance use. The indicated level, the Parent Focus curriculum, provides direct professional support to parents to make the changes indicated by the Family Check-Up. Services may include behavioral family therapy, parenting groups, or case management services. Contact for Materials and Research: Thomas J. Dishion, Ph.D. University of Oregon Child and Family Center 195 West 12th Avenue Eugene, OR 97401 Phone: 541-346-4805 Fax: 541-346-4858 36 Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 37National Institute on Drug Abuse Chapter 5:Selected Resources and References Below are resources relevant to drug abuse prevention. Information on NIDA’s Web site is followed by Web sites for other Federal agencies and private organizations. These resources and the selected references that follow are excellent sources of information in helping communities plan and implement research-based drug prevention programs. Selected Resources National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) National Institutes of Health (NIH) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) NIDA’s Web site (www.drugabuse.gov) provides factual information on all aspects of drug abuse, particularly the effects of drugs on the brain and body, the prevention of drug abuse among children and adolescents, the latest research on treatment for addiction, and statistics on the extent of drug abuse in the United States. The Web site allows visitors to print or order publications, public service announcements and posters, science education curricula, research reports and fact sheets on specific drugs or classes of drugs, and the NIDA NOTES newsletter. The site also links to related Web sites in the public and private sector. Other Federal Resources Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP) Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), DHHS 5600 Fishers Lane Rockwall 2, 9th Floor, Suite 900 Rockville, MD 20857 Phone: 301-443-9110 www.prevention.samhsa.gov Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), DHHS 1600 Clifton Road Atlanta, GA 30333 Phone: 404-639-3534 Phone: 800-311-3435 (toll-free) www.cdc.gov Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program U.S. Department of Education (DoE) 400 Maryland Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20202 Phone: 800-872-5327 (toll-free) www.ed.gov Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) 2401 Jefferson Davis Highway Alexandria, VA 22301 Phone: 202-307-1000 www.dea.gov Knowledge Exchange Network, SAMHSA, DHHS P.O. Box 42490 Washington, DC 20015 Phone: 800-789-2647 (toll-free) www.mentalhealth.org 36Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 37National Institute on Drug Abuse National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information (NCADI), SAMHSA, DHHS Phone: 800-729-6686 (toll-free) www.ncadi.samhsa.gov National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), NIH, DHHS 6000 Executive Boulevard, Willco Building Bethesda, MD 20892 Phone: 301-443-3860 www.niaaa.nih.gov National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), NIH, DHHS 6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 8184, MSC 9663 Bethesda, MD 20892 Phone: 301-443-4513 www.nimh.nih.gov National Institutes of Health (NIH), DHHS 9000 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20892 Phone: 301-496-4000 www.nih.gov National Library of Medicine (NLM), NIH, DHHS 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Phone: 301-594-5983 Phone: 888-346-3656 (toll-free) www.nlm.nih.gov Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), DOJ 810 Seventh Street Washington, DC 20531 Phone: 202-307-5911 www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/substance.html Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) P.O. Box 6000 Rockville, MD 20849 Phone: 800-666-3332 (toll-free) www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), DHHS 5600 Fishers Lane Rockville, MD 20857 Phone: 301-443-8956 www.samhsa.gov Other Selected Resources American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) 3615 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20016 Phone: 202-966-7300 www.aacap.org American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP): KidsHealth 11400 Tomahawk Creek Parkway Leawood, KS 66211 www.familydoctor.org American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 141 Northwest Point Boulevard Elk Grove, IL 60007-1098 Phone: 847-434-4000 www.aap.org American Psychological Association (APA) 750 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20002 Phone: 800-374-2121 (toll-free) Phone: 202-336-5510 www.apa.org American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) 4601 North Park Avenue, Arcade Suite 101 Chevy Chase, MD 20815 Phone: 301-656-3920 www.asam.org Blueprints for Violence Prevention, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence Institute on Behavioral Science University of Colorado at Boulder 900 28th Street, Suite 107 439 UCB Boulder, CO 80309 Phone: 303-492-1032 www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/ Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University 633 Third Avenue, 19th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: 212-841-5200 www.casacolumbia.org 38 Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 39National Institute on Drug Abuse Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA) 901 North Pitt Street, Suite 300 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone: 800-542-2322 (toll-free) www.cadca.org Drug Strategies, Inc. 1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-289-9070 www.drugstrategies.org Join Together One Appleton Street, 4th Floor Boston, MA 02116 Phone: 617-437-1500 www.jointogether.org Latino Behavioral Health Institute P.O. Box 1008 Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 Phone: 213-738-2882 www.lbhi.org National Asian Pacific American Families Against Substance Abuse (NAPAFASA) 340 East Second Street, Suite 409 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Phone: 213-625-5795 www.napafasa.org National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS) P.O. Box 6000 Rockville, MD 20849 Phone: 800-851-3420 (toll-free) Phone: 301-519-5500 www.ncjrs.org National Families in Action (NFIA) 2957 Clairmont Road, NE, Suite 150 Atlanta, GA 30329 Phone: 404-248-9676 www.nationalfamilies.org