A change is a gonna be coming with regards to the way pot is perceived

I don’t use marijuana, largely because I find the thought of smoking anything to be repulsive and I’m not thrilled about the concept of substances that alter one’s perception of the world around us.

PRITZKER: Backs 'home grow'

I want my senses at full power, and not altered into a haze. It’s not something I’d find relaxing.

BUT I’M ALSO realistic enough to know that many of the laws that exist to criminalize the drug’s use come from an ideological mentality that thought marijuana was only used by certain types of people – and harassment of those individuals was what the laws really were all about.

So we’re bound to have partisan political fights in coming years as we try to reach some realization that a person has some sort of right to get themselves stoned into oblivion. If they’re that stupid, who are we to really stop them.

After all, we did away with Prohibition decades ago. Some of those who argue vehemently about wanting to crack down on drugs will also argue one’s right to get themselves intoxicated beyond belief.

Then again, getting drunk is “cool” and a sign that one is an adult. While getting “stoned” is for hippie freaks still trying to live the Haight Ashbury lifestyle – failing to realize that truly trendy people are ridiculing them. Or if we’re talking about the more bigoted amongst us, we get the old allusions to jazz musicians (who were nothing but Negro ‘hopheads’) being the only people who get stoned.

From the Hippie perceptions … 

ALL OF THESE thoughts popped into my mind when I learned of Gov. J.B. Pritzker saying he supports the concept of “home grow.” As in the right of people to grow marijuana plants within their own homes for their own personal use.

With some of the state legislators who have supported measures to permit medical use of marijuana now talking about changes in Illinois law to allow for one to have their own pot plants in the house.

… to those of age-old prejudices … 

We’d have to stop thinking of the person with special lamps and ventilation systems set up in their closets to allow for marijuana growth (in part because the dark conditions can be prime and because of the lack of attention) as being some sort of criminal.

Those ads for the marijuana grow lights would take on a less-sinister connotation. Although I’m sure the ideologues amongst us will forevermore view it as their life’s mission to keep such changes in perception from ever fully taking place.

… to the ludicrousness of certain Mexican cinema

AS FAR AS the legislative process in Illinois is concerned, officials are contemplating a measure that would let people have up to five marijuana plants in the home. Similar to how possession of a tiny amount on one’s person is now considered a minor offense worthy only of a small fine.

Some states that already permit “home grow” allow more, with Michigan law permitting people to have up to a dozen plants in their homes.

In short, nobody is talking about allowing someone to convert the entire basement into a dark, dank pot farm of sorts.

I use that particular image because of a personal, of sorts, experience. When one of my grandmothers died and the family ultimately sold off the house in which she lived at the end of her life, we got our shock a few years later when we saw the house on the television news.

IT TURNS OUT the new owners bought the home because they liked its big, huge basement already broken up into several rooms, and turned those rooms into a sophisticated operation for the growing of marijuana.

I wonder what my grandmother would have thought of the idea of a police raid at her one-time home. But then again, I seem to recall those new owners paid cash up front for the home. It’s no wonder. Business must have been good.

Will its gags become obsolete?

But for those people who want to retort to all of this that marijuana legalization or decriminalization of any sort is an encouragement to inherently criminal activity, I’d argue that it only takes on its criminal essence because we make it so. Making such changes in law might actually undermine the ability of criminals to make money off drugs. Taking away the financial incentive would go a long way toward reducing crime.

Then again, it would make the old Cheech and Chong film “Nice Dreams” seem obsolete – future generations might not get the gag of the scene where the namesake characters were growing marijuana in their swimming pool, with a pool cover meant to make it appear from the air that the pool was filmed with water.

  -30-

‘Reefer Madness’-type rhetoric bound to swarm over Ill.; will Lege ignore it?

Try watching the 1936 film “Reefer Madness” today. Its imagery is so over-the-top absurd that it’s a wonder anybody ever could have taken such thought seriously.

Worse than 'Plan 9 from Outer Space?'

