Teen marijuana use

My brother had good grades, friends and played sports. He came from a loving home and got his graduate degree at USC. He also liked to get high. After graduate school, he became homeless, mentally ill and went to jail many times.

Many parents simply haven’t heard about the association between teen cannabis use and psychosis and adult schizophrenia. Many aren’t aware these negative mental health effects often don’t emerge for several years.

The younger a person is when he/she starts, the more frequently he/she uses, the higher the risk goes up. The risk is even greater if a person is genetically predisposed. However, most people who are predisposed to it (about 10% of the population) don’t know it. Worse, with today’s higher THC concentrations, people who have no predisposition are experiencing psychosis.

The prevailing perception is that marijuana is harmless. However, the vape pens boast THC levels of 80-90% (compare that to 5% THC my brother was using). This is especially dangerous to a teenager because of how easily they get addicted to any substance. All forms of THC (edibles, vaping and smoking) are addictive.

Many people don’t know that in Colorado, the number one substance found in teenagers (ages 10-19) who committed suicide is marijuana.

We should include the risks of marijuana in our discussions about teen mental health. There is too much to lose. My brother will tell you so.

—Heidi Swan, Hermosa Beach

Watching costs in MB

Newly-installed Manhattan Beach City Councilmember Suzanne Hadley ran on a platform of eliminating the $475 car allowance and cell phone reimbursement enjoyed by the current council? Great! That sounded like she’d be a real fiscal hawk. If she’s focused on such a small cost, she’ll watch the large ones, right? But wait, when she proposed the resolution, she then offered to raise the monthly cash salary of the council, potentially up to nearly the same amount? Excuse me? Was that part of the campaign pledge? Did she tell voters her position was actually to save us essentially nothing, and increase the pay of the council? In fact, since this would be straight pay, they don’t even have to submit evidence of an expense. Costs go up!

I thought Hadley was a Reagan conservative. This sounds like something out of “The Art of the Deal” by the Con Don.

“This is a pretty poorly paid part-time job,” she reportedly alliterated. “You all [members of the council] deserve a pay increase too.” So her first act was to try to raise her own salary? Did I miss that campaign promise? If you don’t like the pay, you shouldn’t take the job!

When Hadley (inevitably) runs for re-election, or the State Assembly, don’t let her get away with saying she proposed to eliminate the cell phone and car allowance without saying she also wanted to raise council pay.

—Christopher O’Brien, Manhattan Beach

Campaign promise

At the May 7 city council meeting for Manhattan Beach, I fulfilled one of the major campaign promises I made while running for election in March. I proposed that MB city council eliminate its current $475/month car and cell phone allowances for each of the five council members.

Our job on council is one of public service; we should not be in it for the money. Our job on council already comes with health, dental and vision benefits that would be the envy of the private sector; a monthly stipend of $500/month; and a city tag for free parking. No other board or commission member is paid for his/her contribution to civic life in MB; and we have no shortage of qualified applicants who wish to serve.

Unfortunately, my proposal was not seconded by another councilmember, so I did not prevail. As a result, I will donate my $475/month stipend ($5,700 annually) to the MB Education Foundation.

I ran for council as a friend of the MB taxpayer. I will continue to look for ways to help MB city government operate as frugally as possible. If you have ideas or suggestions, please email me at SHadley@citymb.info.

—Suzanne Hadley, Manhattan Beach city councilmember

Controlling RB Harbor area

On the May 21 Redondo Beach City Council agenda, this item is in the Consent Calendar:

H.9 - Approve the consent to assignment of the lease for 110-151 Fisherman’s Wharf from Redondo Beach Fisherman’s Wharf LLC to Next Century Power LLC.

Tony’s On The Pier and Donald Ballard currently control the leases on the Monstad Pier. They are selling those leaseholds to Leo Pustilnikov and Next Century Power LLC. NCP recently purchased the SeaLab property and Pustilnikov has the right to purchase the remainder of the AES site. Pustilnikov has been public about his ambition to acquire all the leases in the harbor area. There are problems with this and Redondo should be wary. Pustilnikov has no record of new development and has not stated his intent for any of these properties. It is not certain how much capitol Mr. Pustilnikov controls. I have my doubts that Mr. Pustilnikov has the capitol but he does have the blessings of Mayor Brand. By hiding these items on the agenda, such as this Monstad Pier deal, Pustilnkov could acquire all the leases in the harbor with Council approval with almost no public input.

This would be the ultimate single sourced, no-bid, backroom deal in the harbor’s history.

It should be asked: What are Pustilnikov’s plans for all these leases? Is he repackaging these leases just to resell them? What is the limit of Pustilnikov’s financial bandwidth?

Is Redondo selling total control of the entire harbor for a bag of beans?

—Paul Moses, Redondo Beach

Load comments