Preckwinkle regrets saying Reagan deserves 'special place in hell' for war on drugs

Chicago Tribune ^ | August 21, 2012 | Monique Garcia and Hal Dardick

[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.

[madameguinot]

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.

[nathanbedford]

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?

[Cincinatus' Wife]

>>>>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).

[Einherjar]

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

Peckerwrinkle is so confused.

[jsanders2001]

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

[GrandJediMasterYoda]

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?

[Eagles6]

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

[Eagles6]

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

[Cenobite]

Jim Edgar is out of jail?

[varyouga]

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

[Cincinatus' Wife]

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

[Molon Labbie]

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.

[jsanders2001]

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.

[varyouga]

“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

[varyouga]

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.

[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.

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.

[zeugma]

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?

[zeugma]

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.

[tacticalogic]

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.