National Hispanic Science Network (NHSN) Center for Family Studies Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences University of Miami School of Medicine 1425 NW 10th Avenue, 3rd Floor Miami, FL 33136-1024 Phone: 305-243-2340 www.hispanicscience.org National Prevention Network (NPN) 808 17th Street, NW, Suite 410 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: 202-293-0090 www.nasadad.org/Departments/Prevention/prevhme1.htm Partnership for a Drug-Free America 405 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1601 New York, NY 10174 Phone: 212-922-1560 www.drugfreeamerica.org Society for Prevention Research (SPR) 1300 I Street, NW, Suite 250 West Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202-216-9670 www.preventionresearch.org Selected References The following references have been selected as either summaries of the literature of the past several years or as the latest findings on specific aspects of prevention research, which have been cited in this publication. For a more comprehensive list of research citations, please consult the NIDA Web site at www.drugabuse.gov. Aos, S.; Phipps, P.; Barnoski, R.; and Lieb, R. The Comparative Costs and Benefits of Programs to Reduce Crime. Vol. 4 (1-05-1201). Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, May 2001. Ashery, R.S.; Robertson, E.B.; and Kumpfer K.L.; eds. Drug Abuse Prevention Through Family Interventions. NIDA Research Monograph No. 177. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998. August, G.J.; Realmuto, G.M.; Hektner, J.M.; and Bloomquist, M.L. An integrated components preventive intervention for aggressive elementary school children: The Early Risers Program. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 69(4):614–626, 2001. August, G.J.; Hektner, J.M.; Egan, E.A.; Realmuto, G.M.; and Bloomquist, M.L. The Early Risers longitudinal trial: Examination of 3-year outcomes in aggressive children with intent-to-treat and as-intended analyses. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 16(43):827–839, 2002. August, G.J.; Lee, S.S.; Bloomquist, M.L.; Realmuto, G.M.; and Hektner, J.M. Dissemination of an evidence-based prevention innovation for aggressive children living in a culturally diverse, urban neighborhood: The Early Risers effectiveness study. Prevention Science, in press. 38Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 39National Institute on Drug Abuse Barrera, M.; Biglan, A.; Taylor, T.K.; Gunn, B.K.; Smolkowski, K.; Black, C.; Ary, D.V.; and Fowler, R.C. Early elementary school intervention to reduce conduct problems: A randomized trial with Hispanic and non-Hispanic children. Prevention Science 3(2):83–94, June 2002. Battistich, V.; Solomon, D.; Watson, M.; and Schaps, E. Caring school communities. Educational Psychologist 32(3):137–151, 1997. Bauman, K.E.; Foshee, V.A.; Ennett, S.T.; Pemberton, M.; Hicks, K.A.; King, T.S.; and Koch, G.G. The influence of a family program on adolescent tobacco and alcohol. American Journal of Public Health 91(4):604–610, 2001. Beauvais, F.; Chavez, E.; Oetting, E.; Deffenbacher, J.; and Cornell, G. Drug use, violence, and victimization among White American, Mexican American, and American Indian dropouts, students with academic problems, and students in good academic standing. Journal of Counseling Psychology 43:292–299, 1996. Botvin, G.; Baker, E.; Dusenbury, L.; Botvin, E.; and Diaz, T. Long-term follow-up results of a randomized drug-abuse prevention trial in a white middle class population. Journal of the American Medical Association 273:1106–1112, 1995. Botvin, G.; Epstein, J.; Baker, E.; Diaz, T.; and Ifill-Williams, M. School-based drug abuse prevention with inner-city minority youth. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse 6:5–19, 1997. Botvin, G.; Griffin, K.; Diaz, T.; Miller, N.; and Ifill-Williams, M. Smoking initiation and escalation in early adolescent girls: One-year follow-up of a school based prevention intervention for minority youth. Journal of American Medical Women’s Association 54:139–143, 152, 1999. Botvin, G.; Griffin, K.W.; Paul, E.; and Macaulay, A.P. Preventing tobacco and alcohol use among elementary school students through Life Skills Training. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse 12(4):1–18, 2003. Catalano, R.F.; Gainey, R.R.; Fleming, C.B.; Haggerty, K.P.; and Johnson, N.O. An experimental intervention with families of substance abusers: One-year follow-up of the Focus on Families Project. Addiction 94(2):241–254, 1999. Catalano, R.F.; Haggerty, K.P.; Fleming, C.B.; Brewer, D.D.; and Gainey, R.R. Children of substance abusing parents: Current findings from the Focus on Families project. In: McMahon, R.J., and Peters, R.D., eds. The Effects of Parental Dysfunction on Children. New York: Kluwer Academic Press/Plenum Publishers, pp.179–204, 2002. Chou, C.; Montgomery, S.; Pentz, M.; Rohrbach, L.; Johnson, C.; Flay, B.; and Mackinnon, D. Effects of a community-based prevention program in decreasing drug use in high-risk adolescents. American Journal of Public Health 88:944–948, 1998. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. Evaluation of the first three years of the Fast Track Prevention Trial with children at high risk for adolescent conduct problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 30(1):19–35, 2002a. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. Predictor variables associated with positive Fast Track outcomes at the end of third grade. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 30(1):37–52, 2002b. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. The implementation of the Fast Track Program: An example of a large-scale prevention science efficacy trial. