Who’s REALLY going to wait ‘til turning 21 before taking a ‘toke’ of pot?

Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed off Tuesday on the measure making Illinois the 11^th state allowing people to get themselves high on marijuana – if they so choose.

Will people take a toke for Gov. Pritzker … 

Under the new law, people ages 21 and over will be able to walk into properly-licensed dispensaries and buy small amounts of marijuana or marijuana-laced products for their own personal use.

THEY WON’T EVEN have to put up the pretense of having glaucoma or some other medical condition that would make marijuana use have a medicinal value.

Not that it means there won’t still be issues involved with marijuana use. Those people who want to view it as inherently a criminal act will still be able to get all bent out-of-shape.

Because the part of this new law that has always attracted my attention has been the provision of a minimum age. That’s 21! Which is a concept that I find ever-so-incredibly laughable.

Personally, I recall people being around 11 when they first insisted on taking a toke. Those inclined to want to be heavy users of marijuana usually were regularly (or at least as often as they could afford it) consuming it by about 14 or 15.

DOES ANYONE REALLY believe that people inclined to want to use the stuff really are going to wait until they turn 21?

Somehow, I suspect the age restriction is going to become one of the most-ignored laws we’ll have on the books. Just like the laws that say people aren’t supposed to have their first legal alcoholic drink until turning 21.

Will people start regarding their 21^st birthday as an excuse to not only have their first “official” beer, but also their first smoke? Unless they find quirks in the law – such as I did with regards to alcohol.

… when the clock strikes midnight on New Year's?

For my first legal beer came three days before I turned 21 – because I happened to be in the District of Columbia at the time, and the drinking age there then was 18. So they regarded me as having been legal for years, rather than waiting another three days before selling me that beer.

WHICH ACTUALLY TURNED out to be a rather anticlimactic moment, to tell the truth.

That could turn out to be a positive for marijuana use, to be truthful. Legalizing the product would take away the stigma that would make many people think they just HAVE to give it a try.

Or maybe we’ve just increased the desire of 12-year-olds to want to take a smoke to show how grown-up they are – even if all they’re really going to provide is that they’re as ridiculous as those pre-teen girls who wear too much makeup, or youthful boys who drown themselves in cheap cologne.

But then again, the old laws (which still technically apply until Dec. 31) added to the stigma of drug use to make many would-be adults behave like teenaged halfwits at the very thought of getting high. Probably thinking they’re as entertaining while impaired as Cheech and Chong at their 1970s peak.

PERSONALLY, I’M NOT going to be inclined to rush out and get a legal stash, largely because I find the habit of smoking anything to be grubby and stinky, if not outright repulsive.

We're not all funny like Cheech & Chong

But I also don’t doubt that offending the political sensibilities of people who wanted marijuana use criminalized because they liked the idea of certain types of people being harassed to be a worthwhile concept, in-and-of itself.

So for all I know, New Year’s Day may very well come about this year with many people feeling the urge to light up and get “stoned” right at the moment the countdown reaches zero and “Happy New Year.” Just don’t bother to invite me. I can’t think of anything more deadly dull than a pot party, with people drugged into a nonsensical stupor.

Besides, it would still be illegal because it’s unlikely the pot purchase would have been made from a licensed dispensary. And in the end, Illinois did all of this because it wants the tax money!

  -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-

Hoosier booze on Sundays; cheap(er) pop in Illinois. Freedom? Or $$$!

As one who was born in the part of Chicago and raised in the part of the suburbs where the Illinois/Indiana border was nearby and Hoosiers were a different (although not quite alien) species, I have long been used to having to remember who can buy what (and when) on which side of State Line Road.

You won't have to cross the state line ...

The issue received some prominence last year when Cook County tried enacting a special sales tax on pop and other sweetened beverages – resulting in some Illinoisans making special trips to places like Hammond, Munster or Dyer to avoid paying the tax.

WHILE ALL ALONG, some Hoosiers were making a trip westward every Sunday if/when they wanted to purchase alcoholic beverages – and just couldn’t bring themselves to wait until Monday.

The “pop tax” went away a couple of months ago, although some people who long had been in the habit of buying cheap pop in Indiana continue to do so. Personally, I feel like it’s their gasoline they waste for such a trip – although they probably justify it on the grounds that gas is cheaper in Indiana ($2.42 a gallon, the last time I bought some Friday in Hammond a couple of blocks from Illinois).