Yet I’m not going to be surprised if some people are determined to cling to such thoughts of people being driven insane by inhaling the fumes of the so-called “wacky tobacky.” Either that, or the image of marijuana as a “hippie drug,” which makes their continued pursuit of criminalization more about partisan politics than any legitimate concern about health.

THIS POLITICAL FIGHT is going to step up in coming months, as it appears the Illinois General Assembly may well take up bills that would consider legalizing the recreational use of the drug.

Currently, people in Illinois would need to show a doctor’s prescription, and then could only purchase it from specific places that have been licensed by the state to operate under such restrictive rules that it’s clear the political people who concocted them were determined to maintain the stigma of marijuana use being borderline criminal.

As for whether the state Legislature would actually go along with legalization (instead of mere decriminalization), it seems the key on this issue is just as it is on many others – will Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, go along with it?

If he does, it could wind up getting a vote and passing – with potential future Gov. J.B. Pritzker campaigning now on the idea that legalization (and taxation of marijuana sales by the state) is good.

MADIGAN THIS WEEK said he, “haven’t come to a final decision,” but acknowledged that the mood of the people changes with the passage of time. “For American political parties, they have to be aware of what the people want. When American political parties are not aware of that, they usually dissolve.”

Are some determined to cling to these kinds of thoughts?

Could it be that Madigan noticed the results of the advisory referendum question that was on Cook County ballots in last month’s primary – the one asking people “yes” or “no” whether recreational use by people 21 or older ought to be legal.

Basically making the consumption of marijuana similar to having a drink (and treating a ‘junkie’ similar to an alcoholic).

Within Chicago, 73 percent of people voted “yes,” along with 63 percent of suburban Cook residents. Either way, well over the three-fifths support level required for a referendum to pass.

NOW, WE’LL HAVE to see whether the almighty, all-powerful Mr. Speaker of Illinois is willing to change with the times and permit his Democratic caucus to consider the issue.

Because I’m sure it would involve some sense of change on his part, although it’s not impossible to see it happening. I can recall times when anti-abortion activists in Illinois would say they considered Madigan to be an ally because his own Catholic religious beliefs were in line with them, and he would not use his political power to crush their bills meant to make abortion more difficult to obtain.

I doubt those people are willing to say anything nice about Madigan these days; what with the measures of recent years that are meant to restrict many of those restrictions the ideologues push for as an alternative to outright illegalization of the medical procedure.

Madigan could wind up evolving on this issue, too. Particularly if he comes to see that a majority of the people no longer cling to some nonsensical “Reefer Madness” imagery (Blanche’s maniacal piano playing bit is just too ludicrous).

PERSONALLY, I THINK that marijuana use has become so overly politicized to the point where there’s little logic in the laws restricting its use. Although I’m not surprised that some political people merely see the potential for more tax dollars and are eager to support it for that reason alone.

Will marijuana inspire similar thoughts?

I wasn’t kidding earlier when I wrote the comparison between a drug user and an alcoholic – the latter of whom we’re inclined to think of as someone in need of treatment. And yes, I can already hear in my mind the outrage of conservative ideologues – particularly the ones who drink too much – in making such a comparison.

Perhaps it’s time we consider this issue without much of the nonsense-talk of old. After all, we did the same with alcohol and prohibition some 84 years ago.

Could that actually put the political power of the newly re-elected Illinois Democratic chairman on a higher moral plane? It’s bound to be a heck of a partisan fight.

  -30-

D.C. building for Eliot Ness?

Let me state up front that I’m not fond of naming buildings or streets for people. There’s always the stink over whether someone’s achievements are really worth it.

And what happens decades from now when a future generation decides they’d rather honor someone else with a structure whose sole purpose is to provide work space for public officials and civil service workers?

WOULD WE BE better off if we thought of the Daley Center as merely the county courthouse? Probably. Erect a statue to Richard J. somewhere if you want to pay tribute.

