Illicit narcotics sold in rural Illinois, yet locals insist on viewing them as ‘Chi’

I couldn’t help but get a chuckle from reading a downstate newspaper account of how a central Illinois man was found guilty of criminal charges related to his selling of cocaine and heroin to people in and around his hometown.

Of course, the locals want to believe that such substances don’t really exist in their community. Somehow, this has to be some sort of alien presence infecting them. Because there’s no way the locals would ever engage in such actions (either selling narcotics, or using them).

SO NATURALLY, THEY turn to the fallback accusation. Blame Chicago!!!

For as the headline in the Bloomington Pantagraph (of a story originally published by the State Journal-Register of Springfield) told us, “Lincoln man convicted of selling cocaine, heroin he bought in Chicago.”

It seem the man, who is 38, was found guilty last week in Logan County court of unlawful delivery of a controlled substance. Prosecutors claimed during his two-day trial that he made several trips to Chicago (about a three-hour drive up Interstate 55 from his hometown of Lincoln, Ill.), where he bought the drugs.

Then, he’d bring them back to his hometown (about a half-hour’s drive north of Springfield), where he’d sell them from his house. To add to the comical nature of this criminal enterprise, the man lived in a house located two blocks from an elementary school.

WHICH UNLESS YOU believe means that six-year-olds are stopping by his house on their way home from school to satisfy their fixes, could almost be seen as irrelevant.

Although I don’t doubt it feeds into the need of those people who are all too eager to believe that our beloved home city is representative of all that is wrong with and corrupt about our society.

This almost strikes me as being the kind of tidbit that Donald Trump himself would link to in another of his inane, nonsense-style Tweets on Twitter when he feels a need to get back to bashing Chicago.

Of course, Trump would have also felt the need to document that the drugs originated in Mexico, before going to Chicago, before being put into the hands of people who were then providing them to “real” Americans who comprise all that is just and proper about our society.

WHICH IS SUCH a nonsense thought to have – even though I don’t doubt there are situations where that very scenario could have happened.

To me, the sad truth of narcotics use is that there are people in all walks of society who have allowed themselves to become addicted.

Think of it this way, if there wasn’t a need felt by certain types of people, there wouldn’t be a market for those so-called despicable ghetto types from Chicago to be able to sell such product.

Then again, that image I just presented is equally as absurd as the one of so-called real Americans not using such substances to begin with.

THIS KIND OF story presented in such a manner merely feeds off stereotypical images that don’t do anything to truly inform us about the “scourge” that certain illicit substances can have upon us.

As for this particular case, it seems the man in question faces sentencing come February – and could get between six and 30 years for a prison term. With four previous convictions, he is regarded as a “habitual criminal,” which could make a sentence near the high end of the range likely.

Which as far as I’m concerned merely means crime and illicit behavior is capable of occurring just about everywhere.

And for all I know, when this man eventually winds up being sent to prison, his fellow inmates who happen to hail from Chicago will probably view this guy as an example of the kind of riff-raff they’ll be exposed to that will be a part of their punishment!

  -30-

What’s so sensible about police dog, gun sanctuary political policies?

I remember once talking with someone of a social conservative ideological bent who seriously perceives conservatives as merely being people who view their ideas as “common sense” principles that we all ought to be eager to follow.

Is this canine the victim of  possible drug law?

I remember laughing in his face at the thought of some of the extremist thought being perceived as logical by any means, and some of the ideas cropping up in Illinois these days in the name of sane social policy are equally ridiculous.

MUCH OF THIS comes from the regional split between urban vs. rural – with many of those in less-populated places being (in my opinion) too isolated from the real world to fully appreciate what goes on amongst the majority of us.

Take marijuana use.

That drug oft inhaled in the form of handmade cigarettes (although I’m sure some are making jokes about brownies) is the focus of proposals that could come before the General Assembly in the near future as to legalization. Some see the logic in legitimizing the substance, with the product being produced under regulated conditions and taxed.