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 30(1):1–17, 2002c. Dishion, T.; McCord, J.; and Poulin, F. When interventions harm: Peer groups and problem behavior. American Psychologist 54:755–764, 1999. Dishion, T. and Kavanagh, K.A. multilevel approach to family-cen- tered prevention in schools: Process and outcome. Addictive Behaviors 25:899–911, 2000. Dishion, T.; Kavanagh, K.; Schneiger, A.K.J.; Nelson, S.; and Kaufman, N. Preventing early adolescent substance use: A family centered strategy for the public middle school. Prevention Science 3(3):191–202, 2002. Eggert, L.L.; Thompson, E.A.; Herting, J.R.; Nicholas, L.J.; and Dicker, B. Preventing adolescent drug abuse and high school dropout through an intensive school-based social network devel- opment program. American Journal of Health Promotion 8:201–215, 1994. Eggert, L.L.; Thompson, E.A.; Herting, J.R.; and Nicholas, L.J. Reducing suicide potential among high-risk youth: Tests of a school-based prevention program. Suicide & Life-Threatening Behavior 25(2):276–296, 1995. Eggert, L.L.; Herting, J.; and Thompson, E. The drug involvement scale for adolescents (DISA). Journal of Drug Education 26:101–130, 1996. Eggert, L.L.; Thompson, E.A.; Herting, J.R.; and Randall, B.P. Reconnecting youth to prevent drug abuse, school dropout, and suicidal behaviors among high-risk youth. In Wagner, E., and Waldron, H.B., eds. Innovations in Adolescent Substance Abuse Intervention. Oxford: Elsevier Science, pp. 51–84, 2001. Eisen, M.; Zellman, G.L.; Massett, H.A.; and Murray, D.M. Evaluating the Lions-Quest “Skills for Adolescence” drug education program: First-year behavior outcomes. Addictive Behaviors 27(4):619–632, 2002. Eisen, M.; Zellman, G.L.; and Murray, D.M. Evaluating the Lions-Quest “Skills for Adolescence” drug education program: Second-year behavior outcomes. Addictive Behaviors 28(5):883–897, 2003. 40 Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 41National Institute on Drug Abuse Gerstein, D.R., and Green, L.W., eds. Preventing Drug Abuse: What Do We Know? Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1993. Goldberg, L.; MacKinnon, D.P.; Elliot, D.L.; Moe, E.L.; Clarke, G.; and Cheong, J.W. The Adolescents Training and Learning to Avoid Steroids Program. Preventing drug use and promoting health behaviors. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 154:332–338, April 2000. Greenberg, M.T., and Kusche, C.A. Preventive interventions for school-age deaf children: The PATHS curriculum. Journal of Deaf Studies & Deaf Education 3(1):49–63, 1998. Greenberg, M.T. and Kusche, C.A. Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies. In Blueprint for Violence Prevention (Book 10). Institute of Behavioral Sciences, University of Colorado, 1998. Hansen, W.B.; Giles, S.M.; and Fearnow-Kenney, M.D. Improving Prevention Effectiveness. Greensboro, NC: Tanglewood Research, 2000. Hawkins, J.D. and Catalano, R.F. Communities That Care: Action for Drug Abuse Prevention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1992. Hawkins, J.D.; Catalano, R.F.; Kosterman, R.; Abbott, R.; and Hill, K.G. Preventing adolescent health-risk behaviors by strengthening protection during childhood. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 153:226–234, 1999. Hawkins, J.D.; Catalano, R.F.; and Arthur, M. Promoting science- based prevention in communities. Addictive Behaviors 90(5):1–26, 2002. Hecht, M.; Trost, M.; Bator, R.; and MacKinnon, D. Ethnicity and sex similarities and differences in drug resistance. Journal of Applied Communication Research 25:75–97, 1997. Ialongo, N.; Werthamer, L.; Kellam, S.; Brown, C.; Wang, S.; and Lin, Y. Proximal impact of two first-grade preventive interventions on the early risk behaviors for later substance abuse, depression, and antisocial behavior. American Journal of Community Psychology 27:599–641, 1999. Ialongo, N.; Poduska, J.; Werthamer, L.; and Kellam, S. The distal impact of two first-grade preventive interventions on conduct problems and disorder in early adolescence. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders 9:146–160, 2001. Johnston, L.D.; O’Malley, P.M.; and Bachman, J.G. Monitoring the Future National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975–2002. Volume 1: Secondary School Students. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2002. Kosterman, R.; Hawkins, J.D.; Spoth, R.; Haggerty, K.P.; and Zhu, K. Effects of a preventive parent-training intervention on observed family interactions: proximal outcomes from Preparing for the Drug Free Years. Journal of Community Psychology 25(4):337–352, 1997. Kosterman, R.; Hawkins, J.D.; Haggerty, K.P.; Spoth, R.; and Redmond, C. Preparing for the Drug Free Years: Session-specific effects of a universal parent-training intervention with rural families. Journal of Drug Education 31(1):47–68, 2001. Kumpfer, K.L.; Molgaard, V.; and Spoth, R. The “Strengthening Families Program” for the prevention of delinquency and drug abuse. In: Peters, R.D., and McMahon, R.J., eds. Preventing Childhood Disorders, Substance Abuse, and Delinquency. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1996. Kumpfer, K.L.; Olds, D.L.; Alexander, J.F.; Zucker, R.A.; and Gary, L.E. Family etiology of youth problems. In: Ashery, R.S.; Robertson, E.B.; and Kumpfer K.L.; eds. Drug Abuse Prevention Through Family Interventions. NIDA Research Monograph No. 177. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 42–77, 1998. Kumpfer, K.L.; Alvarado, R.; Smith, P.; and Bellamy, N. Cultural sensitivity in universal family-based prevention interventions. Prevention Science 3(3):241–246, 2002. Kumpfer, K.L.; Alvarado, R.; Tait, C.; and Turner, C. Effectiveness of school-based family and children’s skills training for substance abuse prevention among 6-8 year old rural children. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 16(4S):S65–S71, 2002. Lochman, J.E. and Wells, K.C. The Coping Power Program at the middle-school transition: Universal and indicated prevention effects. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 16(45):S40–S54, 2002. Lonczak, H.S., Abbott, R.D., Hawkins, J.D., Kosterman, R., and Catalano, R.F. Effects of the Seattle Social Development Project on sexual behavior, pregnancy, birth, and sexually transmitted disease outcomes at age 21 years. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 156:438–447, May 2002. Moon, D.; Hecht, M.; Jackson, K.; and Spellers, R. Ethnic and gender differences and similarities in adolescent drug use and refusals of drug offers. Substance Use and Misuse 34(8):1059–1083, 1999. National Institute on Drug Abuse. National Conference on Drug Abuse Prevention Research: Presentations, Papers, and Recommendations. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1998. 40Preventing Drug Use among Children and Adolescents 41National Institute on Drug Abuse O’Donnell, J.; Hawkins, J.; Catalano, R.; Abbott, R.; and Day, L. Preventing school failure, delinquency among low-income children: Long-term intervention in elementary schools. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 65:87–100, 1995. Oetting, E.; Edwards, R.; Kelly, K.; and Beauvais, F. Risk and protective factors for drug use among rural American youth. In: Robertson, E.B.; Sloboda, Z.; Boyd, G.M.; Beatty, L.; and Kozel, N.J., eds. Rural Substance Abuse: State of Knowledge and Issues. NIDA Research Monograph No. 168. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 90–130, 1997. Palmgreen, P.; Donohew, L.; Lorch, E.P.; Hoyle, R.H.; and Stephenson, M.T. Television campaigns and adolescent marijuana use: Tests of sensation seeking targeting. American Journal of Public Health 91(2):292–296, 2001. Palmgreen, P.; Donohew, L.; Lorch, E.P.; Hoyle, R.H.; and Stephenson, M.T. Television campaigns and sensation seeking targeting of adolescent marijuana use: A controlled time series approach. In: Hornik, R.C, ed. Public Health Communication: Evidence for Behavior Change. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 35–56, 2002. Pentz, M.A. Costs, benefits, and cost-effectiveness of compre- hensive drug abuse prevention. In: Bukoski, W.J., and Evans, R.I., eds. Cost-Benefit/Cost-Effectiveness Research of Drug Abuse Prevention: Implications for Programming and Policy. NIDA Research Monograph No. 176. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 111–129,1998. Plested, B.; Smitham, D.; Jumper-Thurman, P., Oetting, E., and Edwards, R. Readiness for drug use prevention in rural minority communities. Substance Use And Misuse 34(4 and 5):521–544, 1999. Scheier, L.; Botvin, G.; Diaz, T.; and Griffin, K. Social skills, competence, and drug refusal efficacy as predictors of adolescent alcohol use. Journal of Drug Education 29(3): 251–278, 1999. Spoth, R.; Redmond, C.; and Shin, C. Reducing adolescents’ aggressive and hostile behaviors: Randomized trial effects of a brief family intervention four years past baseline. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 154(12):1248–1257, 2000. Spoth, R.; Redmond, C.; and Shin, C. Randomized trial of brief family interventions for general populations: Adolescent substance use outcomes four years following baseline. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 69(4):627–642, 2001. Spoth, R.; Guyull, M.; and Day, S. Universal family-focused interventions in alcohol-use disorder prevention: Cost effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses of two interventions. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 63:219–228, 2002a. Spoth, R.L.; Redmond, D.; Trudeau, L.; and Shin, C. Longitudinal substance initiation outcomes for a universal preventive intervention combining family and school programs. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 16(2):129–134, 2002b. Sussman, S.; Dent, C.W.; and Stacy, A.W. Project Toward No Drug Abuse: A review of the findings and future directions. American Journal of Health Behavior 26(5):354–365, 2002. Thompson, E.; Horn, M.; Herting, J.; and Eggert, L. Enhancing outcomes in an indicated drug prevention program for high-risk youth. Journal of Drug Education 27(1):19–41, 1997. Thornton, T.N., et al., eds. Best Practices of Youth Violence Prevention: A Sourcebook for Community Action. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, September 2000. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Research and Improvement, Office of Reform Assistance and Dissemination, Safe, Disciplined, and Drug-Free Schools Programs, Washington, DC, 2001. Webster-Stratton, C. Preventing conduct problems in Head Start children: Strengthening parenting competencies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 66:715–730, 1998. Webster-Stratton, C.; Reid, J.; and Hammond, M. Preventing conduct problems, promoting social competence: A parent and teacher training partnership in Head Start. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology 30:282–302, 2001. Wills, T. and Cleary, S. How are social support effects mediated? A test with parental support and adolescent substance use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71:937–952, 1996. Wills, T.; McNamara, G.; Vaccaro, D.; and Hirky, A. Escalated substance use: A longitudinal grouping analysis from early to middle adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 105:166–180, 1996. ���������������� ���������������������� �������������������������� ��������������������������� ����������� ����������������������� ������������������������ ������������� ����������������� ��������������������������� �������������������� ���������������������������������������� ���������������������������� California Healthy Kids Survey LGSUHSD 2020-21 & 2018-19 Results and Comparisons What is the California Healthy Kids Survey? The California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS) is the largest statewide survey of resiliency, protective factors, and risk behaviors in the nation. Across California, the CHKS has led to a better understanding of the relationship between students' health behaviors and academic performance, and is frequently cited by state policymakers and the media as a critical component of school improvement efforts to help guide the development of more effective health, prevention, and youth development programs. It provides a means to confidentially obtain data on student knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions about the topics it covers. California Healthy Kids Survey Comparable Districts & Administration Years ●Los Gatos High School ○2018/19 and 2020/21 ●Saratoga High School ○2018/19 and 2020/21 ●Palo Alto Unified School District ○2019/20 ●Mountain View-Los Altos Union High School District ○2019/20 ●Statewide Secondary Data ○2015-17 California Healthy Kids Survey Survey Participant Sizes LGHS SHS 2018/19 2020/21 2018/19 2020/21 9th 488 446 325 287 11th 420 406 310 310 2018/19 -Survey administered in February 2018 2020/21 -Survey administered in December 2020 Important Points about Context 1. No community is without problems that need to be identified and addressed. 2. Drug use, violence and other health risks are not just school issues; they are social, community, and family issues. 3. Schools are often safe havens in their communities. 