Which might be the best way to honor the memory of Eliot Ness, who about 90 years ago was one of the Prohibition agents based in Chicago who was supposed to enforce the laws against alcohol that were put in place in this nation back in the 1920s.

Instead, they spurred the creation of Italian gangs into an organized crime entity that exists to this day.

We’re talking about the days of Al Capone, who of course we like to joke never got caught selling liquor or engaging in any violent crimes to enforce his liquor empire. He got caught by not reporting all the money he made on his income tax returns.

WHICH MEANS THE Internal Revenue Service busted him, then gave him over to the Justice Department for prosecution. Not the “mighty” Prohibition agents – whose men have morphed throughout the decades into the modern-day Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms unit (with most of their emphasis placed on the latter part of the title).

So why is it that there are government officials who want to name the building that houses the ATF division in Washington, D.C., as the “Eliot Ness ATF Building.” The Chicago Sun-Times reported that both of our senators – Richard Durbin and Mark Kirk – are eagerly trying to attach their names to the effort so they can get credit for it!

The REAL reason we remember Eliot Ness

One could make the argument that you’d be honoring a federal agent who couldn’t catch Capone in the commission of crimes that were done pretty much in the open in 1920s-era Chicago.

Although anyone who has ever read the Oscar Fraley (a United Press reporter-of-old in Chicago) book “The Untouchables” gets the impression that Ness viewed his job more or less as harassing the Capone organization until other federal agents could build up the criminal case that resulted in that 11-year federal prison sentence.

Should we remember Dan Aykroyd's Ness portrayal?

OF COURSE, I realize Ness gets some serious publicity points because – after all – he was portrayed in a 1950’s-era television program AND in a 1980s film. Who else can claim to have had both Robert Stack and Kevin Costner portray him?

Even if those portrayals are so far from the actual man that they can be called complete fiction.

You’d be better off hanging photographs of Stack and Costner inside the building, instead of one of the actual man (whom nobody these days would recognize).

There’s another point to argue. If you really were going to honor the memory of Ness, why do it in D.C.? I suspect the agents in the capital city back when Ness was active thought of him, if at all, as someone too incompetent to bring a conviction.

PERHAPS THEY COULD name the Chicago ATF office, in a suite at 525 W. Van Buren St., for the man whose book would have you think of him as an incredibly honest man who couldn’t be corrupted.

Although I’m not interested in getting into a debate over the “real” Ness – who I know had his own struggles during life and was far from heroic in any sense.

More dangerous than the Outfit?

Personally, the part of the Ness story that most amuses me is that after Prohibition, he eventually got transferred out of Chicago, and wound up being one of the “revenuers” in the mountains of Kentucky busting illegal stills – claiming that those ‘hillbillies’ with shotguns were just as dangerous as any of Capone’s men.

Does this mean that every one whose family contains a “colorful character” engaging in the production of “moonshine” will now crawl out of the woodworks to oppose this move?

  -30-

EDITOR'S NOTE: Dan Aykroyd's portrayal of Eliot Ness in a Saturday Night Live sketch is less memorable than that of Desi Arnaz' portrayal of master criminal Frank Nitti -- whose plot to sell amphetamines to local teenagers is thwarted when wife "Lucy" brings him a "Tommy Gun" loaded with blanks!!!

Is Fitzgerald biting off too much with involvement in Mexico drug indictments?

Lewis I. “Scooter” Libby. Judith Miller. George Ryan. Someday (possibly) Rod Blagojevich.

These are just a few of the people who have managed to come under fire from Chicago’s very own U.S. attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald. With these prosecutorial scalps, Fitzgeraold has amassed a record of high profile – higher than a Chicago-based federal prosecutor usually gets.

IT’S BECAUSE OF his willingness to get involved in the big national investigations that require him to put in time elsewhere, rather than becoming overly parochial like many of our city’s public officials.

So could it be that he’s bored these days, and uses that boredom to justify his latest target – Mexican narcotics traffickers?