Boy, do some government officials want to tax it! While some are so determined to keep the taint of illegitimacy attached that they’re going to come up with lame arguments as to why its use ought to remain some sort of criminal act (mostly because they think it’s people NOT like themselves who are using it – which is itself absurd).

WHICH IS WHY some law enforcement types are now spewing out an argument against legalization – it would reduce their need for those police dogs whose principal purpose is to use their strong sense of smell to detect the presence of pot.

One thing about the dogs used by police is that they are trained intensely to serve a sole purpose. The idea of retraining those animals likely is not practical – and they’re certainly not of any use as house pets.

The Herald & Review newspaper of Decatur reported about how law enforcement officials are saying their dogs would all have to be retired, and in many cases euthanized, since the one task they were trained to do would now be something no longer needed by police.

The real target of those 'sanctuary' gun communities

Maybe they think they’re going to get all the animal rights activists on their side because of the very thought of all those dead dogs piling up somewhere.

THE THOUGHT THAT a change in law would mean there would be no more need for such dogs in police work is just too radical a thought for those people determined to keep pot criminal.

Although the more absurd line of logic being peddled by ideologues involves another measure being pushed in certain counties of rural Illinois where the gun rights activists are determined to think their firearms are some sort of moral right – just like they want to think only “hippie freaks” use marijuana.

These are the counties following the lead of officials near Effingham that have declared themselves to be “sanctuary” spaces for people with firearms.

As in the local law enforcement officials will not feel compelled to assist with enforcement of firearms restrictions that local officials deem to be intrusive on their idea of what are our “rights.”

MUCH OF THIS thought ties into the ongoing debate over federal immigration policy and those who want to alter laws so as to boost deportations from this country. These ideologues are offended at the thought that some cities have declared themselves “sanctuaries” or “welcoming cities” where local cops let federal immigration officials do their own work – rather than offering any unasked-for cooperation.

So now they think they’re “mocking” those who want serious reform of immigration policy, while also strengthening the position of political partisans who are obsessed with firearms and who think that singer/songwriter John Lennon got one thing right in his life when he wrote, “Happiness is a Warm Gun.”

Beatles' parody of gun magazine that parodied Peanuts

Of course, I feel like I’d get the last laugh when somebody who doesn’t fit into their idea of a “real” person winds up showing in their isolated communities bearing arms. How quickly would they cooperate with prosecution of an "undesirable?" And would that person be able to use the idea of inconsistent application of the law to “beat the rap,” so to speak.

Just like I’m sure the same ideologues suddenly become rational about drug laws when it’s their own kids who get caught taking a toke and trying to figure out if Bill Clinton wasn’t totally full of it when he said he, “didn’t inhale.”

  -30-

How far some fall -- from the ballpark to the court. Or silly costumes for some

Baseball pitchers and catchers for many ball clubs, including the Chicago White Sox, arrive for spring training camp Wednesday to begin preparations for another season of play, and I’m sure many former ballplayers have fond reminisces about those days in Arizona or Florida.

LOAIZA: Scheduled for court on Wed.

Although reading the news reports of late have me wondering what’s running through the mind of Esteban Loaiza – remember him?

HE’S THE BASEBALL pitcher who had a peak during his 2003-04 stint with the White Sox, when he and Mark Buehrle were the ball club’s most reliable starting pitchers.

He was the starting pitcher for the American League all star team in 2003, when the game was played at the then-named U.S. Cellular Field – the last time the All Star Game was played in Chicago.

Loiaza also wound up finishing that season with a record of 21 wins and 9 losses. The win tally matched the number of victories that Fernando Valenzuela had for the Los Angeles Dodgers in 1986, and gives the two of them the most victories ever in a single season for a Mexican-born ballplayer.

The Tijuana native was on top of the world back in those days when he was with the Sout’ Side ball club – just as Sammy Sosa was once a beloved celeb back in the late 1990s when he was hitting all those home runs for the Chicago Cubs.

SOSA: Silly, but not serious

YET JUST AS Sosa is now a comical figure whose latest antics include that photograph of himself and wife Sonia in their cowboy-like outfits, Loaiza has taken a plunge for the worse.

