Laserfiche WebLink
5. No possession for persons under 21. <br />A. Support this regulation <br />B. Retailers not selling to underage persons <br />C. Have kids caught 2nd time sent to class about addiction <br />6. General comments. <br />A. Retailers are not selling to underage youth <br />a. Retailers have elaborate age verification systems / ID card scan <br />i. Kids get around age limits with on-line illegal buys, not in store <br />B. Bans will impact adults and Pleasanton as a whole <br />C. Willing to take all tobacco signage inside <br />D. Willing to "go dark" and not have tobacco visible to customers (e.g. under cabinet) <br />E. Experience in SF shows after SF ban, sales just went to Daly City <br />a. Here, sales will just go to Dublin, San Ramon, on-line <br />F. Experience in Oakland where it allows tobacco stores to sell flavored tobacco and <br />e -cigarettes, but not other tobacco retailers. Allows police to focus enforcement. <br />G. Restrictions seem too rushed and panicked a response <br />H. Youth Commissioners lack life experience to make recommendations <br />I. Why restrict tobacco and not alcohol (which is seen and sold in grocery stores) <br />J. Impacts small businesses <br />K. As Police Department's under -age buy attempts show high rates of compliance, <br />why these restrictions <br />7. Process considerations. <br />A. Not enough time to consider matter, only got invite letter on 11/12 before the 11/13 <br />Youth Commission meeting <br />a. Want process slowed down <br />B. Youth Commission only heard from persons wanting to restrict tobacco, did not <br />hear about business impacts <br />a. Retailers want to address Youth Commission in January 2020 <br />b. Retailers want Youth Commissioners to visit stores to see age -verification <br />processes <br />C. Retailers feel that they are on the defensive because recommendations already <br />made to adopt these restrictions <br />H <br />Page 2 of 2 <br />