Now, the liquor ban – which actually dates back to Indiana’s earliest days as a state two centuries ago – is also withering away.

Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb signed into law this week a measure eliminating Sunday restrictions on alcoholic beverage sales, and it takes effect with this Sunday. Heck, Holcomb plans to have a “cook-out” at the governor’s mansion in Indianapolis to celebrate.

UNDER THE NEW law, liquor sales can start at Noon – which means you can’t skip out on going to church to get yourselves liquored up. But you can buy your booze after church services.

This is an idea whose political time had come, because for many years the lobbyists for the liquor industry opposed Sunday sales. Small liquor stores feared people would go to supermarkets with well-stocked liquor aisles and big-box retailers with sizable liquor departments to make such purchases.

But it seems that the mood of the public was such that the liquor industry took up the cause of the bigger retailers. Holcomb himself said of the move, “Today is a big day… it’s all about the consumer.”

... to buy your booze Sunday afternoon

So my guess is that the entity that will take a hit will be some of the Illinois-based retailers who were getting Sunday sales from people living near the state line who just couldn’t wait to consume some alcohol – some beer or booze, some hooch or whatever other snazzy term you use to describe it.

MY GUESS IS that there are enough Illinois-based boozers who will continue to make their Sunday purchases that our state’s retailers won’t take on a total financial loss.

Will we now have to find some other product that Illinois and Indiana residents can quibble over, or find some sort of moral grounds to dispute?

We in Illinois should be honest in not trying to claim some sense of superiority about liquor sales, because there are communities which have harsher laws governing liquor sales within their boundaries

I remember when I first moved to Springfield a couple of decades ago and discovering that I had to wait another hour on that particular Sunday before I could pick up a six-pack of beer.

ALTHOUGH IT’S MY understanding that the Illinois capital city has since eased its own standards on liquor sales.

HOLCOMB: A 'kegger' at guv's house Sunday?

There’s money to be made by letting someone buy some beer on Sunday – instead of having to wait a little longer. Heck, it seems that even Indiana has come to its senses with its new laws that will allow people to walk into the Jewel-Osco or the Strack & Van Til supermarkets to pick up the liquor they think will enliven whatever party or other weekend gathering they happen to be holding.

Just one question – is part of the reason for expanding liquor sales to the east of the state line that one needs to have a bit of a buzz going to be able to spend that much time living in the land of Hoosierdom?

Which may be like the people from Illinois who used to go in search of cheaper pop and cited high-minded moralistic points, when all the carbonation in the pop ensured they were full of gas (as in the belching kind)!

  -30-

How legitimate is idea of substance abuse rehabilitation for Blagojevich?

Is former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich really a drunk?

BLAGOJEVICH: Does he have 'a problem?'

Until Friday, writing that sentence likely would have made me susceptible to legal actions, assuming that Blagojevich could scrounge up enough money these days to find an attorney willing to represent him in a libel lawsuit against me.

BUT THAT IS the direction our former governor, who in mid-March becomes an inmate of the federal corrections system (exact location yet to be determined), is going to have to take in coming years.

Which, of course, has many people convinced the whole thing is a scam intended to reduce a 14-year prison sentence (actual time of incarceration 11 years, 10 ½ months) by one year, with another few months spent in a half-way house rather than in a prison facility.

Personally, I’m a little more sympathetic in that I’m willing to trust the judgment of the federal officials who ultimately will review any application by Blagojevich to get into a substance abuse program.

If the Bureau of Prisons believes that Blagojevich has developed a problem with alcohol, I’m not going to doubt them. I would take their word over that of the people on the outside who are now ranting and raging about Blagojevich even considering such an application.

THESE ARE THE people who think it an injustice that Blagojevich got ONLY a 14-year prison sentence, and wish it could have been closer to that nonsensical talk of “natural life” that was bantered about early on. Hence, they don’t want to believe he’s got an alcohol problem.

I’ll also admit that back when I was a reporter-type person at the Illinois Statehouse and Blagojevich was a freshman representative from the Lincoln Square and Ravenswood neighborhoods, I don’t recall Rod being among the “heavy” drinkers of the Illinois Legislature (and there were a few).