In fact, Loaiza is now far lower than anything Sosa is ever alleged to have done.

For Loiaza is the former ballplayer who got himself arrested last week and now faces criminal charges related to narcotics. Police in Imperial Beach, Calif., (near San Diego) found large-enough quantities of controlled substances in his rented home that he’s being regarded as some sort of low-level drug dealer.

That’s a label he may never be able to shake – even if he eventually is acquitted of the criminal charges or has them dismissed.

HOYT: Fallen even further

LOAIZA SUPPOSEDLY HAD drugs valued at $500,000 in his possession – although one needs to keep in mind that those dollar figures police toss out with regards to drug busts usually have their own sense of exaggeration.

They’re nowhere near as precise as the baseball stats we have that tell us of Loiaza’s 2.90 earned run average or his American League-leading 207 strikeouts back in that season of 2003 – which is tainted largely because the White Sox wound up collapsing that year in September and finished as a mere second place ball club.

Which means that Loaiza, who currently is being detained in lieu of $200,000 bond, is one whom I’m sure would rather be at a ballpark, rather than in a courtroom and jail cell combo.

It will be interesting to see how White Sox fans will acknowledge Loaiza’s existence as a ballplayer, and if it will turn out to be similar to that of LaMarr Hoyt – the 1983 Cy Young Award winner (best pitcher) whose own life became mucked up with several drug-related arrests. Hoyt is almost an un-person to the fans old enough to remember him.

WILL LOAIZA BECOME something similar?

BARRIOS: The ultimate fate

Although I have to admit that learning of Loaiza’s situation reminded me of another former White Sox pitcher. As in Francisco Barrios, who pitched for some crummy Sox teams of the late 1970s and was released at the end of 1981. Within a year, the one-time Mexican League ballplayer and native of Hermosillo was dead from cocaine use.

I still remember being at Comiskey Park for a ballgame when a “moment of silence” was held for Barrios. A sad end to another former ballplayer.

And will mean that at least a little attention will be paid to a Southern California courtroom where Loiaza has an appearance scheduled for Wednesday, while his former fans will be trying to see what’s happening at the Camelback Ranch training camp the White Sox have in suburban Phoenix to determine if there’s any hope for 2018 and the near future.

  -30-

A marijuana expert? Or just being politically contrarian, Rauner is!

What should we make of Gov. Bruce Rauner’s amendatory veto Friday of a bill meant to reduce the penalties people would face for possession of small amounts of marijuana?

Lege will quarrel this fall over 5 grams

Is our governor some sort of expert in the scientific propensities of pot? Does he comprehend the effects of “Mary Jane” in ways that we mere mortals do not? Is he protecting us from our worst instincts?

OR IS RAUNER merely being contrarian, saying “no” because he can?

I’m inclined to think the latter, mostly because he seems to want to keep elements of the mentality that marijuana is some serious criminal offense – rather than just an addictive substance that weak people can let get the best of themselves.

Just like alcohol, if you want to know the truth. But while the majority of society realizes that “prohibition” was an absurd mistake our society engaged in nearly a century ago, there are those of us who seem determined to want to think of pot as a crime.

Something that ought to be punished by locking people up for as long as possible! Personally, I think it is because there are those in our society who want to think of marijuana as a “hippie” drug – and they want to punish the image to keep the "hard hats" and "flat-tops" happy.

THAT MENTALITY REALLY does nothing but clutter our prisons, jails and court systems with people who ought not to have to face such charges.

Which is what inspired the Illinois General Assembly to approve a bill that lessened penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana. Possession of that single joint or two wouldn’t be a criminal offense in and of itself.

But Rauner issued the amendatory veto, suggesting changes that are meant to make the measure more restrictive.

The Legislature’s version called for anyone caught with under 15 grams of marijuana to merely pay a fine without having to go to court. Fines would top out at $125.

RAUNER, HOWEVER, CLAIMS he thinks the standard should be 10 grams, and that the fines ought to go as high as $200.