Could it be that Fitzgerald’s 21st Century take on Eliot Ness thinks he can fight drugs the same way Ness allegedly (if not fully in reality) took on alcohol?

Will Chicago’s G-men take on the influx of narcotics that are flowing up from Mexico and Latin American nations?

YES. I WILL be the first to admit I’m laying the hyperbole on rather thick here – to the point of being ridiculous.

Because that is what I think of the indictments that were handed down Thursday in federal courts in Chicago and New York, and announced publicly in the District of Columbia, with Attorney General Eric Holder at Fitzgerald’s side in making the announcement.

These acts are pointless if they are to be judged on their realistic potential to actually stop the flow of drugs into the Chicago area, let alone the rest of the nation.

The reporter-type person in me has dealt with many drug busts throughout the years whose significance was exaggerated by law enforcement types who were eager to make themselves look significant in the “War on Drugs!”

BUT FITZGERALD MAY have topped them all with this week’s announcement that some 43 people, including some Mexican citizens currently living in Mexico, now have criminal charges pending against them in the United States.

It’s almost as ridiculous an act as when then Chicago-based federal judge Kennesaw Mountain Landis tried to have Kaiser Wilhelm II extradited to the United States so he could be hauled into his courtroom to allow Landis to punish him for the sinking of the Luisitania – the act that drew the United States into World War I.

I just don’t see the practical effect such a prosecution would have. You might as well just go ahead and issue the indictment against Osama bin Laden.

It is true that some lower-level people in the United States are now busted and likely will wind up doing their time in prison. It will cause some confusion for a few days in terms of the flow of drugs into this country.

THERE MAY BE someone who is not able to make their usual illicit drug purchase for a few days.

But it is too likely that for every person who spends some time in jail, someone else will rise up in the ranks and become significant. In short, they will be replaced. The order of things by which these narcotics get into this country will be restored, even if it is with different people.

It really doesn’t matter who is providing the drugs, so long as the demand for the “product” is there. Someone will always be desperate or determined enough to take the legal risks to try to fill the desire.

If anything, all these indictments did was little more than open up a few jobs – which can be a plus in today’s times of economic struggles. Someone else is about to get a job as a drug dealer.

AS FOR THE Mexicans at the top who are getting rich off the misery caused by narcotics (so rich that at least one of them is among the wealthiest people on the face of Planet Earth)?

This indictment merely makes it a little more difficult for those dealers to bring their bimbos to “los Estados Unidos” for a weekend of pleasure in Las Vegas or at some other luxury spot that most real people in this country can’t think of enjoying (it costs too much).

Secretary of State Hillary R. Clinton was correct a few months ago when she said the United States had an obligation to assist Mexico with trying to stop the flow of narcotics into this country.

There wouldn’t be so many Mexicans getting rich off narcotics sales if it weren’t for Anglo idiots being willing to spend what little money they have on a “quick fix.”

IF IT MEANS we have to focus our efforts on trying to get people weaned away from wanting to resort to such drugs, rather than think the “Law and Order” approach is primary, then so be it.

Because a part of me wonders if all that is going to happen from these new indictments is that some people, particularly those of a nativist ideological bent, will think the problem is solved now that somebody’s cracking down on Mexican drug dealers.

When in reality, the problems caused by narcotics use will remain with us, even if a few more people wind up crowding our nation’s prison systems.

And Patrick Fitzgerald could go back to doing his job of keeping us Chicago-area residents safe from the likes of Rod Blagojevich.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Reports of the indictment of various people, including high-ranking Mexican drug dealers, cracked me up (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-082009-drug-cartel-federal-indictments,0,4228031.story) with their references of drugs being slipped into the country “by submarine.” Could it be that those subs are going up the Mississippi River, across the state via the Illinois River, then coming into the city via the Chicago River? Nah!

For those who wonder why Mexico doesn’t just extradite the 10 of their citizens who are now indicted (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/us/21cartel.html) in the United States on drug charges, think of how many of them would feel if the U.S. willingly turned over its citizens because a foreign country filed some charges.