Daley Suggests Updating Pot Laws

FOX News ^ | Oct. 03, 2004 | AP

[Quick1]

CHICAGO — Mayor Richard Daley (search), a former prosecutor, runs the nation's third-largest city with a pragmatic, law-and-order style. He wears his hair short, and you'll never catch him in a Grateful Dead T-shirt.

So when he starts complaining about the colossal waste of time and money involved in prosecuting small-time marijuana cases, people take notice.

[fire_eye]

Frankly, I'd like to see them completely decriminalize possession, and then attach a felony penalty with mandatory jail time to *transfer* of *any* amount for *any* reason, and to commission of *any* crime while under the influence.

I.e., you can have all you want, and get as stoned and stupid as you want, but you get caught giving it to someone else - even your wife or kids - or do something stupid to somebody *else* as a result of your little "experimentation", and You're Going Away, Hippie.

My major reason for proposing this is the screams of outraged frustration that it would provoke among the potheads. It would be a delectable case of "be careful what you ask for, you might get it."

But NTS, I'm not holding my breath...

[endthematrix]

You are thinking William Daley, that's the Mayor's brother. Big Dick still has national influence being a Big Dick Mayor and sits with the National Council of Mayors.

[TKDietz]

I'm for legalizing and regulating marijuana similar to the way alcohol is regulated now. I'm not one of those who would legalize all drugs because I know how bad some of them are and it wouldn't be a good idea to make them cheap and more available than they are now. Marijuana, in my opinion, is not that big of a deal. It's not particualrly addictive. It doesn't tend to cause enormous problems like alcohol and some of the other drugs. It's already cheap and despite the laws against it it's already readily available to all who want it. It seems silly to me to keep it illegal. If people want to waste their time with this unhealthy habit, that's their perogative. Obviously we can't stop people from doing it, so why waste our time and money trying when pot smokers aren't a threat to the rest of us simply because they smoke pot? It would be better to have some control through regulation than have absolutely no control over it as is the case now with the current laws that people just ignore. We should treat it similar to the way we treat alcohol, with it only being sold by licensed retailers to adults, no smoking and driving, no public intox, etc.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

George Soros would be so proud.

[TKDietz]

What is the fixation with George Soros? He's not exactly the first person that thought it was stupid to arrest people for smoking pot. There were a lot of people who wanted it decriminalized or legalized long before anyone even knew who he was. I never heard of him until I started coming to this website. Some of you guys seem to think that but for George Soros nobody would consider the possibility that maybe our laws against marijuana are ridiculous. That's just stupid. All this Soros talk is nothing but a big red herring. You people just throw it up to demonize anyone and everyone who thinks the marijuana laws are stupid. Personally, I don't care about George Soros, but if I had billions of dollars I'd probably throw a few million at legalizing marijuana too. It's past time for it to happen. These stupid laws do more harm than good and they need to go.

[Wolfie]

Wow. So the city of Chicago would be in line with the whole State of Ohio, my home State (possession is a $100 fine), and a swing state at that.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

I'd probably throw a few million at legalizing marijuana too. It's past time for it to happen. These stupid laws do more harm than good and they need to go.

Funny thing about it, the American public by a large majority does not agree with you.

[TKDietz]

About one third do though and that number is growing. Give it twenty years or so. Over fifty percent of adults under 55 or so have smoked marijuana before and most of them know it's not that big of a deal. A much lower percentage of those 55 and over have smoked it and a much higher percentage of these people tend to vote, so politicians tend to pay more attention to them than younger voters. As time goes on you'll see a shift in the way politicians talk about and handle marijuana issues because they will see a shift in attitudes about marijuana in their voting base as less and less of those citizens most likely to vote will be afraid of marijuana because most will have smoked it themselves. Instead of being politically risky question the laws against marijuana, it's going to come to the point where rabid prohibitionist positions on marijuana will become a political liability.

You can see already that people like the Office of National Drug Control Policy are worried about the changes in attitudes. They can see the change in demographics that is occurring in this country. By law, they are required to fight against any form of marijuana legalization. What they are doing now is a media campaign aimed at convincing baby boomers that marijuana is much more harmful than it was once thought to be and that the marijuana people smoke today is a completely different and much more dangerous drug than the marijuana people once smoked. This propaganda has a dual purpose. Partly it is to scare people from using marijuana and to convince parents to crack down hard on their kids who smoke it. But also what they are trying to do is sway voter opinion. They are required by law to take all steps necessary to do this, and they take this mandate seriously. The problem for them is that these scare tactics hurt their credibility when people realize that they are exaggerating and taking great liberties with the truth. These less than honest scare tactics have always turned young people away from the government message about marijuana and those who have smoked it before who are now older and wiser still for the most part are cognizant of the fact that much of what their government says about marijuana is hype. As these people fill the ranks of the older demographics and replace those who came of age before marijuana became popular in this country you will see further increases in the percentage of Americans who favor changes to our marijuana laws. It's inevitable.