Does anyone seriously believe there’s a significant difference? That the additional 5 grams (which could be enough “grass” for about six or seven hand-made pot-stuffed cigarettes) is somehow a difference that makes it worth the time and effort for police and prosecutors to lock someone up and clutter up the court system with more and more of these cheap cases – all to create an image of “law and order” that really doesn’t do a thing to make our society any more safe?

Rauner may have made his millions that could allow him to buy a more sympathetic General Assembly in coming years. But that doesn’t make him an expert in the law, or in narcotics.

It will be interesting to see how this situation resolves itself. Will Rauner’s changes be permitted to stand? Or will the General Assembly feel compelled to take their original version they approved earlier his year and ram them down the governor’s throat?

I WOULDN’T BE surprised to see if it turns out to be the latter. This is a veto-proof majority for Democrats in both chambers of the Illinois Legislature. Over-riding the governor on this seems like a rather mild gesture of rebellion by them against all the hostile rhetoric related to the failure of the sides to agree on a state budget.

And in the end, it probably wouldn’t make much of a difference in the way police handle the people they encounter who are a little too toasted to comprehend what is happening around them.

Although if we’re going to make a point of toughening up laws that are meant to acknowledge that the current drug laws are a bit too tough, then perhaps another Rauner action on Friday is timely – the governor signed into law a measure that declares pumpkin pie to be the Official State Pie of Illinois.

Something to satisfy that craving for junk food one might sense if they smoke that extra 5 grams of pot that Rauner thinks elevates the offense to a higher standard of crime!

  -30-

Attitudes change, but we’ll still get fight over marijuana decriminalization

I recall a quarrel I once got into back when I lived in Springfield, Ill. The topic was decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana, and the person I spoke to was determined to believe that this was identical to legalization.

 

A concept that totally offended this particular person.

 

FOR IT INVOLVES taking the offense of possession and removing the stigma, and accompanying criminal penalties that can occur when police find someone in possession of the proverbial “joint.”

 

Now I personally don’t smoke. Although I have always thought that too much of the opposition to marijuana was inspired by the concept that it was punishment for people of a certain ideological type – based largely on a notion that is some 50 years old and ridiculously out-of-date.

 

So to listen to people getting worked up over medical marijuana (the state has begun the process of licensing marijuana dispensaries, and many municipalities have amended their ordinances to regulate where such facilities can be located) always struck me as more political and ideological, rather than any concern over whether marijuana has any legitimate medical purpose.

 

So while the Chicago Tribune reported that Mayor Rahm Emanuel could benefit politically by coming out on Tuesday in favor of marijuana being decriminalized across all of Illinois, I can’t help but wonder about the drawbacks.

 

THERE IS A segment of our society that is loud and outspoken who will be more than eager to demonize Emanuel for backing, as they’ll want to perceive it, the legalization of marijuana.

 

They’ll want to believe that teenage kids will be smoking pot in the high school restrooms, and the teachers won’t be able to do anything about it. Then again, they’ll probably envision the teachers of a certain age (the ones pushing close to retirement with distant memories of being “flower children”) smoking along with them.

 

Which means we’re going to hear a whole lot of nonsense being spewed in coming weeks and months. People are going to want to rant and rage about this, just as they want to rant and rage about just about anything that Emanuel supports.

 

This was, after all, the man who was a Clinton White House aide whose running for Congress back in the early 2000s was supposed to make him un-electable. Instead, he won.

 

THEN, HIS TIES to Barack Obama (serving as his White House chief of staff for a stint) was supposed to make him the ultimate piece of damaged goods.

 

Yet Emanuel keeps winning. Which is why I’m not counting out his re-election desires come 2015.

 

Although the fact that he’s going to ask the Illinois Legislature to get in line with his desires for decriminalization means he’s going to be setting himself up for attacks from people who aren’t going to be inclined to view the issue the same way he does.

 

This issue could well be yet another one that causes people to view Illinois as a severely schizoid state split into factions that just can’t seem to agree on much of anything.

