65 Comments - wordslinger - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 9:18 am: Classic Daley rant that serves a purpose. The media focuses on the standup act, while serious questions get pushed aside. Say, for example, what’s the plan for the nightly shooting gallery on the South and West Sides. Can you imagine if we had a hot summer? - Anon - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 9:19 am: I’m with you, Rich. This may be the most ridiculous attempt at logic yet by the mayor. To use his own words, it was silly. - Rep. John Fritchey - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 9:26 am: This idea makes sense practically, socially, and fiscally, and is long overdue. The Mayor’s comments, especially in light of his past support of a much more liberal proposal, defy explanation. - the Patriot - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 9:27 am: The President is cracking down on cigarette manufacturers due to the toxic nature of cigarettes. Now we are going to let you smoke a something that is completely 100% unregulated. The ties to health care make it more crazy. I don’t care if you smoke cigarettes. I don’t care if you smoke pot. But when you do anything that is going to make you more prone to sickness, cancer, and death, then ask me to foot the bill for your health insurance it becomes my business. What is the president goning to do when the FDA cracks down on cigs and his home city opens the door to pot? Run adds, “Smoke pot, not cigs” - Anonymous - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 9:35 am: Calling Daley’s comments silly is the understatement of the year. I won’t even call him the mayor because he is unworthy of the title. Doesn’t he understand the violence against which he rails is mostly fueled by what the war on drugs is doing to our society? If someone worth a dang doesn’t knock him off his perch in the next election I will run my self. - Obamarama - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 9:44 am: John, glad you are on board. Can we expect you to sponsor a statewide decrmininalization on petty posession next session? - Bluefish - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 9:45 am: It’s only a matter of time until we figure out there is serious revenue to make (through taxes) and serious savings to be realized (through lower incarceration rates) by legalizing pot. California is starting to wake up to this concept. - Patrick McDonough - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 9:46 am: Rich please watch this news clip by abc7 news in chicago. It will open a can of worms soon. http://abclocal.go.com/wls/video?id=6928672 - lake county democrat - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 9:47 am: It’s interesting though how most of the folks who would decriminalize pot (I agree!) also voted for a smoking ban so draconian, a bunch of adults can’t operate a bar by and for smokers, no matter how much air cleaning equipment they put in and no matter how much staff would consent to the risk — a risk, I might add, far lower than what NFL football players consent to. - lake county democrat - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 9:48 am: PS — I’m not a smoker (I enjoy a pipe or cigar maybe 3 times a year). - Small Town Liberal - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 9:50 am: Since when did anyone say you could drive under the influence under this law? Last I checked you can still get a DUI if you fail a drug test after a traffic stop. - Out There - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 9:51 am: Sure, why not?! Life would be good for the state with all the lively citizenry pulling on a bong for an hour or two, grabbing their paycheck on the way out the door, cashing it at the currency exchange, then dumping it on a few boilermakers and an hour or two of video poker. With that kind of income for the state, the G.A. can vote themselves some juicy raises. What a festival. - Captain Flume - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 10:08 am: Politicians are expert at logical fallacies. Mayor Daley is no exception. He uses straw men, slippery slope, half truth, selective observation, generalization, and probably several other types of fallacious arguments to make most of the points he ever utters in public. Journalists, for their part in reporting the statements, seem rarely to point out these fallacies in subsequent paragraphs. And unfortunatley, the fallacy seems to often to be the headline rather than the truth behind it. - Brennan - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 10:11 am: Al Capone also liked the repeal of prohibition. I’m just saying. - wordslinger - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 10:13 am: –Al Capone also liked the repeal of prohibition.