Pot proposal just pads city coffers
Yelena Shagall
Issue date: 10/28/04 Section: Opinions
- Page 1 of 1
In the City of Chicago's fine tradition of reveling in the prospects of unwarranted fines, Mayor Daley was probably delighted at the suggestion of ticketing users for possessing "small" amounts of marijuana; a response to what has effectively been a decriminalization of the drug.
Before getting too enchanted with this proposal's new "leniency" on drug violations, people should consider the problematic conclusions of implementing this kind of policy.
The logic of the proposal is as follows: the majority cases of people caught possessing a small quantity of marijuana, as much as 30 grams, end up being dropped. A city ordinance would be easier to enforce since it requires less paperwork and makes it easier for defendants to be found guilty. The revenue from the fines would go to the city and potheads and community members would live happily ever after.
The fact of the matter is that pot consumers are already living peaceably alongside their neighbors, a point that seems to be missed although all evidence points to it. The usage level hasn't diminished, people getting caught in these instances don't end up convicted, and no one is complaining except police officers troubled the time wasted arrested and charging "offenders." These circumstances certainly suggest a rethinking of the criminal code, but not that the city should have a new cash cow to rely on.
What is the justification of such an ordinance? It isn't to prevent marijuana consumption, because it relies on what would be very apparent from observing any college campus: drug laws don't thwart either the supply or demand of marijuana.
But that's the point; as long as people keep using, the city can keep making money through fines. Clearly, drug dealers exploiting users is abominable, but when the city does it it's called business as usual.
There's no correlation between marijuana intoxication and crime. The only thing smokers can be faulted with is causing a scent that for abstainers like me is on par with the emissions of a diesel engine.
Something should be done so that police officers don't have to waste their time-time taxpayers have to pay for-on marijuana-related offenses, perhaps allowing them to focus on other problems in the murder capital of the country.
That something is real, not de facto, marijuana decriminalization. It's disconcerting that instead of anticipating outrage for an unnecessary ordinance, whose legislative predecessor was responsible for wasted money, time, and resources, politicians are expecting relief from the public for what is being masqueraded as a step away from war on drugs.
If our city's politicians are in dire need of money for projects they plan to hand out to their buddies, then they should at least remove the pretense that a marijuana ordinance would have a purpose outside of raising revenue.
They might as well start fining people for wearing rank perfume and cologne, blocking traffic on the sidewalk by standing, talking, or just walking slowly, or blaring music that sounds like monkeys copulating on sandpaper, all of which are more troublesome than the dangers posed by the local pothead.
The proposal isn't a step in the right direction; it just happens to be a step in a different direction. Supporters are counting on those most affected not to give it a second thought. I hope they will be wrong.
Columnist Yelena Shagall can be
reached at yshagall@chicagoflame.com
Before getting too enchanted with this proposal's new "leniency" on drug violations, people should consider the problematic conclusions of implementing this kind of policy.
The logic of the proposal is as follows: the majority cases of people caught possessing a small quantity of marijuana, as much as 30 grams, end up being dropped. A city ordinance would be easier to enforce since it requires less paperwork and makes it easier for defendants to be found guilty. The revenue from the fines would go to the city and potheads and community members would live happily ever after.
The fact of the matter is that pot consumers are already living peaceably alongside their neighbors, a point that seems to be missed although all evidence points to it. The usage level hasn't diminished, people getting caught in these instances don't end up convicted, and no one is complaining except police officers troubled the time wasted arrested and charging "offenders." These circumstances certainly suggest a rethinking of the criminal code, but not that the city should have a new cash cow to rely on.
What is the justification of such an ordinance? It isn't to prevent marijuana consumption, because it relies on what would be very apparent from observing any college campus: drug laws don't thwart either the supply or demand of marijuana.
But that's the point; as long as people keep using, the city can keep making money through fines. Clearly, drug dealers exploiting users is abominable, but when the city does it it's called business as usual.
There's no correlation between marijuana intoxication and crime. The only thing smokers can be faulted with is causing a scent that for abstainers like me is on par with the emissions of a diesel engine.
Something should be done so that police officers don't have to waste their time-time taxpayers have to pay for-on marijuana-related offenses, perhaps allowing them to focus on other problems in the murder capital of the country.
That something is real, not de facto, marijuana decriminalization. It's disconcerting that instead of anticipating outrage for an unnecessary ordinance, whose legislative predecessor was responsible for wasted money, time, and resources, politicians are expecting relief from the public for what is being masqueraded as a step away from war on drugs.
If our city's politicians are in dire need of money for projects they plan to hand out to their buddies, then they should at least remove the pretense that a marijuana ordinance would have a purpose outside of raising revenue.
They might as well start fining people for wearing rank perfume and cologne, blocking traffic on the sidewalk by standing, talking, or just walking slowly, or blaring music that sounds like monkeys copulating on sandpaper, all of which are more troublesome than the dangers posed by the local pothead.
The proposal isn't a step in the right direction; it just happens to be a step in a different direction. Supporters are counting on those most affected not to give it a second thought. I hope they will be wrong.
Columnist Yelena Shagall can be
reached at yshagall@chicagoflame.com
Be the first to comment on this story