 

I HAVE NO doubt that outside of the Chicago metro area, the other third of Illinois’ population still thinks that the gay marriage issue is one that the state got “wrong,” and they wish we were allied with Indiana and Wisconsin in fighting legalization to the very end – instead of being amongst the first third of the nation to adopt it.

 

Are we bound to hear similarly-inspired arguments about marijuana and how the “hippies” have taken over and turned the state into a batch of freaks? Just writing that line, it reeks of ridiculousness.

 

So Emanuel, in pushing now for decriminalization, probably has some logic and sensibility on his side. It really would benefit our law enforcement agencies if they didn’t have to devote so much time and effort to fighting petty crime.

 

That ought to be something all of us would desire.

 

  -30-

Our friends, the Mexico drug cartels? Or will ISIS soon be at O’Hare?

I got my laugh Friday from The Inquisitr, a website that I suspect likes to think it’s giving us serious news but seems to have a sense of the garish in terms of how things get reported.

What I found humorous was their story headlined, ISIS Plans to Invade United States through Mexico, But Drug Cartels Could Fight Back.

THEY’RE CLAIMING THAT the militant Islamic State organization that is the newest troublemaker in the news is slowly, but surely, building up their forces by getting people into Mexico.

One day, those people will be large enough to be a military-like force who will then move north into the southwestern United States – then beyond.

First, Truth or Consequences. Then Phoenix and Albuquerque. Pretty soon, they’ll be marching down Michigan Avenue and desecrating the lions out front of the Art Institute of Chicago and camping in Millennium Park – while pondering the “decadent Western” mind who created the concept of “the Bean.”

Of course, the web site threw the potential oddball factor into the equation. To get to the United States, they’d have to go through those northern regions where drug cartels have been fighting for control with the Mexican military for many years.

WOULD THOSE DRUG dealers object so much to anyone trying to come through their “turf” that they’d wind up providing resistance? It almost reminds me of that 1990 film “The Rocketeer,” which had a scene where gangsters suddenly found themselves fighting alongside FBI agents against a common enemy – Nazis.

Would the future security of the United States wind up being supplemented by the same people who are spreading so much of the illicit drugs that are causing so many social problems in our society?

Writing these past few paragraphs has been unusual, because what I have basically spewed is a nonsense theory – albeit one that I’m sure the conservative ideologues of our society are way too eager to believe. Just look at the way Texas Gov. Rick Perry has made claims that some Islamic State agents already have entered the United States through Texas!

They have been spreading for years the idea that these subversive elements of our world would use Mexico to try to get at the United States. Usually as part of their cockamamie idea to fortify, and militarize, the U.S./Mexico border – while also deporting everyone who doesn’t fit their image of who ought to be allowed to consider themselves an “American.”

IF ANYTHING, THIS ought to be evidence enough of why we ought to be encouraging of friendly relations with Mexico, so that our interests and theirs remain as one. Unless we want to have to count on a real-life scenario like the 1942 film “Soy Puro Mexicano” (where a man at his local bar overhears talk at another table, realizes the people are Nazi agents with plans to enter the United States, then spends the rest of the film fighting them off – because no self-respecting Mexican would want to be a Nazi!).

On a more serious note, it is encouraging to learn that a Department of Homeland Security official testified this week before a Senate committee that the current intelligence level and capability along the border is capable of handling a threat – should it occur.

Many news organizations (including the New York Daily News, CNN and the Daily Mail, to name a few) have reported that this is more the latest topic for the kind of people who take Twitter too seriously! It also should be noted that federal officials are more concerned about those people with ties to the Islamic State organization who manage to get passports, then catch airplane flights into a U.S. airport – just like any other international tourist.

Does this mean that if there is an “invasion,” it’s more likely to be with a group of these people flying into O’Hare International Airport?

I CAN JUST see it now. They get off their flight, seize control of the food court (where they declare the concept of stuffed “Chicago-style” pizza to be “decadent”) and work their way to taxicabs that they commandeer.

