Skip to comments.Rahm Emanuel Backs Pot Tickets Over Arrests
Posted on 06/15/2012 8:07:39 PM PDT by Ken H
The Chicago mayor on Friday plans to back a proposed ordinance that reduces the penalty for possessing small amounts of marijuana within city limits. Emanuel said the change could free up cops for more serious crime and save the department about $1 million.
The mayor's office notes there were 18,298 arrests last year for possession of less than 10 grams of cannabis. Each case needed four officers to arrest and transport offenders, not to mention tax dollars to incarcerate them.
McCarthy, who seems to have warmed to the idea of some decriminalization, said last year's arrests tied up 45,000-plus police hours.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcchicago.com ...
Other great savings could be realized from not enforcing laws like bank robberies, thefts, shop-lifting, shootings that don’t result in death, rapes, pedophilia, grand theft auto...
Looks like Rahm is trying to make Chicago like Detroit.
This is nothing but a scam to take us down the road to legalization (aka, Taxation) of ALL now-illegal drugs.
So when people want to end Bloomberg's ban on Big Gulps, are you going to make the same trite comparison?
There will be a high death rate for a few months, but that'll settle out ~ and talk about stability, feudalism can last for centuries!
If Rahm is lucky they'll declare him "King" and leave him alone in his fortress.
Except for one thing....
The whole Chicago and probably the whole State of Indiana is an Organized Crime Syndicate..
A political machine that rivals the one in NYC and NYState.. not to speak of New Jersey..
The criminals are the politicians like the KGB was in Russia..
Then you got your Mexifornia.. a whole nother animal even worse..
Well, some places give out free needles to drug addled heroin addicts, so what’s the problem with a little Mary Jane? In the meantime prepare to show your drivers license to some store clerk if buy over the counter cough syrup or sinus medicine.
All of those crimes are force against someone. Smoking dope (stupid as it is) isn't using force against someone.
That nanny-state regulation was touted as a drug control method. Just who do you think pushed it into being... maybe drug warriors?
Daley tried a similar maneuver a few years back, but then he backed off on it.
The practical reality is, they might as well do this, because if you are arrested for possessing these small amounts in Chicago, the case is almost always dropped when it gets to court. Most of the time, the police won’t arrest you, and don’t even bother to show up to testify if you are arrested, because they know the County judges routinely dismiss them. There is just no room in the jail system here to absorb the thousands of inmates enforcing the law would create. At least by making it an administrative matter, they will boost revenue in this fiscally disfunctional city.
The laws on possession for these amounts are hardly ever enforced in Chicago anyway. This would only be a codification of a pre-existing unofficial policy that has arisen from many years of cops and judges exercising their personal judgement in trying to allocate the justice system’s limited resources to the best effect.
You do realize that there are many municipalities and states that have decriminalized marijuana, some for decades now, and none of them have even hinted at following the logical leap that you are positing, right?
Sorry—I just don’t think pot is as bad as alcohol. I don’t know what /wodiot means.
('wodiot' = war on drugs idiot)
fta... “Each case needed four officers to arrest and transport offenders, ...”
Is this another example of why labor unions for government employees should be dissolved?
Why would it necessitate four LEOs to haul in a teenager with a little doobie in his pocket, unless it was something demanded by the union thugs?
Ken, tell me you haven’t heard of any violence related to the drug trade in or near the United States.
Put the joint down. Back away from the T.V. table. Mellow out...
Yes, I know this is the dream of some Americans, but you’d soon have local civil wars going on with different ethnicities going at each other.
What happens when I trial verdict isn’t liked?
What happens when the NBA playoffs are over and the fans want to celebrate?
What happens when the union thugs don’t like some business doing things they don’t like?
The police are there to enforce the laws of our land. Sorry, I wouldn’t trust the morons in my town with my safety. Perhaps you’ve got the perfect town, but many of us don’t.
You are aware of drug related violence inside and outside the United States right? Here we go again, the potheads making the case that if only every drug were legal, there would be no problems. Good grief...
Why Indiana? Chicago is in illinois!
You mean, of course, Mexarkafornia don’t you? Has it’s world headquarters at Bentonville? Wal-Marts everywhere!
I don't smoke pot. I don't want to smoke pot. I won't smoke pot. But I'm not for government making it a criminal monopoly either.
All of a sudden Rham sure has a lot of friends on this forum.