4. The CHKS results help districts focus resources and develop programs. To address any problem, you first need to identify and understand it. 5. Reducing risk behaviors and promoting positive youth development are key efforts to improve schools and promote academic success among all students. 6. Our goal is to determine what we can do to support and help our community’s youth lead healthy, satisfying, and productive lives. Interpreting the Data ●Data is accurate -the standard error of the mean ranges from 0.011 to 0.014 ●Data is reliable -The 95% confidence intervals are (~0.05 for developmental supports and ~0.03 for current drug use items). That means that if the survey was given 100 times, the results would be within less than one point difference 95 times. How do we know if there was a significant difference between administration years? ●+4%indicates a significant increase or decrease between administration years. For LGHS and SHS, those items are marked with a on subsequent slides. What does statistically significant mean? ●A statistically significant result is a result that's not attributed to chance. ●When something is statistically significant, we believe the difference is larger than can reasonably be explained as a chance occurrence. ●As a general rule, the significance level is commonly set to 0.05, meaning that the probability of observing the differences seen in your data by chance is just 5%. Protective Factors vs. Risk Factors Protective Factor ●a characteristic at the biological, psychological, family, or community (including peers and culture) level that is associated with a lower likelihood of problem outcomes or that reduces the negative impact of a risk factor on problem outcomes Risk Factor ●a characteristic at the biological, psychological, family, community, or cultural level that precedes and is associated with a higher likelihood of problem outcomes School Performance, Supports and Engagement At my school there is a teacher or some other adult who really cares about me. (Pretty much true to Very much true) 9th Grade Statistically Significant Pre-Covid 53% state avg. At my school there is a teacher or some other adult who really cares about me. (Pretty much true to Very much true) 11th Grade 60% state avg. I feel close to people at this school. (Agree to Strongly Agree) 9th Grade *No 20/21 data available due to remote learning 62% state avg. I feel close to people at this school. (Agree to Strongly Agree) 11th Grade 57% state avg. I am happy to be at this school. (Agree to Strongly Agree) 9th Grade *No 20/21 data available due to remote learning 61% state avg. I am happy to be at this school. (Agree to Strongly Agree) 11th Grade 54% state avg. I feel like I am part of this school. (Agree to Strongly Agree) 9th Grade *No 20/21 data available due to remote learning 52% state avg. I feel like I am part of this school. (Agree to Strongly Agree) 11th Grade 49% state avg. I feel safe in my school. (Agree to Strongly Agree) 9th Grade *No 20/21 data available due to remote learning 57% state avg. I feel safe in my school. (Agree to Strongly Agree) 11th Grade 59% state avg. School Violence, Victimization, and Safety During the past 12 months, how many times on school property were you harassed or bullied for your race, ethnicity, or national origin? (2 or more times) 9th Grade *No 20/21 data available due to remote learning 8% state avg. During the past 12 months, how many times on school property were you harassed or bullied for your race, ethnicity, or national origin? (2 or more times) 11th Grade 8% state avg. During the past 12 months, how many times on school property were you harassed or bullied because you are gay or lesbian or someone thought you were? (2 or more times) 9th Grade *No 20/21 data available due to remote learning 5% state avg. During the past 12 months, how many times on school property were you harassed or bullied because you are gay or lesbian or someone thought you were? (2 or more times) 11th Grade 4% state avg. During the past 12 months, how many times on school property have you been offered, sold, or given an illegal drug? (2 or more times) 9th Grade *No 20/21 data available due to remote learning 11% state avg. During the past 12 months, how many times on school property have you been offered, sold, or given an illegal drug? (2 or more times) 11th Grade 14% state avg. Alcohol and Other Drug Use During the past 30 days, did you have one or more drinks of alcohol? 9th Grade 15% state avg. During the past 30 days, did you have one or more drinks of alcohol? 11th Grade 23% state avg. During the past 30 Days, have you engaged in binge drinking? (5 or more drinks in a row) 9th Grade 6% state avg. During the past 30 Days, have you engaged in binge drinking? (5 or more drinks in a row) 11th Grade 12% state avg. During the past 30 days, have you used marijuana? (smoke, vape, eat, or drink) 9th Grade 10% state avg. During the past 30 days, have you used marijuana? (smoke, vape, eat, or drink) 11th Grade 17% state avg. During the past 30 days, have you used electronic cigarettes or other vaping device? (cigarettes for past data) 9th Grade 8% state avg. During the past 30 days, have you used electronic cigarettes or other vaping device? (cigarettes for past data) 11th Grade 10% state avg. Other Physical and Mental Health Risks During the past 12 months, did you ever feel so sad or hopeless almost every day for two weeks or more that you stopped doing usual activities? 9th Grade 30% state avg. During the past 12 months, did you ever feel so sad or hopeless almost every day for two weeks or more that you stopped doing usual activities? 11th Grade 32% state avg. During the past 12 months, did you ever seriously consider attempting suicide? 9th Grade 16% state avg. During the past 12 months, did you ever seriously consider attempting suicide? 