Where they then proceed to get stuck in rush hour traffic on the Kennedy Expressway.

Be honest; that scenario is about as legitimate as the notion that an ISIS “army” is going to be wading through the Rio Grande any time soon!

  -30-

Some people just won’t ‘Get a job!’

In general, I support the concept of decriminalization when it comes to small amounts of certain substances whose possession currently can be considered a criminal offense.

I honestly believe that the person who lets his marijuana habit get the best of him is no better (or worse) morally than an alcoholic. And we all remember how pathetic the effort was to try to make liquor a criminal substance.

I’M NOT CONVINCED that the “war on drugs” has worked worth squat. In fact, many law enforcement agencies already treat possession of small quantities of those drugs (such as the guy who gets caught with the lone ‘joint’ in his pocket) as an offense worth writing up a ticket.

Which means those municipalities can fine people until they’re broke – which may go a longer way toward reducing their drug use. They can’t use it if they can’t afford it.

Decriminalization is really nothing more than that. The people who get most worked up about the concept are usually the ideologues who just want to rant and rage about something, anything – and don’t really need anything resembling fact or reason to base their argument upon.

Yet I happened to stumble across Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy on Tuesday. He was at the Cook County Building, where he was presented with a resolution by the county board that praised law enforcement for not acting like a batch of thugs in their treatment of protesters who were in Chicago last month to express outrage over the NATO Summit held in our fair city.

AFTERWARDS, THE ISSUE of decriminalization came up, and I wasn’t surprised to hear McCarthy say, “I’m not a fan of decriminalization.”

But he made a line of argument that continues to bounce around my brain. And while I’m not sure it’s going to sway me, I have to admit it is interesting enough that it deserves to be taken into consideration.

Which is why I feel compelled to share it with any of you who are taking the time to read this commentary.

As he put it, certain people are just going to look for whatever substance they can find to sell for a living. All decriminalization could wind up doing is reducing the potential for penalty.

FOR McCARTHY RECALLS his time as a New York-area law enforcement official when people who were sent to prison for serious drug crimes wound up turning to the sale of marijuana when they got out of prison for the specific reason that it was decriminalized.

Returning to cocaine or other hard drugs that they used to sell would have meant putting themselves at risk of being a repeat offender and getting sent back to prison for a substantial amount of time – quite possibly the bulk of what time they have left in life.

Selling “pot” would just be a batch of fines.

In short, some people are just determined not to have to get a “real” job to earn a living. They’ll turn to anything with the taint of being illicit and try to make money off of it.

WHICH MAY BE accurate. Just look at the “Outfit,” descended from the not-really-so-colorful gangsters of the 1920s.

They didn’t go out of business when “prohibition” came to an end. They found other rackets to try to make money off of.

So it may well be that McCarthy is right that decriminalization, in and of itself, won’t lower the crime rate. But there may also be a bigger issue at stake – one of turning people into criminals because of their own human weakness for those substances we now brand illegal.

It could be that allowing law enforcement to focus their attention on more violent acts could be what helps reduce the overall crime rate. Just a thought, as we all try to ponder this issue.

  -30-

Preckwinkle’s opposition to jail clogged by petty drug arrests is nothing new

PRECKWINKLE: No more cheap arrests

Anybody who is shocked and outraged that Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle thinks many of the people who currently clog the county jail because of petty drug arrests hasn’t been paying attention.

Her relevation earlier this week that she has asked police Superintendent Garry McCarthy to have the Police Department reduce the amount of arrests it does for marijuana possession is so in line with her general rhetoric when it comes to crime and incarceration. It’s not surprising.

THOSE WHO WANT to claim outrage should consider that such a sentiment says more about you than it does about Preckwinkle.

Perhaps it is because I have handled reporter-type assignments where I have heard Preckwinkle talk about the conditions at Cook County Jail, which she thinks are miserable because the place is so overcrowded with people who really have no need to be kept locked away from the bulk of society.

The crowded conditions create an environment where those inmates who really do need to be locked up while their criminal cases are pending become harder to keep an eye on.