[AxelPaulsenJr]

I disagree.

[TKDietz]

Actually the penalties in Chicago would be worse than those in Ohio and the laws would still be much more restrictive. It is my understanding that possession of less than a hundred grams in Ohio is a civil citation with no possible jail time and only up to a $100.00 fine. A hundred grams is nearly a quarter pound. Apparently the penalty for growing that much marijuana is the same as it is for possessing that much, people caught growing under a hundred grams only face a $100.00 ticket there unless the state can prove intent to distribute the marijuana. Growing between 100 and 200 grams (nearly a half pound) is only a misdemeanor with a fine and only a maximum of 30 days jail time. In almost every other state growing any amount is a felony.

These laws have been on the books in Ohio for what, 25 years or so? Did the pits of Hell open up and swallow all Ohioans? Did the sky come crashing down? According to the last government numbers where they broke down use by states only 6.69% of Ohioans report smoking marijuana within the month preceding the survey. The national average for that year, 2002, was 6.2%. So use in Ohio is only slightly higher than the national average, with only one extra person per 200 people reporting that they had used marijuana at least once in the month preceding the survey. Two things important to note are that these numbers fluctuate and in many past years use in Ohio was lower than average, and also, there are several states with stricter laws where use is higher than in Ohio. All of this worrying that more lenient laws will cause huge numbers of people to begin using marijuana is unfounded.

[TKDietz]

You disagree with what? Do you not believe that about one third of all Americans surveyed are now responding that they would like to see marijuana legal and regulated like alcohol? Do you not agree that the percentage of those wanting this has grown since the sixties when the issue first started coming up? Do you not agree that greater than 50% of American adults under 55 are reporting on government surveys that they have smoked marijuana? Do you not agree that a much lower percentage of older Americans report having ever used marijuana, less than 10% of those 65 and older? Do you not agree that it has been statistically proven that older Americans are more likely to vote than younger Americans who are of the voting age? Do you not agree that politicians, knowing that older Americans tend to out-vote younger Americans, tend to cater more to older Americans? Do you not agree that the percentage of older Americans who have smoked marijuana is rapidly growing as baby boomers age and the older seniors who never smoked pot die off? Do you not agree that the ONDCP is required by law to fight against marijuana legalization? Do you not agree that using dishonest scare tactics will often backfire and cause those using such tactics to lose credibility in the eyes of their intended audience?

[AxelPaulsenJr]

I disagree with the premise that Americans in any kind of substantial numbers will ever want pot legalized.

By the way, have you ever heard of paragraphs?

[TKDietz]

"I disagree with the premise that Americans in any kind of substantial numbers will ever want pot legalized."

I would say a third is already a substantial number of Americans. A majority isn't too far away. I would agree though that we'll never see a majority who want drugs like meth and cocaine legalized though, and I'm glad of that.

"By the way, have you ever heard of paragraphs?"

Yes, I've heard of paragraphs. I know my posts are sloppy but unfortunately I don't have time to spend making them look pretty. I can only squeeze in a few moments here and there to post to these forums and I'm a pitifully slow typist so I go for content over form and hope people can look past the glitches. If I could sit and post without interruptions and I had time for proofreading my posts would look better, but that's just not the way things work out.

[Wolfie]

I don't care what the cultivation laws say. Cops just make up numbers anyway. Not worth the risk. Its the Black Market for me.

[TKDietz]

I just stick with just a little alcohol on occasion. I've tried to limit my vices over the years and pot was more of a waste of time for me alcohol. It just makes me more of a scatterbrain than I already am and I don't need that. A couple of beers now and then usually enhances social activities if I don't overdo it. A couple of glasses of wine enhances a romantic dinner with my wife. Most of my free time is spent with my kids too though and I feel like we all get more out of that time without the "aid" of any intoxicants. But everyone is different and if people feel like they get something positive out of smoking marijuana or drinking I don't think it's anyone else's business unless they are harming others or putting others at risk with their behavior. And I sure handle enough alcohol related criminal cases to know that alcohol carries with it far more potential for harm to others than marijuana does, so it seems pretty stupid to me to allow alcohol but not pot.