[Mb-civic] Sanity In Chicago

Thu Sep 30 10:45:54 PDT 2004

Sanity In Chicago 

By Stephen Young, DrugSense Weekly
 Posted on September 29, 2004, Printed on September 30, 2004
 http://www.alternet.org/story/20032/

Did the drug war slack off a little last week in Chicago? Was it just too
tired to fight? Demoralized by Montel Williams?

I thought Montel's show about medical marijuana, in which he confronted and
shamed former deputy drug czar Andrea Barthwell, would be the big news of
the week. But while the former czarina stuck to the cruel party line that
Montel shouldn't be smoking weed to stop his pain, something else happened.

A major American city proposed marijuana decriminalization, and no one
expressed serious opposition. Not even the federal freakin' drug czar
himself.

Maybe things will get back to normal next week, and maybe this proposal
isn't as good as it seems, but Chicago's leaders want to stop arresting pot
smokers for possessing small amounts. Instead, tickets would be issued.
Chicago officials insist they are not talking about decriminalization. It's
really a way to get tough on marijuana.

OK guys. Whatever you say. Semantics can be important, and the term
decriminalization carries varied meanings and connotations that can confound
listeners. But if this was 1978, everyone would be using the language of
decrim.

Of course, it's not 1978 and the proposal isn't ideal. Among other problems,
the fines as discussed are too high, but from a reformer's perspective, it
still looks like a step in the right direction.

It all started last Monday when the Chicago Sun-Times released details on a
police sergeant's memo suggesting that fines would be more appropriate than
arrest. He argued that judges were dismissing cases for the vast majority of
suspects arrested with 2.5 grams or less.

An unstated but central question floated beneath language of bureaucracy:
Why spend money arresting potheads, when you can make money fining potheads?

It was a relatively rational idea, but the drug war's central function is to
aggressively smash down rationality wherever it rears its confusing head.
While other counties and cities have similar schemes in place, American
prohibitionists go insane and froth at the mouth whenever they discuss
Canadian decrim proposals. I assumed that we would hear little more about
the subject in Chicago.

The next day, the chief of police said it was an idea worth consideration.
Then Mayor Daley said he didn't have a problem with it. In Chicago, that's
all that really matters. Both the Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune endorsed
the idea.

And then two holes within the space time continuum apparently aligned
momentarily and we entered some kind of alternate dimension. I'm talking
mystical signs of biblical proportions; lambs lying down with lions and that
type of thing. John Walters, the federal drug czar, told the Sun-Times he
does not have a problem with Chicago's plan to stop arresting marijuana
smokers! He didn't endorse it, but he wouldn't criticize it. The federal
freakin' drug czar!

The reporter was polite and/or ignorant enough not to ask the federal
freakin' drug czar why it's OK for Chicago but not for Canada.

Federal hypocrisy aside, Chicago's fines for pot plan sounds OK, but
regulation and a mild tax would be much better. Government shouldn't have to
depend on people breaking the law to generate revenue when it could depend
on people obeying the law to generate revenue.

Better policies, however, will come around in the future. When Chicago fails
to fall apart because marijuana smokers are no longer being arrested, more
significant reforms will arrive in the Windy City and elsewhere,
particularly if the reforms offer broader revenue streams and decreased
costs for local government.

At the very least some obscured truth seems to be ripe for mass recognition
across the United States: Using the limited resources of law enforcement to
arrest our way toward a pot-free America is a stupid, short-sighted waste.
Even the federal freakin' drug czar understands marijuana arrests are a
malicious luxury he can no longer afford to demand.