Digg this
Post to del.icio.us
E-mail to a friend
Aldermen Ed Smith, Walter Burnett, and Bob Fioretti got together this morning and called it a meeting of the City Council's committee on health. The one item on their agenda was consideration of a proposed ordinance imposing the latest Chicago prohibition: a ban on self-sealing plastic baggies smaller than two inches square that are often used to package drugs on the street.
Second-Ward alderman Fioretti, the chief sponsor of the proposal, conceded that outlawing the baggies probably wouldn't bring down the drug trade. But he argued that governments should do all they can to annoy and inconvenience it.
"I do believe the ongoing fight we have against drugs and gangs in our neighborhoods has to be approached on all levels, including some of the smallest levels we see," he said. "We want our streets to be safe, we want our kids to be safe, and we need to take the right kind of steps for it."
Twenty-seventh Ward alderman Burnett looked a little uneasy. "I signed onto this ordinance because I think we have to do everything we can to save lives and get drugs off our streets," he said. Then he added that he had a few misgivings about it.
"I was just outside talking to someone and I didn’t think about it until he said it, but generally when I get a brand-new suit, a lot of times they have extra buttons in plastic bags that they leave on the inside pocket," he said. "And I’m just concerned about legitimate legal people being put in a--"
"Well, first of all, as you know, in most of the suits that you buy, the bags are stapled and not self-sealing," Fioretti said. The ordinance, Fioretti pointed out, would impose a $1,500 fine on anyone who possesses the small baggies "under circumstances where one reasonably should know" they're going to be used for transporting or selling narcotics.
"So it is a little different here," Fioretti said. "And drug dealers, when they’re selling drugs, they won’t be having buttons in their bags."
"I just want to make sure that we don't--how do you say it?--bite off your head in spite of your nose or whatever," Burnett said.
Fioretti, Smith, and a narcotics specialist from the police department assured him that wouldn't happen. A few minutes later Burnett moved that the committee approve the proposal and send it to the full council for consideration. The vote in favor was unanimous.
The prohibition of substances in demand by consumers results in an artificial inflation of the cost of said consumer desired products to said consumers.
This artificial inflation of value results in much greater profits than a free market environment would provide.
Higher prices result in greater profits.
Since the illegal nature of these consumer desired products prevent the taxation of the sales of said products, innovative means to garner a portion of said profits need to be developed.
Hence, this proposed ordnance.
This proposed ordinance is designed to enable the city to garner revenue from those who sell these substances.
If passed into law, the city's hearing officers will, no doubt, be busy imposing and collecting the $1,500 fines, per violation, just like they currently collect the huge variety of fines imposed upon the violators of the many ordnances currently on the books.
Sort of a back door way to tax illegal drug sales.
The one thing that this ordnance will not accomplish is to impede, in any way, the dealing of illegal drugs.
In fact, if one takes a thoroughly cynical view, it's not intended to.
In fact, if one takes a thoroughly cynical view, it's intent is totally revenue enhancing, at least for the period of time it will take for the vendors of 'controlled and prohibited substances' find a substitute packaging for their products, one not covered by the specific wording of this proposed ordnance.
Fioretti is starting to look like just another revenue hungry politician, willing to disguise his primary intent with the usual 'protecting the citizens' phony grandstanding.
Oh, and it's 'cutting off one's nose to spite one's face', Wally.
Now what do we get?
The equivalent of people outlawing one specific kind of mug in 1925, good grief...
What next, outlaw lighters and then maybe fire altogether?
When he talks to the media he sounds like an idiot.
http://www.voteforjoe.com/index.html
if you really want to shake up politics
otherwise RON PAUL
Confirmation that the city council isn’t the Mensa capital of the city.
Incidentally, while staying in a 12 x 10 NY hotel room, I lifted the Gideon Bible out of the drawer. Beneath it was a little baggie with white powder.