11th Grade 16% state avg. From: Toni Blackstock <toniblackstock@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, June 4, 2022 8:32 PM To: Cannabis <cannabis@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Scientific Community Survey EXTERNAL SENDER Has this survey been sent to the 300 households? If so, when should the results be made public? Toni Blackstock From: rjkonrad@comcast.net <rjkonrad@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2022 2:15 PM To: Council <Council@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Retail Cannabis EXTERNAL SENDER I believe the more we do to promote cannabis in our Town, it will increase the desirability to our youth. The promotion of cigarettes caused lifetime damage to lungs. Cannabis can cause lifelong damage to developing brains Sent from my iPhone From: Lee Fagot <leefagot@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2022 2:49 PM To: Rob Rennie <RRennie@losgatosca.gov>; Maria Ristow <MRistow@losgatosca.gov>; Mary Badame <MBadame@losgatosca.gov>; Matthew Hudes <MHudes@losgatosca.gov>; Marico Sayoc <MSayoc@losgatosca.gov>; Laurel Prevetti <LPrevetti@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Jamie Field <JField@losgatosca.gov>; Arn Andrews <aandrews@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Cannabis Retail Sales in Town EXTERNAL SENDER Honorable Mayor, Council Members and Town Manager, Following last nights Council meeting where I spoke against opening any retail cannabis sales in Town, I am enclosing my letter to you with the references that were requested, based on the data I quoted. Please let me know if you have any further questions or comments as I am happy to work with you all on this issue and want to be clear I am focusing on the facts relevant to our community. Thank you all, and keep up the good work on our citizens’ behalf. Lee Fagot Retail Cannabis Sales in Los Gatos June 8, 2022 Dear Mayor, Council Members, Town Manager and Town Staff, True, LG needs new revenue (and possible expenditure reductions) to overcome the shortfalls projected against spending going forward in our Town’s Budget. However, full analysis of both the costs and potential revenue must be completed before a final decision to take to the voters is made for the potential recreational cannabis (MJ) retail sales to be allowed in Town. And, the social impacts and their costs must be part of that analysis as well. All MJ is still illegal under Federal Law, and LG citizens have OVERWHELMINGLY stated they do not want retail sales in Town for recreational MJ. Medical MJ is available thru recognized retail outlets now, and recreational is available for home delivery and other retail outlets within a few miles outside of Town. For example, Airfield Supply, in San Jose, reports that approx. 2000 LG residents shop annually with about an $85 avg. per visit purchase. The Council’s interest in considering allowing retail site or sites in Town for new tax revenue must be considered with the following information -- The Town’s contracted consultant’s report estimated that for one retail outlet in Town there would be an estimated $320K new sales tax revenue source (see Community Outreach Report below). However, when I asked the Chief of Police and the Mayor if a study was completed to determine the increased costs for police and community services based on recreational MJ sales in Town, no such study was requested. Most recently when more folks pushed for this study to be done, our Town Manager requested the study and it is just now underway. The study should be specifically comparing Los Gatos to other communities that also added rec MJ so as to measure what increased police and other direct gov’t costs they incurred. The estimate to be used in the consultant’s report includes 2 additional sworn officers as their only direct cost analysis, but with NO value in this cost reported. This may be a zero net gain after not just salaries, but when all benefits and pension costs are also calculated for the Town. However, we all need to wait for Chief’s report to inform the Council and citizens once they have more data. But, for a more relevant set of information to help make a truly informed decision, the other indirect expenses outside Town salaries must also be calculated. (More on other cities actions after some localized MJ retail sales on the next pages.) But, just focusing on the direct financial numbers for now, please review this report from the Los Gatos Town’s recent “Community Outreach Report” on Cannabis in Town, page 31: Annual Retail Tax Revenue Estimates*:  (4%): $320,000 - Plus $90,000 in local sales tax. Total $410,000 
  (5%): $400,000 - Plus $90,000 in local sales tax. Total $490,000 
  (6%): $480,000 - Plus $90,000 in local sales tax. Total $570,000. 
 *Assumes 2 storefront retailers with an average of $4M in gross receipts each. 
 EG:$4M sales x 4% sales tax = $160,000 x 2 stores = $320,000 sales tax for 2 stores. Using the data in the presentation by Airfield at our recent LG Democracy Tent session, to get $8m in sales with 2 outlets and an approximate $85 avg. transaction value (as currently at Airfield), would require about 95,000 transactions per year. Now, we have to calculate the impacts of traffic, parking, etc. for 95,000 visits per year; with only 2000 current LG resident purchasers reported by Airfield, this would require all 2000 Airfield Supply LG customers to make almost weekly purchases. But, most likely thousands of non-townsfolk, plus some LG residents who currently shop elsewhere, (perhaps up to 700 folks (According to the attached report only 13.5% of the total California population used cannabis in the past month (page 13) which suggests that there would be 2,700 users in Los Gatos (#) who would then travel to LG’s 2 retailers in Town which is a retailer’s goal, that is to get more customers, and legal retailers can only survive if they can also get the number of legal users to increase from 13.5% of the Towns population to 25% or new customers coming into Town. And, consider where the sites would even be allowed as retailers have to be located in areas of Town with mandatory parking and set backs (min of 600 ft.) from schools, health and social services, etc. Don’t forget that an out of town customer would require more travel miles in Town - VMT. On the other hand, deliveries to users in town might be a more efficient way to get the MJ to the end users because the delivery service could transport multiple purchases in one vehicle (like Amazon, etc.) ( Note, I am NOT advocating any cannabis sales in Town, just reporting the facts here). Airfield Supply states it currently is providing about 1 hour delivery time to customers who order for delivery. And, the argument local MJ retail would bring new visitors who may spend on dining, etc. in Town has NO basis in fact as the other retailers in the news article below (NPR) have