The end result is hazardous conditions for all.

EARLIER THIS YEAR, I heard Preckwinkle speak to school children in suburban South Holland. It may have been a Catholic school, but the gathering was almost entirely of African-American youths with an occasional Latino kid in the mix.

She told those kids of the statistics indicating the heavy racial minority composition of the jail population and how the current system means that those minority kids will have to behave extra careful in order to ensure that they don’t someday wind up in jail.

“That’s why it is particularly important for you to behave,” Preckwinkle said back in April. “Jail is not a place where you want yourself, or any of your friends, to be.”

But the reason it becomes so miserable, she has always said, is because of the large number of people who ought to be receiving something resembling treatment for their drug problems – rather than being locked away for drug possession.

THOSE ARRESTS FOR small amounts could even wind up becoming more serious drug problems while in jail, just because some people can only cope with the sordid conditions at 26^th Street and California Avenue by using substances that numb their senses.

In light of the fact that she has expressed these views (which weren’t even terribly new when I heard them this spring) before, the idea that she’s now using her new government post (she hasn’t even been county board president for a full year yet) to try to influence people in positions of law enforcement authority merely seems like a logical act.

Which is why there are now reports all over Chicago and the Associated Press newswire is spreading the word across the nation about the Cook County politico who doesn’t want people arrested for drug possession.

“It’s pretty well-known within the criminal justice system that the judges will dismiss those charges for very modest amounts of illicit drugs,” Preckwinkle said earlier this week to reporter-types. “I suggested to (McCarthy) that the police might stop arresting people for this, since it clogs up our jail and their cases will be dismissed out anyway.”

AS ONE WHO has sat through many court proceedings throughout the years, I have seen the truth of this statement. The people who got picked up because a police officer discovered enough marijuana for a cigarette or two will get their cases dismissed – provided there aren’t some other factors (such as trying to get physically abusive with the cop) that come into play.

In fact, some suburbs already have decriminalized such small amounts of the drug to the point where someone who gets caught merely makes an appearance in municipal court to pay a fine for violating a local ordinance.

And one gets the strong impression that those municipalities are more interested in collecting the fines to bolster their local revenues than they are in putting up any image of protecting the morals of their communities.

Now I know some people find this kind of attitude offensive.

THEY WANT TO believe that pursuing even the smallest amounts of drug usage is making a bold stand for morals and decency, and that easing up in any sense is taking the “radical” step toward legalization of such drugs.

Which is over-bloated rhetorical nonsense.

Personally, I have no problem regarding someone who abuses drugs to the point where it takes over their lives in the same way I view an alcoholic. They need help. Perhaps the day will come when we see our various attempts at staging a “War on Drugs” as a failure just as much as the alcohol Prohibition of the 1920s.

If we are to move in that direction, we’re going to need more political people like Preckwinkle who are willing to view the issue in ways other than those meant to pander to the ideologues of our society – who themselves could probably care less about those using drugs, except to the degree that it gives them someone to rant and rage against.

  -30-

Dirty tricks on campaign not unusual, but candidates telling drug tales are odd

MOSELEY-BRAUN: Telling stories

Every campaign cycle includes tales of dirty tricks meant to screw up a campaign’s momentum. Invariably, somebody even goes and tells an ugly story about one of the candidates, meant to muddy them up to the benefit of the opposition.

Yet I can’t help but think there is something unusual going on with the way that former Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun in recent days has made mention of the fact that one of her five opponents, Patricia Van Pelt-Watkins, once used certain drugs that – had she been caught – would have gotten her a criminal record.

SPECIFICALLY, WE’RE TALKING about cocaine, although on at least one occasion, Moseley-Braun made a comment saying that Watkins used the stronger (and more deadly) version known as “crack” cocaine.

Watkins admits that in her late teens, she used certain drugs, but says she gave them up decades ago. The Chicago Tribune on Tuesday reported that Watkins said she hasn’t touched any such illegal narcotic in 32 years (she’s now 53).

I think this reaches a new high (or should I say, low) point for campaign activity in Chicago.

