Rahm Emanuel Backs Pot Tickets Over Arrests

NBC Chicago ^ | Friday, Jun 15, 2012 | Lisa Balde

[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.

-snip-

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.

[traditional1]

"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?"

Boiling the frog............some folks are sooooooooooo naive.

[Ken H]

So should states decide questions of regulation and legalization within their borders, or should that be decided by fedgov, in your opinion?

[dandiegirl]

Oh, ok thanks-—

[Boogieman]

Really? You’re going to stoop to that old logical fallacy to try and support your position? You’re better than that.

[Boogieman]

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.

[Boogieman]

“Sure, we can legalize everything. Then there’s 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.

[Boogieman]

“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?

[Boogieman]

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.

[traditional1]

Yes

[DoughtyOne]

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.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks. No sale.

[DoughtyOne]

I don’t agree with everything that is farmed in under the Commerce Clause, but it’s impossible to be in violation of the Constitution if that clause exists there and the interpretation is incorrectly applied.

You argument fails. If you wish to see the amendment containing the clause repealed, I think that’s a reasoned goal. I do think there are some reasoned issues that can be covered under the clause. I don’t like seeing it abused.

LOL, you follow the logic trail quite well, recognize the problem and then tell me I’m the one who is mistaken.

I do not agree with you here. Sorry.

[Boogieman]

“...but it’s impossible to be in violation of the Constitution if that clause exists there and the interpretation is incorrectly applied.”

I don’t even understand what you are trying to say here. It seems you are saying something is not unconstitutional as long as you appeal to some part of the Constitution to justify it, even if you are doing so incorrectly? By that logic, Roe v. Wade is not unconstitutional.

“If you wish to see the amendment containing the clause repealed, I think that’s a reasoned goal.”

The Commerce Clause isn’t an amendment, but regardless, I don’t want it to be repealed, since it is a necessary part of the Constitution. It’s simply been misapplied by the courts and Congress to justify anything that they want to.

“LOL, you follow the logic trail quite well, recognize the problem and then tell me I’m the one who is mistaken.”

Yes, because your “logic trail” is illogical. It might appear logical on its face, but you are relying on fallacious reasoning.

Oh well, as you said in your other post, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. Once we’ve solved the other 1001 problems in the country that we agree on, we can all duke it out over this one.