reported shops and restaurants near them have closed due to burglaries and drug use on or very near their sites with increased street MJ sales. Further, the cost with all the taxes for legal purchases will drive more illegal street sales of NON- controlled products as the street drugs will be cheaper, since obtained from non-legal sources, and are most likely adulterated and easily sold to minors as reported on several news outlets. Folks will not know what additives will be included in street drugs. NPR, KQED news media, on Dec 6, 2021, also reported that burglaries of retail cannabis outlets in SF last year generated a reported $5M loss for retailers and the city of SF decided to stop the sales tax on cannabis so the stores could be more competitive with street drugs. Watsonville, for the same reasons, recently cut their taxes on cannabis by half. And, one of the biggest concerns expressed by many of our Town groups, our Kiwanis, Lions clubs, CASA, etc., is the social/emotional impact particularly to the youth in our Town. This is based on the mixed message that its ok for adults to use such drugs, but not youth, or maybe it is ok for youth to also imbibe since adults do it. Watching adults in their homes doing drugs, smoking, vaping, etc., is then challenging kids to do the same. And, they will be sneaking drugs from the parent’s stash, buying on the street (most likely tainted and addictive formulas) and sharing with their friends. Importantly, note that the 2020/2021 school year “California Healthy Kids Survey” conducted at LGHS and released this year provided some concerning data: Over the prior 30 days 28% of Juniors consumed an alcoholic drink, including 5% admitting binge drinking, and 22% had used marijuana and vaping. All data is above the state average in the same survey. And, 15% LGHS juniors admitted thinking of suicide in the fall of last school year (perhaps tied to drugs?). A June 7, 2022 Wall Street Journal article (Pg A15) reported on a study that shows MJ is 4 times as potent now as in 1995. Its more powerful than when today’s adults grew up, making it easier for today’s kids to get hooked, and with 1 in 6 kids developing an addiction. Another national report published in “Health and Place” (##), 75 (2022) 102795, Pg 5 “..the prevalence of using edibles was 45% higher and dabbing and smoking cannabis were 43% higher among students who attended a high school within 1 mile from a cannabis retailer. Students also perceived cannabis as less harmful when there was a retailer within 1 mile from their high school.“ There is not just a financial impact of increased costs to the Town for police, but additional costs dealing with the need for more social and emotional services for citizens of all ages. This cost will continue to increase. Please consider this when determining the feasibility of even allowing sales in Town. Cannabis retail sales in Town changes not just the character of our Town, because it so negatively impacts the wellbeing of all our citizens. The business model for cannabis sales in our Town – does not work. Our community CANNOT afford cannabis sales. Please review the facts, listen to our citizens and their concerns, and let’s work together on truly achieving budgeting solutions. Let this proposal for retail cannabis sales in Town to die a natural death. Respectfully, Lee Fagot 845 Lilac Way 95032 (#) The Reason Foundation, ”The Impact of California Cannabis Taxes on Participation Within The Legal Market” by Geoff Lawrence, May 2022. (##)https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1353829222000569?via%3Dihub From: Alyce Parsons <parsonsus@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2022 8:53 PM To: Council <Council@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Proposed cannabis stores in Los Gatos EXTERNAL SENDER Town Council of Los Gatos, I would like to state our objection to the selling of cannabis in the town of Los Gatos. Please refer to the article in the Wall Street Journal Tuesday, June 7. The article clearly stated the objections that we have. Smoking marijuana is dangerous to young people. It has been proven that it affects their brain end it can interfere with their mental health and ability to learn. It also can lead to the use of more dangerous drugs. By establishing outlets in our town we are tacitly approving its use. Thank you for your consideration of our objection. Respectfully, Dr. And Mrs Mike Parsons Monte Sereno, Ca. 95030 From: claire leclair <leclaircm@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2022 4:13 PM To: Cannabis <cannabis@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Future Cannabis Store EXTERNAL SENDER I am not in favor of having a Cannabis store in LG. There are other ways to increase revenues for our town. Claire Leclair From: Susan Tuttle <2subtle@comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2022 4:27 PM To: Cannabis <cannabis@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Cannabis Stores in Los Gatos - NO EXTERNAL SENDER I am strongly against having Cannabis sales in Los Gatos as I believe it will change the personality and tenor of our town and send the wrong message to everyone, especially kids. Susan Tuttle From: Kennan Kuehn <kennanjk@aol.com> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2022 1:44 PM To: Cannabis <cannabis@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Cannabis EXTERNAL SENDER I think that cannabis in Los Gatos would be a great idea. From: Buchanan, Kevin <kbuchanan@lgsuhsd.org> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2022 3:35 PM To: Council <Council@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Cannabis Dispensaries - my two cents EXTERNAL SENDER Dear Los Gatos Town Council Members, As the principal of Los Gatos High School and one who battles daily the normalization and social acceptance of marijuana use among our youth, I am writing to share my grave concern that cannabis dispensaries may be allowed to operate in Los Gatos. Research strongly suggests that regular use during adolescence is associated with severe and persistent negative outcomes and that the adolescent brain may be particularly vulnerable to the effects of cannabis exposure, and that "prolonged use during adolescence results in a disruption in the normative neuromaturational processes that occur