– I don’t think so. Why would you say that? He murdered his way to a monopoly on booze in Chicago. When prohibition was repealed it cost the Outfit major money. - Segatari - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 10:14 am: Ahem, no one’s saying it? Okay, I’ll say it…all these people running around to wipe out the tobacco companies because it’s destroying people’s health, a lot of them are rushing to legalize pot despite the fact that the damage to one’s body occurs at a faster rate than tobacco. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 10:15 am: ===despite the fact that the damage to one’s body occurs at a faster rate than tobacco. === And you have stats to back that up? Doubtful. - Obamarama - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 10:19 am: ===Al Capone also liked the repeal of prohibition.=== What? Prohibition is what made him rich. Repealing it is what broke his organization’s monopoly and ushered in a vast amount of competition that he otherwise wouldn’t have had to compete with. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 10:24 am: I don’t get it. Are we so forgetful, we don’t remember why vice laws exist? Why have we witnessed over the past forty years an attitude that vice laws are just disposable? Just how stupid do we think our grandparents and great grandparents were? What?! They were just a bunch of ignorant boobs who zombied to whatever church leader told them? There are reasons there are laws. It seems no one cares enough about history to remember why prohibition was popular enough to pass through state legislatures and become a Constitutional Amendment. Do you think our elders were just a bunch of Salem Witch Morons? Or is it just possible that there were real reasons this vice was outlawed for a generation? You cannot wipe vices out, just as you cannot wipe out murder, rape, or theft. So there will always be lives ruined by chemical addictions, whatever chemical happens to be popular at the time. Be it booze, nicotine, THC, Meth, Crack, or toad excrement. Vice laws are the “governors” placed on a society in order to avoid it from spinning out of control. So with every vice accepted, we will see a new social vice take control until society runs amok, and then community outlaws it again. It is a goofy cycle with a long history. It is the nature of humanity. After centuries of watching alcohol destroy lives, cities operated out of brothels, and social diseases killing neighbors, Prohibition came as a Godsend to the USA. It wiped out and drove underground an industry and vice that was wrecking lives. As with any vice law, the vice remained. However, stomping on it helped. We remember Al Capone. But we don’t remember that there were thousands of Al Capones throughout the US before Prohibition. What made Capone different was his massive modern booze distribution system, (which didn’t exist before Prohibition was passed). That is what undermined the enforcement of the law. The ability to transport booze over US roads in mass quantities and prevent a coordinated effort to stop the distribution of alcohol. (Remember Prohibition outlawed the distribution of alcohol - recognizing this problem.) This helped justify killing Prohibition, but it was being addressed before it was killed by the bankrupted state governments, hungry for taxes and tired of spending money enforcing the Law. Sound familiar? What we are casually forgetting to our own disservice is the fact that without alcohol, there were no alcohol taxes during the economic depression rocking the US during the Hoover and FDR years. Just as we look to gambling for tax dollars, FDR looked to alcohol for it’s ability to help pay for the New Deal. So, don’t believe that this Constitutional Amendment ended simply because it couldn’t be enforced, or that it empowered the wrong people - remember that it was ended because governments needed income. Kinda like what we are seeing now. We probably won’t be alive when a backlash comes to Marijuana smoking. It took a century to finally wake up to the disasters and social costs cigarettes caused, so it will probably take a couple of generations before society discovers that the negatives created thanks to this generation’s ego-tripping arrogance outweigh any positives generated by pot. No - the world won’t end. It will just repeat a lesson it continually forgets. Sorry to sound like a crumudgeon. I know how popular it is to be cool to other’s vices today. But as a lover of history, I need to be a crumudgeon here when I write… “You people are freakin’ idiots!” - Brennan - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 10:30 am: Prohibition just gave Al Capone a head start. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 10:32 am: VM, it almost looks like you’re arguing for a return to alcohol prohibition. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 10:38 am: We have far less problems with alcohol than our grandparents’ grandparents had. The situation during the Post Civil War era right up to before the Prohibition movement, was far worse than today. Prohibition may have ended eighty years ago, but it’s benefits remain with us today. We learned some important lessons. - Out There - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 10:38 am: AMEN VM - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 10:40 am: So, VM, why not use the lessons learned from the current prohibition and end it? - VanillaMan - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 10:43 am: I’m sorry. I don’t understand your question. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 10:45 am: You wrote… === Prohibition may have ended eighty years ago, but it’s benefits remain with us today. We learned some important lessons.=== So, why not apply that logic to marijuana prohibition? - wordslinger - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 10:45 am: –“You people are freakin’ idiots!”– Stay classy, VMan. As a student of history, you must know repeal of prohibition was widely supported because adults in America figured they had to the right to have a beer, wine or shot without breaking the law, just as adults always have since the crust cooled. Even JC and the Apostles liked to kick back with a goblet of wine after a hard day. Our ancestors had a lot of laws and practices in their day that have since been repealed or abandoned. It’s called progress. Of course, if you want a Nanny State making those decisions for you, move to Teheran or Riyadh. They know how to make it stick, too. - Brennan - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 10:47 am: ==Prohibition may have ended eighty years ago, but it’s benefits remain with us today. We learned some important lessons.== Aren’t you arguing for the repeal then? Regulate it and you can quantify and track its use and abuse. - JonShibleyFan - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 10:54 am: “It will open a can of worms soon” Doubt it. - Segatari - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 10:58 am: WRONG Rich – A 2002 report by the British Lung Foundation estimated that three to four cannabis cigarettes a day were associated with the same amount of damage to the lungs as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day. http://www.lunguk.org/downloads/A_Smoking_Gun.pdf - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 11:04 am: Your link is broken. And how many people smoke four joints a day? - Brennan - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 11:06 am: Filtered cannabis or in the buff? - The Doc - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 11:09 am: Daley has really taken into bashing the fiscal woes of the print media as a form of misdirection, and I have to wonder if that’s part of the reason why they don’t press him for adequate responses, as they should. He’s politically weaker that at any point in recent memory. To not point out, in real time, the blatant hypocrisy of his statements is very poor journalism. - Anonymous45 - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 11:12 am: My gosh, the Todder is being reasonable!…. - VanillaMan - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 11:12 am: So, why not apply that logic to marijuana prohibition? We have been. Marijuana has been on the books as an illegal substance since the Great Depression. There has been a prohibition against it since then. We all enjoy vices. Their popularity comes and goes in cycles, like fashion. Folks don’t like getting arrested for having fun with their chosen vice. As a vice grows in popularity, more folks choose to enjoy it, and start getting arrested. Important people within society get arrested, and it hurts their influence. They don’t like it - no one would. So you start to see an increasing demand in legalizing that vice. The vice is legalized until it starts to negatively impact the neighborhoods. It begins to lose fashion due to the negative images it starts to generate. Influential people start avoiding the vice. They find another one to take on, or eventually grow too old for a new vice. Vices usually shorten the lives of those who enjoy them. It is a natural cycle. What we will see is an eventual acceptance of Marijuana because the argument against it has been overturned by those who enjoy it, and don’t want to be considered a criminal or arrested over it. They don’t see the harm of this vice right now. This generation won’t get it. It will be the next generations who get sick of Pot. They will get tired of watching the social impacts and start demanding that it end. What will those impacts be? Well, we know smoking is unhealthy. We know that THC impacts cognitive functions. We know that THC impacts brain functions and causes degeneration. We know that the folks in The Netherlands are unhappy with their laws and tired of watching stoners ambling around their communities. They are tired of watching teen boys hang around the coffee shops instead of attending high schools. This will happen here too. There will come a time, just as there is now a time against cigarettes, when pot smoking will be questioned as an acceptable vice. It already is being questioned now by societies where pot is not criminal. Then we will probably see laws against Pot once again, and the next popular vice could be those toads whose backs some are fond of licking. That is the human condition. That is why we have vice laws - silly people! - wordslinger - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 11:13 am: –And how many people smoke four joints a day?