Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Preckwinkle regrets saying Reagan deserves 'special place in hell' for war on drugs
Chicago Tribune ^ | August 21, 2012 | Monique Garcia and Hal Dardick

Posted on 08/22/2012 12:31:03 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife

Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle on Tuesday said former President Ronald Reagan deserves "a special place in hell" for his role in the war on drugs, but later she regretted what she called her "inflammatory" remark.

The comment from Preckwinkle, known more for a reserved, straight-ahead political style, came at a conference led by former Republican Gov. Jim Edgar, who's now at the University of Illinois Institute of Government and Public Affairs.

Preckwinkle was defending the recent move by the city of Chicago to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana by allowing police to write tickets, saying out-of-whack drug laws unfairly lead to more minorities behind bars.

Downstate Republican state Rep. Chapin Rose of Mahomet questioned whether such an approach includes drug treatment for those who are ticketed. Preckwinkle said no, arguing that drug treatment should be part of the health care system, not criminal justice. She said Reagan deserves a "special place in hell" for his involvement in "making drug use political."

"What? You didn't like that?" Preckwinkle said after audience members gasped.

(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: crime; drugs; marijuana; pot; warondrugs; wod; wodlist; wosd

1 posted on 08/22/2012 12:31:20 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Grrr. When you read the whole article, the authors explain her statement away by again accepting the assinine premise,
“critics contend Reagan ramped up the issue for political purposes during the 1980s.” Who’s being political? Cook County has the most lenient drug and gun crime laws (that’s gun crime not gun laws) for an large urban area. And why? Apparently to protect the small part of her constituency who are killing others.


2 posted on 08/22/2012 12:43:24 AM PDT by madameguinot (Our Father's God to Thee, Author of Liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
When a drug smuggler accepts a side job and guides Islamicists bearing an atomic weapon across the border into the United States and an American city is wiped out, will we then finally reconsider our "war" on drugs?

When it develops that that atomic bomb was paid for in American dollars from proceeds of the poppy crop in Afghanistan, will we reconsider our "war" on drugs?

When our entire criminal justice system breaks down from corruption will we reconsider our "war" on drugs?

When drug cartels become so well funded and so bold that they openly challenge our constitutional institutions such as they are now doing in Mexico and wage bloody terroristic intimidations in America, will we reconsider our "war" on drugs?


3 posted on 08/22/2012 12:48:43 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford; madameguinot
>>>>Preckwinkle was speaking at a luncheon titled "The Opportunities and Responsibilities of Public Service" on one of several panels taking place as part of the Edgar Fellows program, which aims to foster cooperation among policymakers of different parties and backgrounds.<<<<

Perhaps we should consider the blighted, Democratic Party run inner cities -- and the part progressives have played, decade after decade, in cynically nurturing their base of support (dependents).

4 posted on 08/22/2012 12:57:31 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

“saying out-of-whack drug laws unfairly lead to more minorities behind bars.”

Peckerwrinkle is so confused.


5 posted on 08/22/2012 2:03:31 AM PDT by Einherjar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Einherjar

The only people I’ve ever known that hate the “war on drugs” seem to always be drug users for some reason...: )


6 posted on 08/22/2012 3:00:56 AM PDT by jsanders2001 (Make May 2nd Fire a Mexican and Hire a non-Latino Day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Yes that evil Reagan preventing all those kids from getting on drugs. It’s amazing to me how many “Bidens” are in politics today. Does it ever end?


7 posted on 08/22/2012 3:32:17 AM PDT by GrandJediMasterYoda (Someday our schools we will teach the difference between "lose" and "loose")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

So much better to just surrender to them I guess, huh? Hopefully if we do everything they want they won’t hurt us.


8 posted on 08/22/2012 3:54:57 AM PDT by Eagles6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

So much better to just surrender to them I guess, huh? Hopefully if we do everything they want they won’t hurt us.


9 posted on 08/22/2012 4:04:25 AM PDT by Eagles6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

Jim Edgar is out of jail?


10 posted on 08/22/2012 4:23:00 AM PDT by Cenobite (Can't spell unethical without the U.N.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
In the 1980s, the CIA was assisting certain drug smugglers and gangs to indirectly fund Nicaraguan Contras. While there is no evidence that Reagan knew of this program, it happened on his watch. It is very similar to Fast & Furious.