during this period" (1) Marijuana is the second most widely used intoxicant in adolescence, and teens who engage in heavy marijuana use often show disadvantages in neurocognitive performance, macrostructural and microstructural brain development, and alterations in brain functioning. (2) "The data provides compelling longitudinal evidence suggesting that repeated exposure to cannabis during adolescence may have detrimental effects on brain functional connectivity, intelligence, and cognitive function." (3) The challenges we confront as we try to educate our children are already complicated, given our increased focus on mental wellness and the arrested social and emotional development exacerbated by the COVID 19 pandemic. I realize that the financial benefits from allowing dispensaries to operate in town are tempting, but I have to ask each one of you if you are willing to sacrifice the healthy development of our youth to supplement the town coffers. I would hope not, and would like you to consider that such an action would make our jobs only more difficult than they already are, and put our children at greater risk of cognitive impairment. Please consider the best interests of our children when you make this important decision. Respectfully, Kevin Buchanan Principal Los Gatos High School 1. Cannabis and adolescent brain development: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0163725814002095 2. Effects of Cannabis on the Adolescent Brain https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ben/cpd/2014/00000020/00000013/art00009 3. Adverse Effects of Cannabis on Adolescent Brain Development https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/27/3/1922/3056289?login=true From: Alexis Dulin <adulin7@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 3:03 PM Subject: Cannabis Retail in Los Gatos EXTERNAL SENDER Dear Los Gatos Town Council, I am writing in support of allowing retail cannabis in the Town of Los Gatos and feel that it is entirely long past due that the Town move towards having safe and reliable access to cannabis. Please make the right choice here people!!!! It's going to bring more revenue to the town too. Thank you, Alexis Dulin From: Michaela Matulich <michaela@airfieldsupplyco.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 11:21 AM To: Council <Council@losgatosca.gov>; Town Manager <Manager@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Yes for Cannabis in LG EXTERNAL SENDER Dear Los Gatos Town Council, I am writing in support of allowing retail cannabis in the Town of Los Gatos and feel that it is entirely long past due that the Town move towards having safe and reliable access to cannabis. Having grown up in Los Gatos, it feels that cannabis is the next move to keep Los Gatos on a progressive and up to date status with other surrounding towns. Thank you for your time. Michaela Matulich From: Midori Portillo <midoriportillo@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 3:35 PM To: Council <Council@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Cannabis Retail Tax Support EXTERNAL SENDER Dear Town Council, I am in total support of the town’s potential move to allow and regulate the cannabis retail. From: Toni Blackstock <toniblackstock@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 10:30 AM To: Council <Council@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Cannabis dispensary EXTERNAL SENDER I strongly OPPOSE allowing any type of cannabis dispensary in Los Gatos. Toni Blackstock toniblackstock@gmail.com 408 497 2402 From: Barry Cheskin <bncheskin@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 10:52 AM To: Council <Council@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Dispensaries EXTERNAL SENDER Members of the Town Council, My wife and I strongly object to having marijuana dispensaries in our town. I believe it will adversely affect our family friendly "hometown" vibe and character. This is a very very bad idea for Los Gatos. Barry Cheskin Citizen and Vice-Chair, Historic Preservation Committee. Barry Cheskin 650-245-8551 Cell bncheskin@gmail.com From: Lydia Norcia <lmnorcia@aol.com> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 6:38 PM To: Council <Council@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Please be advised that I am opposed to having any Marijuana dispensaries in Los Gatos Ca - See the articles below and the number of dispensaries near Los Gatos. EXTERNAL SENDER https://www.yellowpages.com/los-gatos-ca/marijuana-dispensary https://www.verywellmind.com/why-do-teens-use-marijuana-63543 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190218094005.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190218094005.htm Lydia Norcia 102 Escobar Court Los Gatos, CA 95032 408-757-6336 From: Mitch Kraemer <mitch@crec.us> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 10:14 AM To: Cannabis <cannabis@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Email update list EXTERNAL SENDER Hello, if it is possible can I be placed on a list for updates from the city on a potential cannabis program?- - Mitch Kraemer - Market Research Analyst Cannabis Real Estate Consultants 6440 Lusk Blvd STE D201 San Diego, CA 92121 Direct: (858) 699-0218 Office: (866) 810-2022 Mitch@CREC.us www.CannabisRealEstateConsultants.com Trusted Commercial Real Estate Experts in the Cannabis Industry From: william kane <bkde56@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2022 5:07 AM To: Cannabis <cannabis@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Pot club EXTERNAL SENDER Good morning I messaged your address yesterday,and my message was received but was blocked could you please explain why?I thought the address was advertised to be a site to make my input a public response available to the town board to review in response to the possibility of a pot club being established in our town which my husband and I would like to see approved,We have been residents in Los Gatos and have lived here for forty one years,I would appreciate your reply in this matter,I thought in lieu of having to attend the town meeting that was scheduled I figured that my response that I sent yesterday would have been noted/recorded and read by any council member as being a resident/residents in favor of the establishment of a dispensary in our town,thank you for your time.