EXTRA: Cheech & Chong gag obsolete? At least in Illinois!

The Illinois House of Representatives completed the legislative portion of the process by which marijuana use in the Land of Lincoln loses its stigma -- sending off to Gov. J.B. Pritzker the bill that will make it no longer any kind of illegal act for people to light up a joint/doobie/whatever you choose to call it.

Which makes me wonder about the old Cheech & Chong comedy skits involving the Sgt. Stedenko character. The overbearing, and inept, cop was forever trying to bust the comedy team -- and as I recall in one of their films, turned out to be a drug user himself.

BUT HOW WILL future generations view such moments? Will they wonder just why a cop was getting all worked up over someone wanting to indulge themselves in having a smoke for pure pleasure?

For the intent of Illinois' new law, which Pritzker is expected to sign off on some time this summer, will allow for people to purchase their "pot" from officially licensed vendors -- whose sales will be taxed, Meaning Illinois will get its "cut" of the proceeds. Which the cynics say is an immoral, if not ought to be criminal, reason to legalize something.

I don't doubt some people are going to wan to forevermore maintain the stigma of marijuana use -- mainly because they're going to object to the kinds of people they want to believe actually use the substance,

Which is why the most important part of this legislation, which takes effect Jan. 1, 2020, if Pritzker actually signs it into law, are the measures allowing for people to have their criminal records cleared of any offenses for past usage.

THE MARIJUANA POLICY Project estimates that some 750,000 people in Illinois will be eligible to have their records cleared for any times in the past they were caught by police using. It should be clear that people have to show they didn't commit other illegal acts while using pot -- their convictions will remain in place.

It should be noted that this change in law, when it takes effect, will not legitimize your neighborhood drug dealer. If anything, they're going to remain under police scrutiny. They will be, after all, selling pot products that compete with the officially-licensed vendors the state will want people to purchase from.

It will be something along the lines of the "illegal lottery" rackets that compete with the Illinois State Lottery games and are the remnants of the old policy rackets that allowed people to place nickel bets on numbers in hopes of winning a prize. The police still crack down on those people -- because they want us to buy lottery tickets from gas stations and convenience stores instead.

Which means that the cops are still going to crack down on the scuzzy-looking guy who tries growing his own pot product for sale. "Sgt. Stedenko," however, will become a less onerous law enforcement image -- and something more akin to "Barney Fife."

  -30-

DeLUCA: Our brains on drugs

EDITOR'S NOTE: Just a bit of evidence as to how some people will always remain opposed to the idea of legitimizing marijuana use. Amongst the legislators who voted "no" are state Rep. Anthony DeLuca, D-Chicago Heights, who couldn't bring himself to side with the desires of his political party's governor. DeLuca brought to mind that old public service announcement, reenacting that moment by frying an egg in a pan within the House chambers, then telling us, "This is your brain on drugs."

Bookies going way of numbers racket?

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled this week that states ought to have the right to come up with legal ways for people to place bets on ballgames without having to worry about the long arm of the law treating them like criminals.

HARRIS: Tried to take Ill. lead on issue

Yet I can’t help but think that for many people, the idea of going to an officially-sanctioned betting parlor to place a few bucks down on a sports event won’t have much appeal.

FOR THEM, THE notion of the bookie and the illicit nature of their act IS the whole point. The last thing they want to do is partake in an event in which the state would take a cut of the proceeds – and would be responsible for guaranteeing that the prize is actually paid off if they win.

Because for the kind of people inclined to want to place bets on sports events, the motivation is the payoff. They want to win the prize, and likely could care less about the ball game itself.

So long as they beat the spread, who actually wins is irrelevant. Just like in the early days of riverboat casinos when some thought people would enjoy the idea of a cruise while placing bets – only to find out people only cared about the bet and those “boats” are all now land-based.

As for those people who all those years showed their devotion to Chicago Cubs baseball placed a bet annually in Las Vegas that their favorite ballclub would win the World Series? Suckers!!!

SO I WAS somewhat amused to hear some people react to the Supreme Court’s ruling by saying that sports betting could actually increase interest in sports events. Not likely.

Unless you want to think of sports fans as the ultimate chumps eager to waste their time and throw away their money by playing the odds of how a particular ballgame goes.