– The only person that comes to mind if the greatest scourge of the last foty years, a self-described Outlaw, Public Enemy No. 1—- Willie Nelson. - Yellow Dog - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 11:14 am: I am aware of no health reports indicating dangers associated with eating pot brownies. But, if Republicans want to argue that marijuana should be illegal because its harmful to people’s health, they better be prepared for an amendment to their legislation that bans a whole bunch of other things: 1. Alcohol 2. Cigarettes 3. Hydrogenated oils 4. Artificial sweeteners, flavorings, colorings, preservatives 5. Sugar As far as I know, there is a surfeit of scientific evidence that the aforementioned are harmful to more people than marijuana. - Obamarama - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 11:19 am: ===three to four cannabis cigarettes a day were associated with the same amount of damage to the lungs as 20 or more tobacco cigarettes a day.=== Were they the same size as the tobacco cigarettes? Same kind of paper? Filtered or unfiltered? Do all people smoke marijuana in the form of a joint? Do all people smoke cigarettes the same way? Are marijuana and tobacco smoked the same way? Are you serious right now? - Amy - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 11:19 am: Pat McDonough at 9:46 thanks for that post. very interesting. the city has to face square on the problems of water and sewage in terms of connections, street water buildup and runoff, alley pavin and water runoff, and just plain telling people the truth. city actions have consequences on private property in every municipality. the city of chicago has problems with correct documents and telling residents what is actually happening when they do work. thanks again! - Yellow Dog - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 11:21 am: Vanillaman: I challenge you to come up with a non-tautological definition of “vice” that would include “smoking marijuana” but doesn’t including “eating ice cream.” - Yellow Dog - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 11:35 am: Someone should remind Mayor Daley that foie gras is much worse for you than pot. Then remind him that he supported an IDENTICAL PLAN to Cook County’s less than five years ago. http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6235&wtm_format=print - Leroy - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 11:49 am: Yellow Dog - Vice - something that you shouldn’t do before driving. Example: “Goofus lights up a fatty before driving over to his girlfriend’s” “Gallant enjoys ice cream with his date at the ice cream social” - Yellow Dog - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 11:50 am: Someone should tell Mayor Daley that smoking pot every day is actually much less harmful for you than eating foie gras every day. Then remind Daley that he SUPPORTED decriminalizing marijuana in 2004: Mayor Daley today embraced a Wentworth District police sergeant’s idea to ticket people caught with small amounts of marijuana, rather than file criminal charges and take up the time of police officers only to end up seeing the charges thrown out in court, as often happens. Daley said it makes little sense to keep piling up arrests for marijuana use when “99 percent” of the cases are dismissed. The mayor said judges appear to have so little regard for the cases that many defendants don’t even bother showing up in court. “If 99 percent of the cases are all thrown out, and you have a police officer going - why?” Daley said. “Why do we arrest the individual, seize the marijuana, [go] to court and they’re all thrown out? . . . It costs you a lot of money for that. It costs you a lot of money for police officers to go to court. “Why is that happening? They say, ‘Well, we didn’t like the search. We didn’ t like the arrest.’ It’s the same person we’re arresting every week. He has marijuana on him. And if you want to test him, he has marijuana in his system . . . If 99 percent of the cases are thrown out, when is [there] a credible arrest for marijuana? What does the court want us to do with these individuals?” - Sun-Times, 9/21/2004 - Rep. John Fritchey - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 11:54 am: Obamarama, To quote Sarah Palin, you betcha. Been working on it for weeks coincidentally. - Yellow Dog - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 11:57 am: Leroy - Driving under the influence of marijuana isalready covered. Your definition of “vice” may not include eating ice cream, but definitely includes “eating fried chicken,” the cause of atleast one traffic accident I’m aware of, when the drivers hands slipped off the wheel. Also worth noting that one of the most common causes of distracted driving traffic accidents is drinking coffee, followed by chili then tacos. Banning the drive-thrus at KFC, Dunkin Donuts, Wendy’s and Taco Bell MUST be next on the GOP hitlist. - Leroy - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 11:59 am: Yellow Dog - Gallant wasn’t eating the ice cream while driving. He was eating it at the ice cream social. - Leroy - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 12:01 pm: Yellow Dog - And don’t you think incident of “Driving While Under the Influence” are going to go up if the rules for using pot are liberalized? Where’s the study that says “if pot is legalized, DWIs are going to go up xx%” - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 12:09 pm: Leroy, is there a definitive study that shows driving under the influence of marijuana is more hazardous than alcohol? - VanillaMan - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 12:24 pm: Banning the drive-thrus at KFC, Dunkin Donuts, Wendy’s and Taco Bell MUST be next on the GOP hitlist. That is the second time you couldn’t post something without making it partisan. We’re talking about Cook County, Chicago and Illinois here. These have been single party governments for over a decade. There are no GOP boogeymen out there fighting your right to get stoned. Daley is a Democrat. - The Doc - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 12:24 pm: I’ve not heard anyone advocating for marijuana use, or even suggesting that it should be legalized. It needs to be reasonably explained to me how, for instance, substituting a fine as punishment for small amounts of THC will result in more incidences of DUI. No one is claiming it will be some sort of panacea that will magically erase budget deficits, solve overcrowding issues at jails, or completely unclog the court system. But if it helps just a little bit in each of these areas, is it not worth it? - Yellow Dog - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 12:28 pm: === Gallant wasn’t eating the ice cream while driving. He was eating it at the ice cream social. === …resulting in a blood sugar “crash” that caused him to fall asleep behind the wheel, instantly killing himself and seriously injuring two others when his vehicle veered into oncoming traffic. JUST SAY ‘NO’ TO ICE CREAM. Next dumb idea, please. - Yellow Dog - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 12:36 pm: How NOT to stop kids from smoking pot: “Marijuana use is also associated with a number of risky sexual behaviors,including having multiple sex partners” - Office of National Drug Control Policy - Leroy - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 1:29 pm: == Leroy, is there a definitive study that shows driving under the influence of marijuana is more hazardous than alcohol? == Dunno, I am not nearly the expert on the subject everyone else here is. I am not interested in whether or not it is more dangerous than alcohol, I am more interested in knowing if driving while high is dangerous at all. If it is not, (i.e. people can drive high just as well as not high), then I do not have an issue with relaxing restrictions on it. HOWEVER…if there is a possibility DWIs are going to go up as result of relaxing restrictions, then that needs to come into play in this “Stroger and Daley are idiots” discussion. And Yellow Dog - no need to run away like a scalded dog when you are shown up, old boy - MrJM - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 1:53 pm: Rich, Your calls for any controlled, scientific studies on the allegedly deleterious effects of pot smoking are barking up the wrong tree… U.S. drug policy has made any scientific research into the effects of pot (bad or good) nearly impossible. By labeling marijuana a narcotic, we have effectively declared weed to dangerous to study. The only entities who could afford to jump through the hoops in this area are large corporations and they have no interest in research that could lead to an end of prohibition. (For the record, I’ve never even tried the stuff. And although I’ve seen plenty of fat, stupid and lazy potheads, I’ve seen plenty of fat, stupid and lazy folks who do not partake.) – MrJM - Yellow Dog - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 2:34 pm: === HOWEVER…if there is a possibility DWIs are going to go up as result of relaxing restrictions, then that needs to come into play in this “Stroger and Daley are idiots” discussion. === So, again, we should ban chili because some people are stupid enough to try to eat it - even drink it - while they drive? I agree with you Leroy that people shouldn’t be driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. I just think that the solution