The reporter that broke the story, Gary Bell, was found with two gunshot wounds to the head. His death was ruled a suicide of course. Also, there was never a police statement that said any guns were found at the scene...

You can read more at my post 15 here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2918765/posts?page=15#15

11 posted on 08/22/2012 4:34:20 AM PDT by varyouga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cenobite
Jim Edgar is out of jail?

"He was....the last elected Illinois governor to not face criminal charges until Pat Quinn."

....On February 28, 1991 Edgar declared March 13 as "L. Ron Hubbard Day" in honor of the late founder of the Church of Scientology. He stated that Hubbard's "writings on the mind and human spirit have helped millions of people lead better lives. His literary works have enriched the lives of many readers" and "has solved the aberrations of the human mind." However, Edgar issued a short one-sentence proclamation on March 26, 1991, stating that his original proclamation was rescinded.

......In a Chicago Tribune op-ed after the arrest of then-Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, Edgar said that citizens need to get involved and pay attention to the actions of government officials, and noted that most news media covered investigations of Blagojevich in 2006, yet Blagojevich was still re-elected."....Source

12 posted on 08/22/2012 4:42:41 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

I don’t use and I despise the war on drugs.

It has turned into a war on the people of the United States, and it will go on in perpetuity because it employs so many people, from the street corner lookout to Supreme Court Judges and every person and industry in between.

It is responsible for the militarization of the police, bloated courts, an overwhelmed penal system, serious civil rights violations and has caused more challenges to the 4th Amendment than any other source. It has beeen responsible for many serious challenges to the 2nd Amendment as well.

The WOD has been going on for 40 years. The Cold War only laste 40 years.

It needs to end now.


13 posted on 08/22/2012 5:27:34 AM PDT by Molon Labbie (Prep. Now. Live Healthy, take your Shooting Iron daily.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Molon Labbie

I undertand the corruption and I’ll-gotten gains that come from the “war on drugs” but they should still be illegal for many reasons. So many criminal activities are linked to both procuring drugs (theft, robbery, gang activity, prostitution, etc...) and the immoral culture that feeds it without even factoring in fallout activity (automobile accidents, domestic assault, sexual assault brought on by lowered inhibitions, etc....) that common sense should tell a person of reasonable intelligence they are bad and contribute to the decay of a society.


14 posted on 08/22/2012 5:49:32 AM PDT by jsanders2001 (Make May 2nd Fire a Mexican and Hire a non-Latino Day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6
“So much better to just surrender to them I guess,huh?”

No, do the same thing that wiped out the prohibition liquor gangs - legalize and take away the billions in illegal profits.

Prohibition is always going to be an absolute failure as long as privacy exists. They couldn't stop entire truckloads of liquor. Today, the same profit can be made by smuggling a package that fits into a spare tire, airbag or someones stomach. A 12 year old can grow plants that are easier to grow than tomatoes and worth MORE THAN THEIR WEIGHT IN $20 BILLS! No police actions can stop something like that.

There is NOT A SINGLE person out there that doesn't do drugs or can't get drugs because of prohibition. It's a joke. When I go out to nice clubs/bars in NYC, well-dressed dealers give me their cards constantly. You can get drugs delivered faster than a pizza in this city. There is so much money that the cops protect many of them.

Even making drugs equal to murder wont stop it. In Iran, possession is a guaranteed prison sentence, they publicly execute 400+ drug traffickers every year and they still have a high addiction rate. In North Korea, possession is an automatic life sentence in the gulags and they still have a huge drug problem.

The only benefit from prohibition is lots of money for certain people and NOTHING else. Just ask any dealer if they want it legalized. Every single one will say NO and explain how much easy money prohibition puts in their pocket. The big ones aren't afraid of police because they “own” them.

Also, because of insane, unconstitutional, possession laws we have countless incidents like this. This cop got a deal to keep a lid on the drug corruption at the NYPD. The judge called this 'not only reprehensible abuse of trust and authority but the corruption of the entire criminal justice system.' http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2095772/Cowboy-cop-Jason-Arbeeny-planted-crack-couples-car-seat-escapes-jail.html?ITO=1490

15 posted on 08/22/2012 5:50:44 AM PDT by varyouga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

Read my post 15. Prohibition does NOTHING to stop drug use.

