*** UPDATE *** I just totally unloaded on the person who sent me the original video because I specifically asked if there was anything else about the topic on the clip and was told in no uncertain terms that what I had been given was all that Kennedy said. Turns out, that wasn’t the case. Here’s the end of Kennedy’s answer…
Let’s balance our budget the way a great state balances its budget, and if we want to legalize marijuana for other reasons, then let’s do that.
So, he’s getting closer to actually coming right out and saying he’s OK with legalization, but he’s not quite there yet. More importantly, my apologies to the Kennedy campaign.
[ *** End Of Update *** ]
* Tracker footage from last night’s Democratic Women of Kendall County event…
* Transcript…
Audience question: Where do you stand on Illinois legalizing marijuana for recreational use and financial benefits for the state?
Chris Kennedy: I’d say this. We are not a failed state. We have a state government budget problem, that’s what we have. We don’t have an economic problem. Now Gov. Rauner is slowly making that state government budget problem become an economic problem. It doesn’t need to be that way. When Pat Quinn was governor, we had a slightly higher income tax, we had a balanced budget, we were paying our currently due payments under all pension programs, and we were paying down outstanding payables. That’s pretty much all you want out of your government right there. And we can do that again without a lot of harm at anybody in our state, and that’s what we should do. The idea that we should abandon that and instead pay for everything by legalizing marijuana because we don’t want to take on the hard work necessary to balance a budget in a modern state in America is ridiculous. Let’s separate those two issues. Let’s separate those two issues.
Lots of words.
And, may I ask, who are these people who say we should abandon the hard work of balancing a budget and “pay for everything by legalizing marijuana”?
I think I am the only person on the blog that doesn’t think Marijuana should be legalized. It’s toxic smoke, not different than cigarette smoke. If you want to keep the faux science of medical marijuana going that is fine with me, but legalized recreational use will not lead to a stronger state in my opinion.
In terms of Chris Kennedy. Just tell us you don’t support it already. I don’t need all the verbal gymnastics.
its too late for him to take the sound advice - just say you’re against it and why - weaseling the subject infects his standing as a candidate on all issues
“I think I am the only person on the blog that doesn’t think Marijuana should be legalized. It’s toxic smoke, not different than cigarette smoke.”
Recreational marijuana use should not be legal because it is “toxic smoke”, and
marijuana smoke is “not different than cigarette smoke”, therefore
recreational cigarette smoking should be _________.
Hint: There is only one logically consistent answer. (And it makes no more or less sense than marijuana prohibition.)
==The idea that we should abandon that and instead pay for everything by legalizing marijuana because we don’t want to take on the hard work necessary to balance a budget in a modern state in America is ridiculous.==
Thinking legislators can’t walk and chew gum at the same time is ridiculous.
I think reporters need to stop qualifying the question with the ‘financial benefits’ canard. That might make it harder to give his canned response without sounding like a fool.
How about questioning all of the legalization proponents who dismiss the scientific studies that link marijuana usage to future cognitive difficulties for teenagers? No one under the age of twenty-five should be smoking for recreation.
If you are a Kennedy, you do not go to jail for using illegal substances. If you are a poor person, you do. Chris Kennedy and the Kennedy family are the epitome of white privilege.
Like most economic opportunities, to extract the full benefit from legalizes recreational marijuana, the State has to act sooner (read: now)rather than later.
Unlike most economic opportunities, this one is a can’t lose.
Also unlike most economic opportunities, this one is rad.
=== I think I am the only person on the blog that doesn’t think Marijuana should be legalized. It’s toxic smoke, not different than cigarette smoke. ===
Then you should be for legalization because legalization opens up more opportunities for non/less-toxic, more controlled ingestion of marijuana, such as vaping and edibles.
=== How about questioning all of the legalization proponents who dismiss the scientific studies that link marijuana usage to future cognitive difficulties for teenagers? No one under the age of twenty-five should be smoking for recreation.
It is not a harmless vice. ===
Most advocates, I don’t think, are out there advocating for teenage use. Plus, please explain how marijuana prohibition has kept marijuana out of the hands teenagers anyway?
Kennedy just needs to come out and say he and the governor actually have the same mutual friends in Colorado, who also tell him that marijuana is bad. /s
The way I see it is that the marijuana legalization question tests two attributes of a candidate:
1. Public policy: Because marijuana legalization makes all the sense in the world and if you oppose it, you support awful public policy.