So I don’t have any first-hand (or even second-hand) accounts of Blagojevich getting sloppy drunk and tearing up a capital city tavern after-hours.

Now what is motivating this talk of Milorod having a substance abuse problem with alcoholic beverages is the Chicago Sun-Times, where long-time gossip columnist Michael Sneed reported Friday that Blagojevich gets so wound up during the day that he has to drink heavily at night in order to get himself to sleep.

WGN-TV HAS SINCE picked up on the intoxication bandwagon; reporting that Blagojevich drinks to get some sleep.

Their sources went out of their way to say that Blagojevich’s “problem” is limited to liquor – he doesn’t pop pills or use any other substances whose very possession would be a criminal act.

I guess that means Blagojevich is basically a decent person, because alcohol is acceptable whereas drugs would not be. Which is a line of logic I find to be a crock. A substance abuse problem is a substance abuse problem, regardless of the actual substance involved.

If anything, I’m more offended that Blagojevich (if he truly is claiming this, we are relying on a “SneedScoop,” after all) might think that his “problem” for which he is requesting serious treatment is an acceptable one for which he would deserve respect over those inmates whose addictions are to pills.

BUT REGARDLESS, HERE’S hoping that Blagojevich can get whatever form of “help” he needs during his time of incarceration. Because if he doesn’t, then his prison sentence will truly be a waste of time.

Besides, a part of me is inclined to think that if Blagojevich does not have a substance abuse problem right now, he probably will by the time he is finished with his term. Despite the security measures in place, there are too many inmates who manage to spend their time zonked out of their minds on pills or alcohol – even if it is some sort of home-made brew that is more likely to make them sick than relaxed.

Because the oppressive nature of incarceration, even at the minimum-security or work-camp level, is one that few people can handle without being changed emotionally. Many prefer to just go through the experience with a buzz on their brain.

This is the environment that Blagojevich will be entering. It won’t shock me if he will require some sort of treatment down the road – which is when any treatment for alcoholism would come.

HE WOULD HAVE to serve several years of his prison sentence before actually getting the chance to be treated for his drinking problem.

Even if you want to believe that the “problem” is one that didn’t exist until former George Ryan gubernatorial chief of staff Scott Fawell (who used the same tactic to knock time off his own prison sentence for government corruption charges) put it into his head a week ago, you have to admit that a few years in a prison environment will change Blagojevich.

What would happen if we just unleashed Blagojevich back onto society as a 67-year-old alcoholic with no prospects for work to support himself? That situation sounds like it creates more problems than are solved by denying him admission into a substance abuse program.

Because let’s be real. If the currently-55-year-old Rod doesn’t have a drinking problem right now, he may very well have one by then.

  -30-

“Bar Cars” become relic of the past

The Chicago Tribune came up with the almost-dignified euphemism of “rail saloon,” while Metra (the commuter railroad that connects Chicago to the surrounding suburbs) officially refers to them as “refreshment cars.”

Yet to anyone who has actually used a Metra train, they were the “bar cars.”

SPECIFICALLY, THEY WERE the lone car located somewhere in the middle of a 10- to 12-car train that could not be entered from the outside because its’ entrance was blocked with a freezer that stocked beverages (both alcoholic and pop – I refuse to call it “soda”).

That car’s presence would allow people to purchase a drink to enjoy while enduring a commuter train ride home to a location on the outer edge of Chicago or one of its many suburbs.

Now these bar cars were not universal. I never saw them on the Metra Electric line trains that I rode for many years, although they did exist on the Rock Island line commuter trains connecting downtown to Joliet and on some other Metra lines I occasionally rode during my lifetime.

But after Friday, they will not exist anywhere.

THE TRIBUNE REPORTED that the cars were bringing in so little revenue that Metra officials have decided they can better use the space taken up by bar car patrons to seat passengers – many of whom are increasing their commuter train usage because the cost of gasoline remains ridiculously high (even if it is possible to find gas at just under $4 per gallon, if one looks intensely enough).

Now many people are going to label me a party pooper, but I must admit to not being upset that the bar cars are becoming an obsolete concept, just like the notion that Metra trains used to reserve one car (the one up front closest to the locomotive) for smokers of various tobacco products.

The bar cars never took on the raunchy stink that the smoking cars did, but the bar cars had their own unique aura.