How many people here don’t do drugs or can’t get them because of prohibition? I guarantee it’s NONE.

People don’t use them because it is their OWN choice. Anyone that wants drugs today can find anything they want within a few hours. “Stepping up” prohibition will only lead to more profits and “protected” dealers. Read my post 15.


16 posted on 08/22/2012 5:55:52 AM PDT by varyouga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jsanders2001

I believe not only should they be legal, they should be distributed at clinics to those adults who desire them. For free, with the caveat that the user stays at the clinic to ingest.

That eliminates the need to commit crime to get said narcotics. No more drug gangs, no more violent crime associated with the drug gangs, much less theft and property crimes, (prostitution, well, that one is never going away.)

The government is not the parent. It has and always will be the duty of the parent to teach their children of the ills of society.


17 posted on 08/22/2012 6:39:50 AM PDT by Molon Labbie (Prep. Now. Live Healthy, take your Shooting Iron daily.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife

She’d have been better off just pointing out how horribly destructive to our liberty the ‘war on (some) drugs’ has been. Back in the day, when people still more or less understood that our government was designed to be one of limited powers, it was necessary to pass a constitutional amendment to ban the sale of alcohol. That worked out really well, so it was repealed by another amendment. Unfortunately, many of the drug laws we are saddled with today reach back to precedents established during prohibition for their legitimacy. Strange, isn’t it, that the repeal of prohibition didn’t seem to have any effect on laws that were based on it?


18 posted on 08/22/2012 6:50:14 AM PDT by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: varyouga
Prohibition is always going to be an absolute failure as long as privacy exists.

You may have a point here, time to end privacy! We can finally do away with the evil scourge of drugs! Oh, waitaminute. They can't even keep drugs out of prisons. Guess we'll have to try something else.

If they can't keep drugs out of prisons, where they have absolute authority and control over people, how the hell do they think they can do anything about drugs in society at large? The simple answer, of course, is that they have no desire whatsoever to actually do anything about drugs (even if they could, which they can't for reasons stated in your post). It is far too lucrative in the power that it gives government and the revenue it generates in certain quarters, not to mention all the goodies that get funded by the 'war on drugs' industry.

19 posted on 08/22/2012 7:04:13 AM PDT by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: zeugma
Unfortunately, many of the drug laws we are saddled with today reach back to precedents established during prohibition for their legitimacy. Strange, isn’t it, that the repeal of prohibition didn’t seem to have any effect on laws that were based on it?

The drug laws we are saddled with today reach back to that steaming sack of socialist sophistry we refer to in polite company as the "New Deal Commerce Clause" for their legitimacy.

They have nothing remotely resembling a properly codified and ratified enumeration of power upon which to rest, they sit on a pile of crap.

20 posted on 08/22/2012 7:07:33 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Molon Labbie
I believe not only should they be legal, they should be distributed at clinics to those adults who desire them. For free, with the caveat that the user stays at the clinic to ingest.

Same here. It's not only the drug wars that are bad but the fact that they are illegal and what that does to this country and others such as Mexico. When I was growing up Mexico was a nice place to take a family vacation and not just the exclusive parts of Mexico either.

21 posted on 08/22/2012 7:44:25 AM PDT by bkepley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: bkepley

It may not mean much to some here in the states but there are shootings and mass graves akin to the former Yugolavia just south of the Rio Grande all brought to you courtesy of the drug war.

I don’t ever think that we could tabulate how many tens of BILLIONS of dollars it costs this nation every year....


22 posted on 08/22/2012 7:53:36 AM PDT by Molon Labbie (Prep. Now. Live Healthy, take your Shooting Iron daily.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6
Mexican Cartels ‘Increasingly’ Corrupting DHS Employees to Smuggle Aliens

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2921556/posts

What we are doing is clearly not working and righteous indignation will not cure it.


23 posted on 08/22/2012 10:10:18 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
The drug laws we are saddled with today reach back to that steaming sack of socialist sophistry we refer to in polite company as the "New Deal Commerce Clause" for their legitimacy.