2. Courage: Because I have a hard time believing any rational, reasonable politician in 2017 actually opposes marijuana legalization, but they just don’t have the courage to say they support it. They would rather take the seemingly politically safer route rather than take a principled stand.
This thread has been an excellent example of why marijuana prohibition is stupid.
There’s simply no logically consistent way to be for legal alcohol and cigarettes but against legal marijuana. Pick a lane. You’re either for banning all of those toxins or not.
Used both sides of the MJ legalization thing in about half of the classes in my Communications minor..
It hasn’t worked, it doesn’t work…
Also going back to my college days, when holding various security jobs on campus, I never though a kid who was high was going to punch me. I can’t say that about drunks.
I still stand almost alone in my party in opposing pot legalization but this is such a bizarre, lame answer. I can’t even read the tea leaves and say he opposes it because the answer was pretty much a non-sequitur. In fact, it almost feels like this was a preface for the rest of the answer. Was there something after this answer?
- DrurysMissingClock - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 2:03 pm:
I find it ridiculous someone with this stance (not to mention abortion) is making a run at the “anti-establishment” lane in a Democratic primary in our state.
Who is in Kennedy’s base besides people holding on to an old party name? Certainly none of his ideas are attracting core Democratic primary voters and definitely none of the more progressive wing of the base he’ll have to woo to beat JB.
- DrurysMissingClock - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 2:10 pm:
To the update just now: still not doing it. I’m very tired of the straw man argument “weed won’t balance the budget”. If that’s really why you think legalization proponents want this, you’re out of touch.
Apparently the answer to my question - “In fact, it almost feels like this was a preface for the rest of the answer. Was there something after this answer?” - was yes. But “if we want to legalize marijuana for other reasons, then let’s do that” is still not an answer. Does HE favor or oppose? Still not answered.
1) Thanks Rich. As always, appreciate your hard work and getting to the bottom of things when something is passed on to you in an incomplete manner.
2) ===Let’s balance our budget the way a great state balances its budget, and if we want to legalize marijuana for other reasons, then let’s do that.===
I’m more pleased now reading that and seeing and understanding true context.
I’ve been know to walk something around the barn a time or nine, but I’m not running for Governor. I can appreciate the clarity Kennedy wanted before, framing his response, and I hope these next few 8,573 times he’s asked about this topic, brevity begins to be seen.
Rich…be careful accepting gifts from the JB campaign….slimy. They learned all the tricks from Blago. You will continue to get burned. They are scared of him and will come up with anything to get rid of him. My two cents.
With the budget mess we’re in it’s going to take quite a few “fees and taxes” to right the ship. Kennedy needs to recognize that legalizing marijuana is a very reasonable avenue to consider. You can be against it but to rule it out because it “won’t balance the budget” is ignorant.
I can’t think of a single reason to not legalize it. It’s either tax it the way we tax alcohol and tobacco (and not sell to minors) or just ban the other two also.
- Free Set of Steak Knives - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 12:47 pm:
Doesn’t sound like he is dodging the question to me.
Kennedy clearly opposes legalizing marijuana for recreational use.
He should quit dodging the question and just come out and say it.
Where is Amanda Vinicky when you need her?
- Saluki - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 12:47 pm:
I think I am the only person on the blog that doesn’t think Marijuana should be legalized. It’s toxic smoke, not different than cigarette smoke. If you want to keep the faux science of medical marijuana going that is fine with me, but legalized recreational use will not lead to a stronger state in my opinion.
In terms of Chris Kennedy. Just tell us you don’t support it already. I don’t need all the verbal gymnastics.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 12:48 pm:
===Doesn’t sound like he is dodging the question to me… He should quit dodging the question and just come out and say it===
Pick a lane already.
- Gruntled University Employee - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 12:57 pm:
=== It’s toxic smoke, not different than cigarette smoke. ===
IMHO, it’s the same as abortion or gay marriage, if it’s not your thing then you have the option of not participating.
- Now What? - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 12:59 pm:
Maybe Chris Kennedy is 90% ok with it . . .?
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 1:00 pm:
its too late for him to take the sound advice - just say you’re against it and why - weaseling the subject infects his standing as a candidate on all issues
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 1:04 pm:
To the Post,
Where my confusion is at…
Is this a “taxing marijuana won’t help” issue?