I don’t know how Illinois will wind up structuring a sports betting system, although I’m sure our political people will be greedy enough to want to have another revenue stream to tax. They’ll probably also try defining the concept as being something similar to the Illinois State Lottery and all those games people can play on the potential promise of a payoff. State Sen. Napoleon Harris, D-Harvey -- himself a one-time professional football player -- already has a bill introduced on the issue.

How many placed bet, for kicks, and wound up winning?

Fantasies of being set for life financially, just by picking the right set of numbers.

I MAKE THE lottery comparison because I can recall my own time as a full-time police reporter-type person – which was in the late 1980s and I can recall the occasional stories I’d write about busts and raids that were conducted related to the “illegal lottery,” which is what once was commonly known as the numbers racket.

You play your number and place your bet with a bookie – who in some cases would take as little as a nickel bet, with the potential payoff of $30-40 if you got the right set.

Or nothing, if you were in the majority who didn’t get the right number.

Of course, you’d have to take the chance that the bookie was an honorable sort who’d actually pay up on the people who “won” and wasn’t just counting on all the nickels of losers to add up to dollars that would enrich themselves.

YOU MIGHT WONDER why anybody would keep playing numbers when they could just plop down a dollar or two for lottery tickets and a potentially larger prize. Yet for some people, the official lottery came with too many rules and too much structure and regulation. The illicit overtones are what make it worth doing, while those who prefer a so-called "legitimate" bookmaker probably aren't going to bet enough to make it worth anyone's while financially.

How sport, and gambling really don't mix

Gamblers preferred the informal and unofficial nature of the old numbers racket. Just as I’m sure they’re going to prefer to place bets through a bookie on whatever basketball or football game catches their attention.

So for all the people who think that sports betting will make the state of Illinois wealthy (or at least capable of paying all its bills in a timely maner), I suspect that listeners of the old WMAQ-AM radio had better odds of achieving wealth.

Remember back when one could win a prize if the station called you, and your unsolicited response was, “WMAQ’s gonna make me rich!”

  -30-

Retiree pensions, or lottery tickets – where are Illinois’ financial priorities?

The Illinois comptroller’s office let it be known his week that the state’s finances are such a mess due to the lack of a balanced budget in place that the payments toward the pension programs for state retirees due for November are likely to be missed.

The way things are going, the payments for December also may not be made.

YET SOMEHOW I expect the factual tidbit that will most offend people relates to the Illinois Lottery – in that officials said they have to scale back even further the level to which they can actually pay out prizes to lottery game winners.

The lack of a budget in place means the Department of the Lottery doesn’t have access to the funds that would be used to pay prizes to lottery winners.

Until this week, the lottery took the stance that any prize of more than $25,000 could not be paid. Winners received official documents confirming the state owed them the money, and that they would be paid once Gov. Bruce Rauner and the General Assembly’s leaders could put aside their partisan hang-ups and approve a budget.

But now, officials are saying the state’s finances are so tight that they cannot pay out anything more than $600. Which means that just about anyone who wins anything more than a token prize from one of those chintzy scratch-off games will not get anything.

NOW I HAVE written before that I don’t terribly sympathize with the lottery winners – some of whom seem to act as though they believe they are the ultimate victims in the ongoing political dispute over state government finances.

Nobody forces anyone to play the lottery. If they have to wait a bit, it’s not the biggest loss – particularly if the delay results in them getting interest payments on top of their prizes.

They may wind up being even bigger winners than they have any right to deserve to be.

But I have read countless Internet commentary complaining about the lottery prizes. Heck, I have received my own share of statements (all anonymous, of course) telling me how misguided I am – only in more-harsh terms than that.

IF THERE IS something that ought to be done, perhaps the Illinois lottery games themselves ought to be put on hold until such a time that the partisan politics are put aside and a budget is passed.

Although I don’t know who in their right mind would want to play lottery games where it is uncertain the prizes would be paid. That really is the equivalent of money being thrown into the toilet.

Because if it weren’t for the fact that the state is being so open about its lack of access to funds (the money does exist, taxes and fees to the state are still being collected), one could say that the Illinois lottery is a criminal racket.

How else could one describe something that takes your money with the promise of a huge payoff – then refuses to follow through on it?

TO BE HONEST, even the numbers racket operators of old had more honor than that. They made their fortunes off of large numbers of nickel bets, yet had the honesty to pay off the winners from among those whose dreams the night before resulted in some combination of numbers from a dream book.

