Businesses Cited InTobacco Sting Operation

By ANDY GOROSKO

Published: May 24, 2001 12:00 am

Businesses Cited In

Tobacco Sting Operation

By Andrew Gorosko

Town police and state agents May 23 conducted another tobacco sting operation, in which clerks at three local businesses were charged with illegal sale of tobacco to a minor for selling cigarettes to youths under 18.

Police Youth Officer Dana Schubert said agents from the state Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS) accompanied town police to 19 local businesses that sell tobacco. The DMHAS tobacco compliance unit supplies underage youths who act as state agents in seeking to make the tobacco purchases.

Receiving violations for illegal sale of tobacco to a minor were: Eddy G. Panora, 17, of Danbury, at Dodgingtown Market & Deli at 57 Dodgingtown Road in Dodgingtown; Jayshree H. Patel, 40, of Brookfield, at Newtown Convenience at 22 Church Hill Road; and Sharon E. Henion, 23, of 5 Vining Road, Sandy Hook, at Buttheads in Rickyâs Shopping Center on South Main Street.

The clerks who received the violations may challenge them in court or pay $200 fines, according to police.

Officer Schubert said he is investigating a fourth business that also may be charged in the sting operation. In that case, an underage agent may have illegally purchased cigarettes from a vending machine, he said.

Last February in a sting operation, town police and state agents charged three store clerks for illegally selling cigarettes to people under age 18, after seeking to buy cigarettes at 26 businesses.

Last September, police conducted a tobacco sting operation at 30 businesses in which four clerks in four stores were charged with selling cigarettes to underage buyers.

In an alcohol sting operation last November 4, police found that 5 of 16 local retail alcohol outlets illegally sold beer to underage undercover buyers. People must be at least 21 to legally buy alcohol.

Officer Schubert said the May 23 tobacco sting operation was part of a continuing series of police checks into illegal tobacco and alcohol sales to underage persons.

Malcolm Andrew 'Andy' Bryant

Top Of The Mountain

Garden Club Spring Plant Sale Saturday

Full Slate Of May Programs Planned By Flagpole Photographers

Girls' Golfers Take On Notre Dame, Immaculate, And Masuk

The editorial took no position on the budget going up or down so you're reading things into the editorial that simply aren't there. The turnout is tied to the lack of passage, in that people who came out to vote last time did not this time, indicating a lack of support on their part. Perhaps it wasn't spelled out clearly enough, but that's what the editorial was driving at, people showing lack of support by not casting a vote. The editorial did address likely concerns among voters that may have led to lack of support and lack of turnout. This lower turnout also follows increasing turnout over the past four referendums in three years (meaning it is an aberration from that), and increased turnout is something that I do push for regularly in editorials. Any disappointment you might be seeing is at the break in that trend, not at whether the budget passed or not. I'd rather see more people come out and vote "no" then not vote at all.

Lower Turnout Results In Two Budget Defeats

Clearly, property owners no longer want to bear the burden of expenses while the state does not meet it’s responsibilities. Rising costs must be addressed by actions that do not include yearly increases of property owners’ taxes. The state of CT must meet its share of the educational costs, and other costs.

Town And School Budgets Fail At Referendum

This feels like an oddly misleading headline and narrative, particularly coming from the Editorial Board. The headline "Lower Turnout Results in Two Budget Defeats" pushes a misleading narrative regarding voter turnout, and then seeks to tie the outcome of the referendum to that misleading narrative. Sure, voter turn out for this year's referendum, 18%, was lower than last year's. However, last year's turnout, 25.4%, represented the highest turnout in the most recent 10 budget referendums. If you take the time to examine turnout percentages between 2017 and 2026 (2017: 19.9, 2018: 15.7, 2019: 17, 2020: 0, 2021: 8.98, 2022: 7.7, 2023: 8.8, 2024: 15.1/17.49, 2025: 25.4, 2026: 18), this year's turnout was actually the third highest in the past 10 cycles. Perhaps the headline of this article should say "Lower Voter Turnout Than Last Year", which is more accurate, rather than creating an impression that this year's turnout is some type of aberration - a narrative that the turnout numbers, in all their binary glory, simply do not support. Further, the headline of this article appears to tie the "lower turnout" to the defeated budgets. Sure, that could be true. But, perhaps, its more likely that Newtown residents are feeling the squeeze of multiple economic influences. In Newtown, we've experienced property revaluations and increased municipal spending. Eversource continues to raise rates. The state legislature gives PURA the authority to impose Public Benefit charges that benefit a tiny percentage of the public (and subsequently burdening the rest of us). At the national level, inflation has run rampant for years and many of those costs remain high to this day. In short, the data tells a far less dramatic—and far more honest—story than the headline suggests. This wasn’t an electorate vanishing in apathy; it was a fairly typical turnout delivering an verdict that, perhaps, some at the Editorial Board didn't like. At some point, it’s worth considering that residents aren’t confused, disengaged, or misled by turnout; they’re simply doing math at their kitchen tables and concluding that “no” is the only responsible answer left.

Enjoyed the forum which only confirmed my support for Brandon Moore as the Democratic candidate to run for the state representative position. Brandon Moore did not waiver about his duty to all the people, if elected, when an issue presents itself that requires that he voice a difference of opinion for the wellbeing of Newtown residents. If Michelle Ku’s 16 years have led to her loyalty being to other elected officials, as she implied, then Newtown is going to continue to witness actions that do not protect its residents. She could not unseat republican, Mitch Bolinsky, during a Blue Wave, and once again, will not do it now. Winning that seat is critical for all. That explains why her previous campaign committee now campaigns for Brandon Moore. It explains all the endorsements he has received from local elected democratic officials. It’s why we need Brandon Moore to be the democratic candidate to run for state representative.

Second Newtown DTC, League Of Women Voters Candidates Event Planned

Appreciated the opportunity to hear from both candidates as we were present for the College Dems forum but only heard from Brandon Moore. It was an opportunity to see who can unseat the Republican incumbent and there is no doubt that Brandon Moore should be the Democratic candidate. One concerned parent posed a question about discrimination unaddressed by the school district and interestingly enough, Michelle Ku, who proudly speaks of her Board membership years, said little, while Brandon Moore passionately addressed the issue along with his experience as an Apache Helicopter Commander. This family is supporting Brandon Moore. We need change and someone who is not afraid to disagree, especially about the rising costs of living in Newtown.

Log In

Businesses Cited InTobacco Sting Operation

Leave a Reply Cancel reply