is to punish the 1% of the people who drink-and-drive, and not limit the right of 99% of people to sit on their front porch and enjoy a beer - even if its not necessarily good for them. - Yellow Dog - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 2:39 pm: and to your point, Leroy, while driving under the influence of marijuana can technically lead to up to 1 year in jail, the VAST MAJORITY of DUI offenders face only a fine for their first offense, and a fine PLUS community service for their second offense. Why then are we giving folks up to 30 days in jail for mere possession? - Secret Square - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 2:56 pm: It is true, as VM points out, that Prohibition was NOT implemented purely to placate blue-haired old church ladies — it was a well-debated, public response to what was percieved as a serious public health problem at the time (alcoholism). However, this was long before Alcoholics Anonymous and other treatment programs came along. Alcoholism ran rampant in those days because there weren’t many resources available for people who didn’t have the willpower to quit drinking on their own. Today there are 12-Step and other programs available for just about any concievable addiction. Also, remember that just about ANY substance can become addictive or harmful if abused or overindulged in, but that doesn’t mean it has to be banned for everyone. - Ghost - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 3:05 pm: VM your assements of peoples use of drugs, alcohol etc has a number of built in fallicies. === As a vice grows in popularity, more folks choose to enjoy it, and start getting arrested. ==== On a simple level you are assuming all vices are illegal, and their use prompts arrests. Second, you are taking a sterotypical middle class social conept of popularity and tying it to use of drugs, alcohol etc. Socially you have greater us of drugs and/or alcohol in depressed economies and among those whose occupy the lowest rungs of the social ladder. Same with pregancieis etc. This looks to be a product of people with limited options for enterntaiment, escapism and education. Why people drink or do a drug is wide and varied. Prohibition was an experiment by the United States to allow the governemnt to define morality and represents the closest we have come to reverting into a religious state controlled by christian theology. The United States experienced an explosion in violent crime as a result of prohibition, and the social damage created by the money that flowed from this idea into criminal enterprise is still felt today. BTW our fore fathers thought that a sneeze was the bodies attempt to cast out the devil, burned people for witchcraft if they floated like wood, Socially our fore father thought women were secondary citizens not worthy of voting or owning property, it was ok to enslave others, people who did not own land should not have the right to vote, that electricty was dangerous and would never replace gas, that the earht was the center of the universe, etc etc. just because a belief was formed in the past and had been around historically does not mean there is no reason to qeustion its soundness going forward. We have set aside many mistake beleifs and asumptions form our past. Time does not mak knowledge wise, but we are wise to remeber the past so we do not continue repeatuing the same mistakes. I need to stop, i think I am getting the vapors… Our forefather had a lot of bad ideas about - VanillaMan - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 4:16 pm: WHEEW! That analogy of Prohibition seems to be based on a superiority complex incapable of reading history without believing that earlier societies were populated by ignorant, Bible-thumping bigots, sexists and miscreants! If you put that into a book, I recommend you include a tin-foil hat for the buyer to enjoy. Your analogy is so warped and ugly one has to wonder how we ever survived as a society with these kind of ancestors. Good Lord! Prohibition was an experiment by the United States to allow the governemnt to define morality and represents the closest we have come to reverting into a religious state controlled by christian theology. That’s absolutely crazy-wrong! Prohibition became law first in the state of Maine in 1850. It is a product of the woman’s sufferage movement in New England, and women led the charge for Prohibition, along with Woman’s Sufferage. It is not mere coincidence that both Prohibition and Women’s Sufferage becomes law across the US the same time. Prohibition empowered women to empower themselves. As a woman’s issue, Prohibition was further burnished by the fact that it was also anti-prostitution. Prostitution and alcohol were a team. When the Woman’s Movement took on alcohol, it also took on prostitution and veneral disease as a crusade. Women needed family income, and men who suffered from alcoholism drank away their income, threatening women