Is this a “health” issue?
Is this a “drug legality” issue…
… heck, is this just a plain ole moral issue?
Lots of words taking a simple question down multiple rabbit holes.
That’s a scatter-shot way to avoid an answer that leads to more questions on rationale that red not be answered.
I honestly dunno the reason(s) in any significance to either way Kennedy leans here, even if it’s just a plain “no”
Do better.
- @MisterJayEm - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 1:05 pm:
“I think I am the only person on the blog that doesn’t think Marijuana should be legalized. It’s toxic smoke, not different than cigarette smoke.”
Recreational marijuana use should not be legal because it is “toxic smoke”, and
marijuana smoke is “not different than cigarette smoke”, therefore
recreational cigarette smoking should be _________.
Hint: There is only one logically consistent answer. (And it makes no more or less sense than marijuana prohibition.)
– MrJM
- AC - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 1:05 pm:
==The idea that we should abandon that and instead pay for everything by legalizing marijuana because we don’t want to take on the hard work necessary to balance a budget in a modern state in America is ridiculous.==
Thinking legislators can’t walk and chew gum at the same time is ridiculous.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 1:05 pm:
On September 6, 1988, the DEA’s own administrative law judge, Francis L. Young determined Cannabis was a medicine and should be rescheduled.
- jerry 101 - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 1:06 pm:
I think reporters need to stop qualifying the question with the ‘financial benefits’ canard. That might make it harder to give his canned response without sounding like a fool.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 1:09 pm:
How about questioning all of the legalization proponents who dismiss the scientific studies that link marijuana usage to future cognitive difficulties for teenagers? No one under the age of twenty-five should be smoking for recreation.
It is not a harmless vice.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 1:09 pm:
===I think reporters===
That was an audience question.
- Annonin' - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 1:10 pm:
Apparently Kennedy 50+1 rack up does not include the stoner vote..hmmm
- stacy - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 1:15 pm:
If you are a Kennedy, you do not go to jail for using illegal substances. If you are a poor person, you do. Chris Kennedy and the Kennedy family are the epitome of white privilege.
- AlfondoGonz - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 1:21 pm:
Like most economic opportunities, to extract the full benefit from legalizes recreational marijuana, the State has to act sooner (read: now)rather than later.
Unlike most economic opportunities, this one is a can’t lose.
Also unlike most economic opportunities, this one is rad.
Be smart, people. And be cool.
- Just Observing - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 1:22 pm:
=== I think I am the only person on the blog that doesn’t think Marijuana should be legalized. It’s toxic smoke, not different than cigarette smoke. ===
Then you should be for legalization because legalization opens up more opportunities for non/less-toxic, more controlled ingestion of marijuana, such as vaping and edibles.
- Just Observing - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 1:24 pm:
=== How about questioning all of the legalization proponents who dismiss the scientific studies that link marijuana usage to future cognitive difficulties for teenagers? No one under the age of twenty-five should be smoking for recreation.
It is not a harmless vice. ===
Most advocates, I don’t think, are out there advocating for teenage use. Plus, please explain how marijuana prohibition has kept marijuana out of the hands teenagers anyway?
- realkewlio - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 1:26 pm:
Kennedy just needs to come out and say he and the governor actually have the same mutual friends in Colorado, who also tell him that marijuana is bad. /s
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 1:27 pm:
===No one under the age of twenty-five should be smoking for recreation===
I don’t think that 21 year olds should be pounding whiskey shots, either, but when you’re an adult you should have the freedom to choose.
- Just Observing - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 1:28 pm:
The way I see it is that the marijuana legalization question tests two attributes of a candidate:
1. Public policy: Because marijuana legalization makes all the sense in the world and if you oppose it, you support awful public policy.
2. Courage: Because I have a hard time believing any rational, reasonable politician in 2017 actually opposes marijuana legalization, but they just don’t have the courage to say they support it. They would rather take the seemingly politically safer route rather than take a principled stand.
- PJ - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 1:30 pm:
This thread has been an excellent example of why marijuana prohibition is stupid.
There’s simply no logically consistent way to be for legal alcohol and cigarettes but against legal marijuana. Pick a lane. You’re either for banning all of those toxins or not.