What will happen is they’ll all go Medieval on everybody.
Sorry pal, your unconstitutional nanny-state drug war is about over. You must know this if you have more than a brain cell or two.
Actually both of them.. even tho I misstaked IND for ILL...
The Chicago machine is bigger than Chicago..
Johnny, the problem isn’t just pot. Some folks like pot. Others like morphine. Others like PCP. Others like Cocaine. Others like Crystal Meth. Some like huffing things that seriously screw with their brains.
You see, there’s always going to be a no, even to adults.
Adults grow up and accept it. Children do not. And yes, I’ve met an awful lot of 50 plus year old children in my lifetime. And I’m not just limiting it to drugs.
Sure, we can legalize everything. Then there’s only a black market to our children. Of course there are groups that want them to be able to do anything they can talk them into too.
I know it seems real simple. It isn’t really.
And then you’ll have problems too. I do believe the police have to be reigned in. This ‘everything is a perfect scenario for a SWAT team’ mentality needs to be severely restricted.
I don’t believe in no-knock raids. I don’t believe in this homeland security police state nonsense either.
Ken, the pie in the sky view that legalizing pot will solve all the problems of the world, is just that. Pie in the sky!
You can legalize every drug there is, and folks will still want something else legalized.
Okay, we legalize everything under the sun. Is there still a black market or not?
Unless you sign on to allowing every child under the age of 18 to do any drug they want, you’ll always have a black market. And then our children will be the focus of the only black market. Every resource by the cartels will be leveled at selling drugs to our kids.
Pretty soon you’ll have teachers being paid $100k per year to sell drugs to their students. It won’t be just one either. Every school will have numerous providers on our k-12th grade campuses.
You’re arguing for a situation that will see our kids the bullseye when it comes to selling narcotics. Sound like a great idea to you?
What say you to obeying the Constitution?
Free everyone to protect themselves.
Ken, you can try to turn this into a Constitutional argument if you like, but it is not unusual for the federal government to codify certain laws so that uniformity well exist across state borders.
If one state legalizes drugs, it an effective legalization for anyone in nearby states. It presents a real problem for states that don’t want to legalize.
This isn’t limited to drugs.
Thanks for your comments.
You just endorsed the expansive Commerce Clause at the expense of the Tenth Amendment. That's how we got fedgov control of health care, the environment, education etc.
Typical prohibitionist contempt for the Constitution.
That’s okay Ken. I know you’re trying. Take care.
Boiling the frog............some folks are sooooooooooo naive.
So should states decide questions of regulation and legalization within their borders, or should that be decided by fedgov, in your opinion?
Oh, ok thanks-—
Really? You’re going to stoop to that old logical fallacy to try and support your position? You’re better than that.
Well, I think he meant to say “on average” it takes four officers. It’s not because of union rules, it’s because of the standard police habit, that when they see another cruiser pulling someone over, or hear of an arrest in their vicinity, they all flock over there to mill around.
“Sure, we can legalize everything. Then theres only a black market to our children.”
Of course, because we see organized gangs who are violently competing for the right to sell alcohol to kids, right?
Give me a break. The “black market” for legal substances consists, generally, of selling fake ID’s, not the substances themselves. Most people don’t even bother with that, they just get an older buddy, or some random person on the street to buy it for them.
“it is not unusual for the federal government...”
So your argument is that, if it’s not unusual for the federal government to violate the Constitution, then it is perfectly okay?
“If one state legalizes drugs, it an effective legalization for anyone in nearby states.”
That would mean that counties which allow alcohol are effectively legalizing it for anyone in the dry counties? So, the solution to that would be what, Federal prohibition so that the dry counties have no issues to deal with? Do you even try to conceive of the holes in your arguments before you post them?
Well, that’s a completely different argument to have than what I was talking about. The issue I’m speaking of is the line of argument that “if we legalize pot for practical reasons, then why not robbery, rape, murder, etc.” I made my statement to point out the clear evidence that nobody ever suggests any such thing, so their argument is fallacious.
You know what, one rule of thumb I use in life is who supports something. If a man the caliber of Rahm Emmanuel supports something, I evaluate my stance.
You are right that is not the be-all end-all of a topic, but in this instance I can’t sign on to agreeing with him.
There are two schools of thought on this. We’re going to have to agree to live in different camps on this one. Sorry.