Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Cullerton called out for helping Silverstein
Next Post: Pritzker takes flak for calling out Biss volunteer
Posted in:
* The Democrats love to put non-binding advisory questions on the ballot rather than just pass laws themselves. But, whatever. They may not have the votes to pass legalized marijuana right now, particularly if it’s gonna be vetoed, so let’s all have a little show biz instead and maybe gin up some youth turnout…
Voters would get to weigh in on whether Illinois should legalize recreational marijuana under a bill that passed the state Senate on Thursday.
Senate Bill 2275, approved 37-13, would put the question to voters on the November ballot.
As currently written, it would ask Illinois voters, “Do you support the legalization of possession and use of marijuana by persons who are at least 21 years of age, subject to regulation and taxation that is similar to the regulation and taxation of tobacco and alcohol?”
The measure is part of a larger effort to explore whether Illinois should liberalize marijuana laws, which has been ongoing as lawmakers obtain feedback from various stakeholders.
* Letter to the editor…
Rep. Ryan Spain, R-Peoria, has filed, on behalf of the Illinois Redistricting Collaborative, House Joint Resolution Constitutional Amendment 43, which aims to end gerrymandering in Illinois.
This amendment proposes a 16-member independent redistricting commission that will reflect the demographic, geographic and political diversity of our state. Residents from communities throughout Illinois will be included. Communities of color will be represented. Democrats, Republicans and Independents will have seats at the table.
Two members of the Illinois Supreme Court from opposite political parties will choose all the commissioners, keeping the process above the political fray.
Above the political fray? Right.
And what happens if the 16-member commission deadlocks? From the proposal…
If the Commission fails to adopt and file a redistricting plan by August 1 of the year following a federal decennial census, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the most senior Supreme Court Judge who is not elected from the same political party as the Chief Justice shall appoint, by August 8, a seventeenth member to the Commission. The seventeenth member of the Commission must not be affiliated with either major political party.
And if the two can’t agree on a suitable independent appointment? Well, we’re out of luck because there is no provision for that.
* ESPN…
Illinois took a significant step toward becoming the first state to ban organized tackle football at the youth level.
HB 4341, also called the Dave Duerson Act, would prohibit any child under 12 from participating in organized tackle football. The measure passed out of the Illinois House mental health committee on an 11-9 vote Thursday and now heads to the House for a full debate and vote.
The bill needed 11 votes for passage.
Illinois is one of four states — New York, California and Maryland are the others — to introduce legislation regulating tackle football.
I’m not saying it won’t pass both chambers and I’m not saying it’s bad legislation. But there’s a reason for the “It’s just a bill” headline. We always see lots of excitable stories this time of year about bills passing committees in the originating chamber. That just doesn’t mean much. Long way to go.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Mar 2, 18 @ 11:08 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Cullerton called out for helping Silverstein
Next Post: Pritzker takes flak for calling out Biss volunteer
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
As to the redistricting; I believe the Chicago mayoral race is now non partisan, have the non partisan mayor of Chicago be the 17th member. About as non partisan as all the other members including the Ill supreme court
Comment by DuPage Saint Friday, Mar 2, 18 @ 11:17 am
As I noted the other day, they should quit with the advisory referenda and put real, binding legislation amending the Constitution on the ballot. Maybe a graduated income tax? And voter’s initiative to recall any elected official? Or even a voter’s process to amend the rest of the Constitution similar to what California allows?
Comment by RNUG Friday, Mar 2, 18 @ 11:24 am
Normally, I’m not too high on advisory referendums, but to be blunt it’s an issue that Illinoisans should speak to since it permeates the governmental air so significantly. So I’m mellow with rolling this one out for a vote.
Comment by Norseman Friday, Mar 2, 18 @ 11:24 am
They can’t pass pot without the governor. They’ve done the math. With his certain veto, it’s not worth asking amenable Republicans to go out on the limb right before an election. They’ll pass it on Gov. Pritzker’s first session day.
Comment by PJ Friday, Mar 2, 18 @ 11:25 am
=But there’s a reason for the “It’s just a bill” headline.=
I thought it was assumed that rec mar was going on the ballot as one of those turnout drivers. Isn’t the “just a bill” reserved for the bills that aren’t going anywhere?
Comment by m Friday, Mar 2, 18 @ 11:25 am
=Normally, I’m not too high on advisory referendums, but to be blunt it’s an issue that Illinoisans should speak to since it permeates the governmental air so significantly. So I’m mellow with rolling this one out for a vote.=
I feel like either the voters will end up eating this up, or they will let it go up in smoke. There was a time lawmakers would have been stoned by the public as soon as this hit the papers. I think my buds need to pass around this topic for awhile and see if it has a puff of credibility.
Comment by m Friday, Mar 2, 18 @ 11:30 am
Norseman - what not just get the papers and reefer to committee?
Comment by Henry Francis Friday, Mar 2, 18 @ 11:34 am
Hey Norseman, I see what you did there…
“but to be blunt….”
Comment by Honeybadger Friday, Mar 2, 18 @ 11:37 am
- Norseman - We’ll played.
But all kidding aside, I think this does make sense as an advisory referendum. Prohibition didn’t work because it’s virtually impossible to enforce a law if it doesn’t have popular support. What better way is there to gauge popular support of marijuana laws than with a referendum?
Comment by Telly Friday, Mar 2, 18 @ 11:38 am
The one advantage of tackle football over flag football is that you wont have your gym shorts ripped off like I did.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Mar 2, 18 @ 11:38 am
Shouldn’t the decision to let your child play tackle football be with the parents?