- Arsenal - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 1:33 pm:
==It’s toxic smoke, not different than cigarette smoke.==
Which…is…legalized.
- Smitty Irving - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 1:38 pm:
Perhaps when Chris Kennedy hears the question he thinks of his brothers David and Robert, and freezes?
- OneMan - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 1:47 pm:
Used both sides of the MJ legalization thing in about half of the classes in my Communications minor..
It hasn’t worked, it doesn’t work…
Also going back to my college days, when holding various security jobs on campus, I never though a kid who was high was going to punch me. I can’t say that about drunks.
- Chicago Cynic - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 1:53 pm:
I still stand almost alone in my party in opposing pot legalization but this is such a bizarre, lame answer. I can’t even read the tea leaves and say he opposes it because the answer was pretty much a non-sequitur. In fact, it almost feels like this was a preface for the rest of the answer. Was there something after this answer?
- DrurysMissingClock - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 2:03 pm:
I find it ridiculous someone with this stance (not to mention abortion) is making a run at the “anti-establishment” lane in a Democratic primary in our state.
Who is in Kennedy’s base besides people holding on to an old party name? Certainly none of his ideas are attracting core Democratic primary voters and definitely none of the more progressive wing of the base he’ll have to woo to beat JB.
- A guy - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 2:04 pm:
To the update: Good on you Miller.
- DrurysMissingClock - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 2:10 pm:
To the update just now: still not doing it. I’m very tired of the straw man argument “weed won’t balance the budget”. If that’s really why you think legalization proponents want this, you’re out of touch.
- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 2:10 pm:
I hate to agree with A guy Rich, but that was an important and necessary update. Well done.
- Chicago Cynic - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 2:10 pm:
Apparently the answer to my question - “In fact, it almost feels like this was a preface for the rest of the answer. Was there something after this answer?” - was yes. But “if we want to legalize marijuana for other reasons, then let’s do that” is still not an answer. Does HE favor or oppose? Still not answered.
- Oswego Willy - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 2:14 pm:
To the Update,
1) Thanks Rich. As always, appreciate your hard work and getting to the bottom of things when something is passed on to you in an incomplete manner.
2) ===Let’s balance our budget the way a great state balances its budget, and if we want to legalize marijuana for other reasons, then let’s do that.===
I’m more pleased now reading that and seeing and understanding true context.
I’ve been know to walk something around the barn a time or nine, but I’m not running for Governor. I can appreciate the clarity Kennedy wanted before, framing his response, and I hope these next few 8,573 times he’s asked about this topic, brevity begins to be seen.
- A guy - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 2:18 pm:
==- 47th Ward - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 2:10 pm:
I hate to agree with A guy Rich,==
Don’t be too hard on yourself 47. Consider it a breakthrough! lol
- anonymous - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 2:32 pm:
Rich…be careful accepting gifts from the JB campaign….slimy. They learned all the tricks from Blago. You will continue to get burned. They are scared of him and will come up with anything to get rid of him. My two cents.
- don the legend - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 2:35 pm:
With the budget mess we’re in it’s going to take quite a few “fees and taxes” to right the ship. Kennedy needs to recognize that legalizing marijuana is a very reasonable avenue to consider. You can be against it but to rule it out because it “won’t balance the budget” is ignorant.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 2:57 pm:
“They are scared of him and will come up with anything to get rid of him. My two cents.”
Ummm…I don’t think so. Kennedy can’t get out of his own way these days. Why would they be scared of him?
- Free Set of Steak Knives - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 3:04 pm:
Sorry, should have said Kennedy should quit mincing words.
You have to admire Pritzker for just coming straight out and giving a simple answer.
Is Kennedy suggesting we should legalize it but not tax it? Seems like a ridiculous idea.
- georgeatt - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 4:27 pm:
It is such a no-brainer issue, yes legalize. Pritzker will vacuum up these votes like my dog does M&Ms.
- Cheryl44 - Tuesday, Jun 13, 17 @ 5:14 pm:
I can’t think of a single reason to not legalize it. It’s either tax it the way we tax alcohol and tobacco (and not sell to minors) or just ban the other two also.
- Stark - Wednesday, Jun 14, 17 @ 8:33 am:
Kennedy is embarrassing for the Democrats. Anybody but him at this point. So weak and feckless.