Strangely enough, that's not actually true, if you take the cases, and thread back through precedent. They almost all ultimately rest on the  18th amendment, and strangely enough, cases involving prostitution. That was one of the things that surprised me about it when I did the research several years ago. I can't remember what piqued my interest, but I was reading a supreme Court decision, and started looking at cases that it referred to, then the cases that they referred to. It all ultimately rested on a very shaky bit of ground. Granted, give the stupidity of the courts over the last several decades, I'm sure they could be successfully argued on the current misreading of the 'commerce clause', but that hasn't happened, so the house of cards is based on quickstand instead.

24 posted on 08/22/2012 11:22:24 AM PDT by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: zeugma
The "War on Drugs" is prosecuted through the Controlled Substances Act. Their stated claim to constitutional authority for the act is that Congress "finds" that drugs "have a substantial efffect on interstate commerce".

This goes back to the constitutional atrocity of Wickard v. Filburn, which George W. Bush, after claiming to support an 'original intent' interpretaion of the Constitution, sent his AG before the USSC to argue to uphold in the Raisch v Gonzales case.

25 posted on 08/22/2012 11:43:50 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford; varyouga
Yes, righteous indignation won't accomplish anything. Sorry, it looked better on paper.

That being said, yes, I have major problems with the war on drugs; no knock raids, confiscation laws and such. Much of it comes down to corruption and greed, both human conditions.

One thing that I do know is that drug dealers, smugglers and gang bangers will not walk the straight and narrow if the profit is taken out of drugs. They are predators with evil hearts, most with no skills or education and felony records, hence unemployable.

They will deal in prescription drugs, human smuggling, illegal arms, terrorism, slavery, prostitution and more horrifically kidnapping for ransom and home invasions

Organized crime did not disappear after prohibition was lifted, it's still going strong.

And what do we do with the addicts because their numbers will increase.

26 posted on 08/22/2012 2:05:42 PM PDT by Eagles6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6; nathanbedford
“Organized crime did not disappear after prohibition was lifted, it's still going strong.”

Yes, but the war-zone like violence that we saw in the 1930s and see today in Mexico today will disappear.

Most large criminal organizations were created BECAUSE of prohibition. Some of the wealthiest men on earth today are criminals and they owe it ALL to prohibition. After the repeal of alcohol prohibition, organized crime was barely on the radar in most of the USA until pure cocaine became popular in the 1970s. Entire banks and cities in South Florida were built on cocaine money. Until the coast guard got control of South Florida, Miami was the most violent city in the USA all because of cocaine.

Just think. Before the recent gold bubble, most illegal drugs were worth more than their weight in GOLD. Prohibition essentially created GOLD that grows on trees! No other purely criminal activity can generate even close to as much illegal profit. The only thing that might exceed it are the “legal” activities of our politicians.

“And what do we do with the addicts because their numbers will increase.”

It will not increase because unlike in the early 1900s (when cocaine drops were marketed for kids) people are aware of the risks and dangers. People that don't use drugs today do so for personal reasons, not because of prohibition. Anyone can go out today, buy and use any drug they want.

Maintaining addicts with pure drugs after legalization would only cost a few dollars per day. With most drugs, people can actually be very functional as long as they continue to get them and don’t consume tainted ones. In the early 1900s, maintaining an addict and keeping them functional in their personal life was a legitimate medical treatment.

Right now when someone gets addicted, they steal thousands of dollars in property, sell it for a few hundred and hand it over to a dealer for a few dollars worth of product. The product is usually tainted and often ends up permanently injuring the user so they can never be productive again. If they are put in jail, we end up paying over $50,000 every year and even if they come out clean, they can never be good citizens with a criminal record.

27 posted on 08/22/2012 2:50:09 PM PDT by varyouga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: varyouga
"After the repeal of alcohol prohibition, organized crime was barely on the radar in most of the USA until pure cocaine became popular in the 1970s.

Uhh...ever hear of the Mafia?

As for the addicts, they are unemployable for the most part and will have to be provided for as we do now with SSDI.