and children. The costs of child welfare escalated for communities, forcing higher taxes, due to negligent fathers. Women also suffered the consequences of veneral diseases brought home from bars and brothels. By fighting for Prohibition, US women began a fight for political power which continues to this day. Your analogy is utterly whacked! BTW our fore fathers thought that a sneeze was the bodies attempt to cast out the devil, burned people for witchcraft if they floated like wood, Socially our fore father thought women were secondary citizens not worthy of voting or owning property, it was ok to enslave others, people who did not own land should not have the right to vote, that electricty was dangerous and would never replace gas, that the earht was the center of the universe, etc etc. I think this is called the “kitchen sink” defense. You don’t know what you are talking about, so you just throw stuff into a big paragraph and hope something sticks. History obviously disproves this. just because a belief was formed in the past and had been around historically does not mean there is no reason to qeustion its soundness going forward. No one is saying we shouldn’t evolve as a society, but attacking proven scientific and social foundations without regards to the consequences is a juvenile wet dream. We have set aside many mistake beleifs and asumptions form our past. Then why your conspiracy theories about religious manipulations? History proves we choose wisely. Time does not mak knowledge wise, but we are wise to remeber the past so we do not continue repeatuing the same mistakes. Wisdom is based on what is proven. Time proves out wisdom. Time exposes lies, revealing proven truths. So, I believe you are wrong. I need to stop, i think I am getting the vapors… Sorry, science has disproven that “vapors” affect one’s ability to think. But to be kind, I’ll make an exception for you. - Leroy - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 4:55 pm: == year in jail, the VAST MAJORITY of DUI offenders face only a fine for their first offense == Unless, of course they happen to kill someone in the process. Ask Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) about that one. Wow, Yellow Dog, if I didn’t know better, I’d say you must be an professional Illinois politician the way you are (poorly) twisting things. Well…two can play at that game, old chum. So I ask you this: Why do you want to make the roads less safe? Why do you want to allow *more* DWI drivers on the road? You must never have been affected by that terrible, terrible crime. Ask anyone who has lost a loved one whether or not we should allow more DWI drivers on the road. - Brennan - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 5:04 pm: FYI: Here’s a debate hosted by CATO between Glenn Greenwald(favors decriminalization) and Peter Reuter(opposes it) on the subject of Portugal’s decriminalization efforts. http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=5887 - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 5:26 pm: ===So I ask you this: Why do you want to make the roads less safe? === Again, do you have data to back up that argument? If not, don’t make the argument. - Stoned Prophet - Thursday, Jul 23, 09 @ 8:16 pm: I read that in Chicago, over 90% of misdemeanor cannabis charges don’t amount to anything in court. I’d rather see the already-limited law enforcement pursue more-serious charges. I can’t believe that there are people out there who think the drug war is working. I can get weed pretty much at will. That doesn’t say much about the drug war, at least when it comes to marijuana. Since the state is hurting for revenue, why not find a way to make money off of weed? Drunks scare me infinitely more than weed smokers. - Ahem...The REAL Anonymous - Friday, Jul 24, 09 @ 1:52 am: ================== This may be the most ridiculous attempt at logic yet by the mayor. ================== I get it–and Daley’s absolutely right. - AL - Monday, Aug 10, 09 @ 7:08 am: Know who caused majiuana prohibition, James Hearst, the original citizen cain. He owned almost ever newspaper around the turn of the century. Most of his interests was timber. A major investor to a man named Dow. Dow who at the time had a new invention, nylon. His actual enemy was hemp, which is the male of the plant, primarily used for rope, was a cash crop to most farmers. Hemp was hard to process. Hearst, made every crime about “Marijiuana” A word he created.There is no such plant. It’s name is Cannabis. Hearst made such hate, that the goverment got involved, and made it so only farmers who bought the goverment Hemp stamp, which was never printed, could grow hemp. Conviently just as the first Hemp Gin was invented. Dow made nylon, the primary rope, in the country and Hearst made Millions. Many still enjoy today, Cannabis Sativa or Marijuana’s cousin, Cannabis Hops, the main ingredient in beer. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.