Because when these stories usually come out, what happens is that some murky and anonymous source is the one who spews the tale. Or in cases where we do find out who it is that is resorting to telling drug or sex stories about a candidate, it turns out to be some fringe character whose credibility is questionable.

THAT THEN ALLOWS the candidate to put some distance between themselves and the story. In some cases, the candidate issues a non-apology, saying they wish the election cycle had not sunk to such a sordid level. Of course, they allow the story to remain out there – because on a certain level they enjoy the fact that their opposition has to squirm in addressing a story that is ugly and ultimately cannot be absolutely denied.

Somebody is always going to fail to hear the denial or the apology and will take the details into account when casting a ballot on Election Day. The damage is done.

WATKINS: She's clean

Yet that is not what has happened here.

We have the candidate herself, Carol Moseley-Braun, the former U.S. senator from Illinois who also has been an ambassador, the county’s recorder of deeds and one of our city’s legislators at the Statehouse in Springfield, spreading the rhetoric for which she felt compelled Tuesday to issue a formal apology.

THE PART OF this that I find particularly odd (and based on what I’m reading at various places around the Internet, I’m not alone) is why Moseley-Braun would feel the need at all to take a ding at Watkins – who has never held electoral office in her life. She is a political neophyte, albeit one with some original ideas. Moseley-Braun says she feared looking like a "wimp" if she didn't attack Watkins. Instead, she looks like a bully whose "I'm sorry" feels forced.

Various polls that show Moseley-Braun having a serious chance at finishing second on Feb. 22 (thereby qualifying for a potential runoff election to be held April 5) also usually show that Watkins is stumbling about at about 1 or 2 percent of the vote, usually just barely ahead of perennial candidate William “Dock” Walls.

Now I realize Watkins, in an attempt to gain some attention for her campaign, took a cheap shot at the former senator, saying she had been so low-profile in recent years that Watkins didn’t even realize Moseley-Braun still lived in Chicago.

But this overkill, and bringing crack cocaine into the mix, is a gross over-reaction. All it does is ensure that Watkins’ campaign gets elevated to the level of Moseley-Braun. Or perhaps it means her campaign that is supposed to be the “consensus candidate” of Chicago’s African-American population took a dive.

BECAUSE MOSELEY-BRAUN IS now tied in to the dirt; there’s no separating her from it. She’s going to be smeared by it just as much as Watkins will be. It may well be a first for Chicago politics.

The “Machine hacks” of old always had that skill of deniability when it came to the dirty tricks they would pull to discourage people from casting votes for the opposition.

I guess this means Carol Moseley-Braun is NOT a “Chicago Machine” political hack. She’s not competent enough to be one.

But on a certain level, Rahm Emanuel is showing himself capable of being part of the political breed.

EMANUEL: I didn't call nobody



IN RECENT DAYS, mayoral hopeful Gery Chico held a press conference at a neighborhood gym, which he wanted to be the background setting for an event where he would attack the “Rahm Tax.” His campaign rhetoric claims that tax increases Emanuel says he wants the General Assembly to consider would harm small businesses – including those neighborhood gyms.

It seems that Chico had to search long and hard for a willing gym. Because at least one gym changed its mind about letting him have an event there, after receiving telephone calls from people who are supportive of the Emanuel campaign. Those calls let the gym owner know of the potential problems his business could incur in the future, if a “Mayor Emanuel” chooses to remember the people who wanted Chico instead.

Such a tactic, which Emanuel can now officially claim he NEVER would have approved of (wink, wink, nudge, nudge), is classic Chicago campaign strategy when it comes to dirty tricks. If anything, such an attitude is also evidence of the classic “Rahm-bo,” that political operative who isn’t afraid to use some muscle and tough talk to accomplish things, rearing its head.

So for all those people who have been getting all worked up in recent months, claiming that Emanuel isn’t a real Chicagoan and doesn’t comprehend the feel of the city and its politics, I’d respond by saying he may comprehend it all too well.

  -30-

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.