They also contained one of the secrets to riding a Metra train during the rush hours. When other cars were crammed with people, there was always a good chance of getting a seat in the bar car – if one could push their way through the other cars to get to the bar car.

ONCE GETTING TO the bar car proper, one would often find that half the seats were empty – even though there were a significant number of people in the car.

That’s because the typical bar car patron wasn’t the least bit interested in sitting down. They wanted to stand around and drink, while babbling incoherently. They were also the kind of people who liked to stand around and clog up the aisles and make it impossible for people to get through – all so they could enjoy their brand of cheap, domestic beer.

And as the Tribune noted in a story it published this week about the demise of the bar cars, it often was the same people. If you could stand to be in their presence for up to an hour and a half (the length of a Metra train ride to the most distant of suburbs), then you could get a seat.

It the smell of cheap beer nauseated you, then you were stuck dealing with the overcrowded cars on the rest of a Metra commuter train.

AND THERE WAS one other drawback. That smell would linger for some time. If one was stuck working a few extra hours in downtown Chicago and had to take a late-evening train, one would often have to cope with the aroma (and occasionally, the rubbish) from the bar car crowd. It usually took an overnight airing out to fully clean out these rail cars.

Now for those people who are about to complain that it is an inconvenience to ride a train without some place to purchase overpriced refreshments, I have to say “get real.”

Every downtown Chicago train station that handles Metra commuter trains I have ever seen has several stands selling refreshments, including the same beer or pop that one would buy on board the train. It will still be possible to purchase something before getting on board.

The only thing that will change is the disappearance of the people who considered their train ride home a high point of their day by being able to buy a beer and clog up the aisles of the bar car by refusing to sit down.

NOW, THEY’LL HAVE to buy it in advance, and take a seat. Let’s just hope these people don’t get sloppy, and start spilling their beverages on the rest of us.

And if it means that in some cases, a person has to wait a bit until they get to their home neighborhood or suburb before having an after-work drink, that might be an improvement (although it appears that was not a concern of Metra when they decided to phase out bar cars).

It’s not like many of these rides are so long that one needs nourishment in order to survive. A commuter train ride home is not the equivalent of an Amtrak train ride to St. Louis, Memphis or Detroit, or even the St. Louis-bound train that makes downstate Illinois stops in Bloomington and Springfield (two train stops I am well acquainted with in my life).

Taking the train from downtown Chicago to the Statehouse in Springfield is made a tad more bearable by being able to get something to drink. Needing that same drink on board a commuter train to Joliet – that’s just a lack of self-discipline.

SO EXCUSE ME for thinking that the people who cluttered up the Chicago Tribune’s website comments section with accounts of how this represents the demise of Chicago’s character are being too melodramatic.

The loss of a bar car on board a Metra train isn’t the same as Marshall Fields’ department stores evolving into that symbol of New York shopping known as Macy’s. I’d hate to think Metra would start getting the same overly emotional people with nothing better to do with their lives all worked up because they can no longer buy a can of “Old Style” beer on board the train, but have to bring it on board with them for their ride home from work.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: I wonder how many of the hundreds of people who added their thoughts about the demise of “bar cars” (http://www.topix.net/forum/source/chicago-tribune/T60O4K3TFRI9CRI23) on board Metra commuter trains did so with work-related computers or on time that was supposed to be spent working.

Surrender, or accepting reality?

I don’t know if I support them, but I can understand where a few dozen college presidents are coming from when they say the age at which one can legally drink alcoholic beverages ought to be reduced.

I remember my time in college two decades ago as a period where the attitude was constantly pushed that part of the “college experience” included getting overserved with cheap beer coming straight from the keg.

WHILE I DON’T hang around college campuses much anymore (being around 18-year-olds these days is creepy, it almost feels like stalking), I doubt much has changed in the mentality of the student bodies that are gathering on campuses across the state and nation this month for yet another year of academia at work.

The parties that make up a part of the college experience are going to include alcohol for those students old enough to consume it, and those students really aren’t going to care much if some kid who’s only a year or two underage doesn’t have enough sense to know when to stop drinking.

About 100 college presidents are part of an effort to urge state Legislatures to reduce the drinking age to 18, saying the mentality of campus life is such that they just can’t stop these kids from drinking.