Comment by Honeybadger Friday, Mar 2, 18 @ 11:38 am
I like the Independent Commission idea better than the one we have now. The new initiative and the current way we draw districts both have their flaws, but the new way is better than the old way.
Comment by Ahoy! Friday, Mar 2, 18 @ 11:40 am
Lots of health issues we don’t leave to the parents. Drinking liquor in a public place and smoking, for example, Why should this be any different?
Comment by a drop in Friday, Mar 2, 18 @ 11:46 am
Norseman, don’t you mean NORMLy? That aside, you hit that pretty good, mon.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Mar 2, 18 @ 11:49 am
Am I missing something on the football bill? No penalties, enforcement mechanism?
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/100/HB/PDF/10000HB4341lv.pdf
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Mar 2, 18 @ 11:50 am
Wordslinger. You may not need enforcement and penalties. The organizers of a tackle football team have no legal protection when a kid is injured. Parents can’t sign a waiver for an illegal activity.
It would be like serving liquor to minors. One accident traced back to you and your house is gone.
Comment by Last Bull Moose Friday, Mar 2, 18 @ 12:15 pm
As I recall, advisory referendums on taxing millionaires and raising the minimum wage garnered majority support in past elections, and then no action was taken to enact them into law. This might be no different.
Comment by anon2 Friday, Mar 2, 18 @ 12:23 pm
We should get rid of gerrymandering just as soon as Texas does.
Comment by JackD Friday, Mar 2, 18 @ 1:00 pm
My son has played football since he was 6. He is now 16
At the little league level the ids play against kids same age they are weighed and if they exceed a certain weight limit they are restricted as to what positions they are allowed to play
I think eliminating tackle football at this level could lead to more injuries
Fast forward to high school the kids will be playing against kits potentially older. Bigger. Stronger. And now they won’t have the experience and the training on how to tackle properly
Comment by Nick Friday, Mar 2, 18 @ 1:00 pm
Redistricting tie breaker - “The seventeenth member of the Commission must not be affiliated with either major political party.”
Where in the world is one going to find some both (a) capable and qualified to do redistricting work and (b) without any political affiliation ?
Comment by titan Friday, Mar 2, 18 @ 1:32 pm
Nick-
With all the evidence that CTE in football players is caused by the cumulative effect of all the collisions sustained in their careers, and the fact that the human brain isn’t even fully developed until your mid-20’s, it isn’t a matter of tackling properly.
There is also evidence that players that sustain concussions are better off in the long run than players who do not since the ones who don’t suffer concussions never stop sustaining collisions whereas ones who do stop playing to get treated and many end their careers earlier.
Comment by CTE Friday, Mar 2, 18 @ 2:00 pm
The ban would effectively eliminate insurance. If you are organizing a youth sport without insurance you are too irresponsible to be organizing youth sports.
Lots of talk about the science, but I am unaware of any studies that show youth football below age 12 causes head injuries.
We are looking at people who played in the NFL which is such a statistical anomoly it is useless information to base legislation on.
You are also looking at people who played youth football 20 years ago. The helmets in the NFL in 1995 were not as good as most youth helmets today. Good and bad, the technology is moving so fast, we just don’t have viable data.
There are real, sensible steps that can be taken to enhance safety that are cost neutral.
Comment by the Patriot Friday, Mar 2, 18 @ 2:22 pm
My point is little people tacling little people prob not too much damage. Big people tackiling big peoplehigher liklihood of damage. Especially if they don’t know what they are doing.
If we are just trying to minimize effects of CTE then they should elimante tackle football tilll 18. Beyond they the ‘adults’ can make future choices for themselves
Comment by Nick Friday, Mar 2, 18 @ 2:50 pm
Mayo did a 2012 study of 438 males who played football in 1946-1956 vs 140 males same age who did not play. Equipment then was poor, no spearing rules, and less regard for concussions compared to now. Results: no increased risk of dementia, Parkinsons, ALS between the groups. Not denying that concussions happen. I got one at age ten falling off a bike. Not much science with definite proof that youth football = CTE. I do think under 7th grade should be flag.
Comment by zatoichi Friday, Mar 2, 18 @ 2:58 pm
I held my son out of football because of fear of injury to long bones. A break in the wrong place at an early age can result in a shortened leg.
Also was influenced by college teammates who had played as young kids. Many had undergone surgery.
Comment by Last Bull Moose Friday, Mar 2, 18 @ 3:12 pm
The offset of starting later is that kids are hitting for the first time when the force is strong enough to cause harm.
Teach proper form while they are young when force makes head injuries almost non-existent rather than start from scratch or break bad habbits.
Basketball and Soccer see more head injuries than football. The reality is no one is researching those sports so we pretend it is non existent. L
Comment by the Patriot Friday, Mar 2, 18 @ 3:14 pm
== Lots of talk about the science, but I am unaware of any studies that show youth football below age 12 causes head injuries.==
When the brain is even less mature, does common sense tell us it will be less susceptible to long-term injury from repeated hits to the head?
Comment by anon2 Friday, Mar 2, 18 @ 3:43 pm
==Basketball and Soccer see more head injuries than football.==
For head injuries seen in the ER, football is second only to cycling, both overall and in the 14-and-younger crowd.
http://tinyurl.com/yc4vvc7m
Comment by yinn Friday, Mar 2, 18 @ 3:43 pm