Dear Editor

I want to clarify my previous letter as it appears that it was taken as an attack on safe grad.

My letter was in response to Bos' letter. She had stated that she sees no need for dry grad.

I was merely defending the need for dry grad.

Both grad parties are trying to accomplish the same thing. We want to prevent drinking and driving.

Many non-drinking students wish to do this without being in a drinking environment. I've talked to non-drinking teenagers and they don't find it fun to be around people getting drunk.

Eliminating dry grad as Bos wishes to do is not the answer, nor is having them on different nights as both Bos and Wendt have suggested. Safe grad wants to claim grad night which would leave the non-drinking kids without a party on grad night. Why punish kids for not drinking? On the flip side if dry grad is the only party on grad night then the drinkers will still go drink and possibly drive- which is what we don't want.

The answer is to have two separate parties on grad night. Wendt states "I would have gladly attended both if we were given the choice. But we were not." You were given the choice of which party to attend. No, you couldn't attend both. No one could. That's fair. Why give more options to drinkers than to non-drinkers?

This is not a competition. Both grad parties offer things that will appeal to different graduates and their preferences.

Seems pretty fair to me and meets the needs of everyone.

Anna Maria Junus,

Lacombe