They would prefer it if student activity were no longer illegal. That would make a large part of their problem go away, and allow them to treat over-consumption of alcohol as more of a public health issue.

NOW KEEP IN mind that I went to a slightly offbeat college campus with regards to the alcohol issue. My alma mater actually banned possession of alcohol on campus, even if you were legally old enough to drink.

Illinois Wesleyan University in Bloomington felt that it was easier to enforce the laws setting the legal drinking age at 21 by not letting anybody have alcohol – after all, it was an illegal substance for most of the student body. But it’s not like IWU was Wheaton College, where students sign pledges to abstain from alcohol (among other substances and activities) entirely in their lives.

Yet a strict “alcohol policy” didn’t stop us from feeling “the need” to get bombed. It didn’t make it impossible to get liquor. In fact, all it really seemed to do was create the perception that alcohol was somehow a desired commodity, rather than just some cheap, nasty-tasting swill (which is what most of the liquor we consumed back then really was).

At other college campuses where there were no such rules (such as Illinois State University in neighboring Normal), the alcoholic atmosphere seemed like a free for all. I can remember being surrounded by the tavern ads encouraging us to come on by for weekend drink specials and other events meant to make life in a central Illinois college town seem a little more feisty.

I ALWAYS CHUCKLED at the “rules” that were in force at the University of Illinois in Urbana, where people had to be at least 21 to legally order a drink at the taverns that catered to campus life, but only had to be 19 to enter. So a 21-year-old guy could bring his 19-year-old girlfriend to the bar for a “date.” If somebody looked the other way and she got “served” by mistake, oh well.

I even remember the protests of 1984 on the ISU campus, where students upset that police were enforcing the drinking age laws marched through the downtown area and committed tens of thousands of dollars in vandalism. They “rampaged” through Normal, Ill., for beer.

There's also the fact that I had my first "legal" drink of alcohol some three days before I turned 21. I happened to be in the District of Columbia, where at the time the legal drinking age remained 18. So my first drink was the ultimate non-event.

What is worth mentioning of my college “experience” is that it is not at all out of the ordinary. And apparently, it really hasn’t changed much to this day.

THAT IS WHAT is behind the Amethyst Initiative, the effort by presidents from colleges as diverse as Dartmouth and Ohio State to accept what they see as “reality” and lower the drinking age.

They note it was at 18 or 19 (depending the particular state) for so many years, and they doubt that the safety of the general public has seriously been increased by raising the age to 21.

Call it surrender, or an acknowledgement of reality.

They just want to accept that students are going to drink alcohol. They’d like to think that removing the taint of scandal that now exists for 18-year-olds to get drunk would make them less likely to drink too much because it would not be some “big deal.”

THEY EVEN CITE studies showing that binge drinking is connected to some 500,000 injuries and 1,700 deaths of college students per year. It could be true. I remember the one significant student fatality that took place in Bloomington-Normal, Ill., when I was a student was an ISU student who was hit by a train when his foot got caught in the rails – in large part because he was inebriated.

It’s not like having rules against alcohol consumption stopped any of this drinking from taking place. Perhaps it is time to consider that the higher drinking age is as successful at stopping 18-year-olds from drinking as prohibition was from preventing the population at large from getting ahold of bootleg beer.

Like I said before, I went to a college that tried banning alcohol on campus (even though it was permitted back when the drinking age in Illinois was lower). That didn’t stop us from getting our hands on beer kegs or other stuff.

It didn’t stop me from having a couple of embarrassing moments that people who remember me from college always go out of their way to remind me of when I (too infrequently) see them.

AND I MUST confess, the one time during my four years of college that I got into sufficient trouble to have to see the Dean of Students was for a violation of the university alcohol policy, where I got the equivalent of the lecture Dean Wormer gave to Kent Dorfman in the film “Animal House.”

You remember, “Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.”

I can’t help but wonder how many teenagers would be willing to take such advice, if liquor weren’t given such a “glamorous” image on campus.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: University officials across the country are starting to wonder if a legal drinking age of 21 (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-college-drinkingaug19,0,7039288.story) is realistic.

Not all academics feel this way. Officials (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-bradleypresident-,0,6477952.story) at Bradley University in Peoria want the drinking age in Illinois to remain at 21.

The one fact that all sides of this issue ought to agree on is that the “status quo” is (http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/) unacceptable.