Yet they were the “criminals,” while the modern-day lottery raises money for schools and “the children” – or at least so claims the official rhetoric.

Now I go so over the top in my rhetoric because I don’t expect the state lottery to shut down. THAT would be considered the ultimate offense by too many people – who would probably then file a lawsuit demanding the right to have a lottery so they can dream of winning their fortunes without having to work for them.

A concept that bothers me just as much as how the lack of those pension payments will cause even more problems for the state in the long-term – and not just because it gives the partisans of former Gov. Pat Quinn a reason to gloat because HE never missed pension payments during his time in office.

  -30-

Lottery a sucker game, regardless of how big the jackpot gets to be

By the time you read this, there’s a very good chance that one (or maybe several) people will have matched the right numbers to claim a Mega Millions prize that will be one of the largest – if not THE largest – ever.

Way too many people paid attention to a ritual similar to this to see if they were suddenly multi-millionaires

 

The drawing was Tuesday night for a prize of $636 million, or perhaps higher if it managed to grow in the final hours between when this commentary was written and when the drawing occurred.

WITH THE LARGEST lottery prize ever being $656 million (nearly two years ago, and split between winners in rural Redbud, along with Kansas and Maryland), this could turn out to be a big deal for somebody.

I would expect the number of players for this week’s drawing will be so many that so many different combinations of numbers will be played on tickets that it will be impossible for no one to manage to win the big prize.

So I’ll issue my premature congratulations to whoever does manage to come up with the winning combination, and will say I hope that having all that money doesn’t manage to screw up their lives by creating complications that us poorer folk can’t even envision.

As for me, I’m not going to have to worry about that. I could use the money. I have debts that need to be paid.

BUT A PART of me never fails to be amazed whenever I go to a gas station and get stuck waiting in a line because somebody ahead of me feels compelled to put down $50 or so in order to buy all kinds of variations of lottery tickets – in hopes of gaining their “fortune” in a single swoop.

Or perhaps that’s single scratch. As in digging out that penny to scratch off the coating that covers up the numbers to reveal whether or not they “won” anything. As though the person who blows half a sawbuck on lottery tickets thinks they’re successful because one of those tickets manages to win a $5 prize!

Maybe it would turn out like those employees of a bakery in suburban Chicago Heights who won a significant lottery prize early this year – only to have all kinds of people try to glom on (or were they wrongly cheated out of a chance to play?) so that it will be years before anybody gets any money remaining after legal fees are paid.

Then again, I’m also the type who just doesn’t get the appeal of the casinos in places like East Chicago, Ind., Joliet or Elgin – to name a few. And even if you think this an elitist thought, I think Chicago can do better than attracting a casino to within its boundaries.

Somebody's prize? Or criminal evidence!

I DON’T HAVE any moralistic qualms about gambling – I’m all for letting people decide what to do with their own money. I just don’t get the appeal of banking it all on a chance to “win” a fortune.

Particularly since when, if you think about it, there really is no difference between the modern-day lottery and the numbers racket of old – except that the only time the latter ever made it into the news was when self-righteous types felt compelled to make some sort of police raid under the guise of protecting the public from the scourge of gambling.

Personally, I have only once played a lottery game – several decades ago, because an editor of mine came up with a unique gag gift for the Christmas holiday. He gave us all “a hope and a prayer,” as in a single lottery ticket AND a plastic, glow-in-the-dark rosary.

I didn’t win anything from that ticket, but I actually still have that rosary (which glows a real sickly shade of green) and consider it a trinket of great significance because of its personal tie to that editor.

MORE IMPORTANT THAN if I had actually won a few bucks from that ticket.

So I haven’t rushed out to claim a share of Mega Millions in some fantasy that I could quit all forms of work and turn this weblog into a rambling account of my globe-trotting activities.

Because I suspect it would turn out to be more likely that I – and many millions of other individuals who likely now are disappointed with their losses – would wind up more like an individual who attended a recent holiday party I attended Sunday.

There was a gift grab bag in which we all contributed an item, then picked a present at random. This person picked nearly $50 worth of instant game tickets.

At least I'll know what day it is

IT WAS ALMOST humorous as she then spent the next 20 or so minutes diligently scratching off her cards to figure out what she won – she wound up winning nothing! They were all losers.

Somehow, I sense the calendar (decorated with photographs by Ansel Adams) I got out of the deal will be more worthwhile.

  -30-