This bring up the question. If there had been no access to diminutive baggies, would that tool of the trade have been there or would the drawer just have had residue blowing around the bible?
Whether they're saving lives or not, the council is making us think.
Yeah, they're making me think who's the nimriod voters who voted for them in the first place. Real losers, those voters are.
Makes me think we've got a bunch of invisible ink pen voters in Chi-town.
Only twerps say "we rock" otherwise I don't have any problem with your boasting.
"....is there a way we can censure these foolish alderman??"
Yes.
HAVE NO DOUBT, VOTE INCUMBENTS OUT
$39,000 RETURNED | Sewage agency chief gave back donations he received from 50 employees
March 6, 2008
Terrence O'Brien's campaign fund sprung a bit of a leak last year.
O'Brien, president of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, gave back a total of $39,520 Oct. 5 in contributions he'd gotten from 50 donors.
» Click to enlarge image
Commissioner Terrence J. O'Brien on the floor of the mainstream pumping station.
(Joseph P. Meier/STNG file)
RELATED STORIES
Did Rezko find jobs for Obama staffers?
The problem: The money had come from employees of his agency, which treats Cook County's sewage.
"Those were mostly employees or related to employees, and the campaign made a decision to return those," says O'Brien's lawyer, Jim Nally. "After reviewing the law in the area, we thought it was a better course."
The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Act says "no officer or employee shall solicit, orally or by letter, or give or receive, or be in any manner concerned in soliciting or giving or receiving any assessment, subscription or contribution from any member of the classified civil service for any party or political purpose whatever."
Which would seem to say O'Brien was barred from soliciting agency employees for campaign cash.
A former Water Reclamation District employee complained to the Cook County state's attorney's office, according to a source familiar with the situation, and prosecutors looked into the matter but didn't file criminal charges.
Still, O'Brien's fund returned the money "out of an abundance of caution," the source says.
Nally says the returned contributions were originally received "over several months or even a couple of years."
Current and former employees of the agency who got their contributions returned say O'Brien raised the money through an annual fund-raiser he holds at a restaurant.
"He'd send me a complimentary ticket to his fund-raiser," says Frank Kody, who retired from the Water Reclamation District in December.
Kody says that, even though there was no charge for the ticket, he contributed $1,000 anyway. "I thought I was being nice," he says.
Frank Deignan, a current employee of the agency, says he was "totally taken aback" when O'Brien returned the $200 he'd contributed.
"They said there was some sort of conflict of interest," says Deignan.
Also among those who got their money back was Water Reclamation District finance chairman Gloria Majewski. She'd given O'Brien $1,500.
O'Brien was first elected to the agency's board in 1988. He's next up for re-election in 2012.
Eric Herman
Getting their money back
Terrence J. O'Brien, president of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District, has given back campaign contributions from 51 employees of the sewage agency he solicited over the past several years. The 16 biggest refunds O'Brien made:
George and Melody Smothers, Lemont -- $3,300
Louis Kollias, Orland Park -- $2,000
Brian Newhouse, Chicago -- $2,000
Casimir Wytaniec, Park Ridge -- $1,950
Thomas Durkin, Oak Lawn -- $1,750
Timothy O'Leary, Chicago -- $1,725
John Poulos, Des Plaines -- $1,600
Brendan O'Conner, Chicago -- $1,550
Gloria Majewski, Orland Park, MWRD board member -- $1,500
Robert Regan, Oak lawn -- $1,500
Daniel Mikso, Oak Lawn -- $1,300
James Sheehy, Chicago -- $1,250
Robert Hultgren, Chicago -- $1,200
Gerald Borucki, Western Springs -- $1,000
Frank Kody, Tinley Park -- $1,000
Harry "Bus'' Yourell, Oak Lawn, ex-MWRD board member -- $1,000
What about the fight we, the taxpayers, have against dishonest politicians?
Are we going to see an alderman proposing an ordnance prohibiting the election of crooked, corrupt politicians?