28 posted on 08/22/2012 3:31:43 PM PDT by Eagles6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Proves my point that criminal organizations will just move on to another profit making endeavor. islamic terror organizations are funneling millions into jihad from smuggling LEGAL cigarettes, untaxed or from low tax states to states with higher taxes.


29 posted on 08/22/2012 3:55:02 PM PDT by Eagles6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford; varyouga

http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11148


30 posted on 08/22/2012 4:15:37 PM PDT by Eagles6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Cincinatus' Wife
When have we not been at war with drugs? It looks like it started in the 1910s or 1920s or 1930s.

If somebody doesn't agree with it and doesn't want to point the finger at Wilson or Hoover or Roosevelt, they could blame Nixon for "ramping up" enforcement in the 1970 after drug use had greatly increased.

Reagan doesn't seem to have a major player in this -- apart from the "Just Say No" media campaign and the mandatory minimum sentences that were introduced in 1986.

If I understand correctly, the mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines law that Congress -- then controlled by Democrats -- passed was tougher than what Reagan originally proposed.

31 posted on 08/22/2012 4:38:08 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Einherjar

laws alone lead to more minorities behind bars...if they would just stop the raping, the attacking, the stealing, and the killing, I could care less if they smoke their brains out.....


32 posted on 08/22/2012 7:21:29 PM PDT by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Molon Labbie
moral and ethical and organized and proper and righteous behavior by citizens is the ONLY way a society can be a society...

look at the damage to society from promiscuity...from out of wedlock children....from homosexuality...from laziness..from sloth...from gluttony...from ALCHOL and DRUG abuse...

govt has over reached in many areas, including the drug wars, but they never really intend to "win" the drug wars do they?....too many big timers getting their millions off the illegal drug trade....

33 posted on 08/22/2012 7:31:01 PM PDT by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6
islamic terror organizations are funneling millions into jihad from smuggling LEGAL cigarettes

There are billions to be made in illegal drugs. I support cutting criminals' profits by 99.9% - you may feel differently.

34 posted on 08/22/2012 7:31:36 PM PDT by JustSayNoToNannies (A free society's default policy: it's none of government's business.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Molon Labbie
moral and ethical and organized and proper and righteous behavior by citizens is the ONLY way a society can be a society...

look at the damage to society from promiscuity...from out of wedlock children....from homosexuality...from laziness..from sloth...from gluttony...from ALCHOL and DRUG abuse...

govt has over reached in many areas, including the drug wars, but they never really intend to "win" the drug wars do they?....too many big timers getting their millions off the illegal drug trade....

35 posted on 08/22/2012 7:39:15 PM PDT by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6
“ever hear of the Mafia?”

I spent many years in those neighborhoods in Brooklyn and did much more than “hear” about “The Mafia”. Yes, some of them would commit violent crimes but the level of violence was nothing compared to the machine-gun slaughter that prohibition created. No “Mafia” ever came close to the power these cartels have. They have more firepower than many nations and without our help Mexico would have been taken over by them. I'm certain they have even infiltrated the highest levels of our own government.

Right now we have cops armed with 50 cals patrolling the streets of Mexico and entire towns with more killings than declared war-zones. During alcohol prohibition, machine gun shootouts with police were common. We didn't see such violence in this country again until the Miami cocaine wars.

Do you honestly know a SINGLE person who doesn't use or can't get drugs because of prohibition? I guarantee you that everyone you know who doesn't use does so because it is their own decision, not because of fear of the law.

Their incredible profit assures that someone will always be willing to sell to anyone who wishes to buy. The obscene amount of money to be made also assures there is enough money to buy the police. If you look well dressed and go out in a major city, you don't even need to ask anyone. The dealers will come right up to you...

36 posted on 08/22/2012 9:10:02 PM PDT by varyouga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Eagles6
Proves my point that criminal organizations will just move on to another profit making endeavor.

No, it does not prove your point. The cartels are not moving on to something else. They are using the wealth and power from the drug trade to expand their reach into other profit making endeavors.

It is the huge profits from the illegal drug trade that give them the wherewithal to branch out.

37 posted on 08/22/2012 9:11:11 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

We will agree to disagree.


38 posted on 08/22/2012 9:17:05 PM PDT by Eagles6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson