Uptown watchers may remember that Ald. Shiller leapt to the defense of "beaders" who used mini-plastic bags for their wares when the City Council considered banning the bags earlier this year. Well, turns out the City Council disregarded her championship of beaders' rights and voted today to eliminate mini-drug bags.Guess this wasn't a slam-dunk like her strong positions on allowing chickens in homes or banning pigeon feeding.
I don't believe that ordinances banning the sale of mini-bags is going to stop the sale of drugs. Drugs have been bought and sold before with out small bags.
ReplyDeleteThe ordinance doesn't really matter to me, but I could see how the ban of "normal" mini bags could affect people who want to buy them for legitimate purposes.
The funny thing is that regardless of your intent for the bags, you can probably order them online!
This is another dumb ordinance. I wonder how hard the drug-dealers are laughing right now. What ARE these people thinking!
ReplyDeleteThis ban will be as effective as the ban on spray paint
ReplyDeletethis is disturbing. i'm a crafter and have tons of these bags that i use, yes, for beads.
ReplyDeletewhen you buy clothes the extra buttons come in these bags.
many self assembly products use these bags for screws and small tools
this is ridiculous and a slippery slope to a serious of laws that can easily be abused in the guise of "public safety"
a dangerous trend today
Eliminating is dumb. Just increase the tax on problematic items.
ReplyDeletePlease, is UU implying support of this stupid ordinance because Shiller is against it?
ReplyDeleteNot only are these small bags used for perfectly legitimate (and legal) purposes, but banning them isn't going to make one bit of difference to drug dealers, they'll just find something else to use. If they start using Saran Wrap, will the city ban that, too?
You'd think it'd be easier to simply ban heroin.
ReplyDeleteNo, Kenny. This issues of the baggies has been discussed here before. Most people are irritated that she is front-and-center on this issue...commenting to reporters and everything...and has very little to say or do about the issues her constituents bring directly to her.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, my rough recollection is that most of the readers on this site are either indifferent to the issue or agree with her that the legislation is useless. Others are willing to try anything to reduce the effects of the drug trade on our neighborhood.
Here is a link to past discussions.
http://www.uptownupdate.com/2008/03/shiller-could-not-be-reached-for.html
Let's face the facts, 9 out 10 of these bags are used for drugs. For all you "beaders" looks like you will need a bigger bag just like the drug dealers.
ReplyDeleteI will just get my small bags like I always do for my business from Uline they come UPS right to my door.
ReplyDeleteNow only if my suppliers would ship UPS.
What another stupid ordinance. Is this what we pay these people for?
People in this country should be outraged at all these stupid ordinances and laws.
@Dana:
ReplyDeleteThe lives of beaders everywhere wrecked and thrown away!
Oh, the humanity!
What will we tell the children? First they came for our baggies, then they came for us.
The wave of virulent, anti-baggy-ites will spread like a virus.
A call to arms!
Now is the time for all good patriots to come to the aid of their country and beaders!
Give me beads, or give me death!
"Freedom for beaders is just one generation away from extinction. We don't pass it to our children in the bloodstream; we have to fight for it and protect it, and then hand it to them so that they shall do the same, or we're going to find ourselves spending our sunset years telling our children, and our children's' children, about a time in America, back in the day, when beaders were free."
-- Ronald Reagan, 1961
Hello!! We all know this is a stupid law. Ya'll are missing the point!! The beast is silent on the shoot outs and gang banging in her ward but does her Joan de Arc thing over crap like keeping chickens and baggies.
ReplyDeleteI think most of you are missing the point. This has nothing to do with BEADERS. This is a useless law. We already have a law that makes selling these drugs illegal. The bags will make no difference.
ReplyDelete*shrug*
ReplyDeleteI think this is a stupid and bad law, as it the one banning spray paint. I'm rather more in favor of allowing handguns (not that you'd notice they are banned around here, but still) and getting some semblence of responsiveness from the local government. WY is a travesty, but with $8-10 million already put into the project, they will move hell and high water to get it done and get out with money intact, presumably from the city, whether by TIF or by city programs buying the housing "at cost" or somesuch.
I'm in favor of FWY suing, but I suspect that the result isn't going to be a nice development with happy professionals moving in, but to let things like this go unopposed is unacceptable.
That said, reading about laws like this convince me that most people are stupid.
Thank god we've found the solution to 30 years of drug problems. All this time we were banning the drugs but overlooking the baggies.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, is there no more relevant and useful issue for the city council to work on that this?
I'd almost prefer that Todd Stroger go launch another magazine than to have more silly legislation.
For your entertainment'
ReplyDeletehttp://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~jimella/laws01.htm
At the time of this legislation, a drug dealer with 22 bags of rock cocaine in his mouth had just been arrested on Wilson. His mother was a strong supporter of Helen and has been very vocal in her opposition to CAPS. It's also not a coincidence that Helen's son Brendan is representing this drug dealer. Nothing wrong with a drug dealer getting representation, but it does make me cringe a little that it's the alderman's son doing this.
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone believes that outlawing these bags will end the drug trade. My point is that I wish Helen would be as strong an advocate for stopping the drug trafficking in Uptown as she is in protecting beaders. That's why this is noteworthy to me.
As far as outlawing the purchasing of spray paint, I'm all for it because it helps the police when they catch a guy wondering around Uptown in the middle of the night with a bag of spray paint cans and new graffiti is everywhere.
Ditto to what "just wondering" said -- didn't know Helen Jr. had expanded his suing-cops business to defending drug dealers arrested in mommy's ward. That's just wrong.
ReplyDeleteI think it's pretty funny that the City Council fights Helen on mini-plastic bags, but -- on her say-so alone -- okays that the City will co-sign a multimillion TIF in the very likely event the developer backs out and/or screws it up beyond recognition.
Maybe if the drug dealers purchased their baggies online from Uline, the cops could track their orders and bust them.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this might lead to drug dealers taking up a crafting hobby as cover for their illicit operations.
If you see any crafters with beads, be very suspicious.
Call 9-1-1 immediately.
I think most of you are missing the point. This has nothing to do with BEADERS.
ReplyDeleteYou are wrong.
@falco:
This was Helen's justification for being against the ordinance - that the beaders will suffer.
Who will protect the beaders!?
Is the ordinance silly? Perhaps.
Would it discourage drug dealing? I doubt it. Not even the drug dealers getting gunned down in a hail of bullets stops it, so taking away their baggies probably won't, either.
@andy:
Drugs have been bought and sold before with out small bags.
Well, beaders have been beading without them in the past also. I don't think Cleopatra had access to plastic, ziploc baggies.
I don't think she looked like Elizabeth Taylor, either, but that's beside the point.
*This was Helen's justification for being against the ordinance - that the beaders will suffer.*
ReplyDeleteYou can't be serious. Helen was probably more likely against this ordinance because he hurt gangbangers and drug users. Saying she is protecting beaders is just a sly political coverup! Shiller is against anything that thwarts criminal activity in the ward.
She probalby should have said nothing, it would have made no difference.
"It" hurts gangerbangers, sorry.
ReplyDeleteDon't joke about feeding pigeons. Seriously, we have enough pigeons and they can find plenty of food on their own. If you feed them, they will just produce more pigeons. My favorite pigeon dropping spots in the city are under the Quincy L stairs at Adams and Wells, by Jewel at Montrose and Sheridan, and the winner of course is the sidewalk by JJ Pepper at Sheridan and Lawrence. I've seen pigeons there feeding on mounds of discarded rice. Seconds? No thank you.
ReplyDeleteYou know, whenever I saw teenage boys selling some small item for cash from their bicycles, I always assumed it was just beads. You mean it might be something else?
ReplyDeleteHow much is a dime bag of beads going for these days?
ReplyDeleteI agree with some of the other postings, it's not that helen is against it, it is that she picks this issue out of all the crap in Uptown to fight.
People Murdered = No Comment.
Banning Bags = Hells No!
Kind of makes you wonder.
You can't be serious.
ReplyDeleteI didn't make this fecal remnant up. Helen is bat sh@t crazy, not me.
I never said her justification was justified. In fact, I'm mocking her ridiculous justification.
Now, I have a real use for spray paint - some wicker patio furniture that could use a good coat of white spray paint. Why doesn't Helen run to my defense? After all, banning spray paint criminalizes my legal conduct of painting my furniture.
What about those urban artists at Uplift? How come they aren't protected by Helen?
The whole thing is a joke.
Well, I can't really explain what I am saying on the blog, it is the lawyer in me. But we do agree on two things I think: 1) Helen is bad. 2) The law is stupid.
ReplyDeleteAre they going to aluminum foil, plastic wrap, slightly larger plastic baggies, frickin' NOTEBOOK PAPER now? All are viable alternatives to tiny plastic bags. This isn't going to affect drug dealers one bit. Except that now, if they really want them, they'll have to go into craft stores to buy tiny baggies, and pretend they're using them for beads (since, IIRC, they're not going to be banned completely -- just where it can be easily assumed that the end use is illegal).
ReplyDeleteAnd yes. I'm a crafter, too. Yeah, there are other things I could use, but none of them are quite so cheap to mail...
Whatever. What a waste of time and money this thing is.
Candice, there's the value of not wanting to put obstacles in the path of beaders and then there's the value of wanting to put up obstacles in the path of drug dealers. I don't think anyone ever suggested that banning the plastic baggies would end all drug dealing.
ReplyDeleteYes, some laws can be too intrusive and some laws in the words of Daley can be just silly silly silly silly. I'm at a loss of what to do, especially with an alderman who appears more interested in protecting drug dealers than the average resident like me. So for now, I'm ready to grab on to anything that may even make it just a tiny bit more inconvenient for drug dealers. As even Helen would say, "This isn't Lincoln Park."
I hate Shiller as much as the next guy, but I gotta go with her on this one. Like I've said before, if they can import literally tons of drugs, they're not going to be slowed down by a prohibition on plastic bags. All this is going to do is inconvience honest hardworking people.
ReplyDeleteSo for now, I'm ready to grab on to anything that may even make it just a tiny bit more inconvenient for drug dealers.
ReplyDeleteIts this kind of flawed logic that leads to lovely things like the patriot act. I mean, we had to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING, to help fight terrorism.
I don't think it's about the plastic bags, or whether or not homes should be able to host live chickens.
ReplyDeleteIt's that Helen spends her time on crap legislation like this while failing to communicate -- even a little -- with residents who are concerned about crime, gangs, litter, empty storefronts, and quality of life issues in her ward.
Not to mention her back-end deals with Wilson Yard, the McJunkin and Couraj.
Fiddling while Rome burns, indeed.
WCE, I'm not talking about the Patriot Act. I'm talking about baggies I see all around my neighborhood and there are no beads in them. Comparing the Patriot Act with these baggies is a flawed argument.
ReplyDeleteI'm for a nything that will make it difficult for drug dealers to operate in our neighborhood. Some may call it a silly ordinance, I call it a step in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteWill it stop the drug trade in Uptown? No.
Will it make it just a little bit more difficult? Yes.
Will it provide law enforcement officials another important tool to combat the violence in our city? Yes.
Will it make it easier to get these drug dealers off the street? Yes.
People scoffed when Chicago banned the sale of spray paint but it made a huge difference. Yea, it's a pain in the neck but I'm willing to put up with that sacrifice.
Comparing the Patriot Act with these baggies is a flawed argument.
ReplyDeleteNo, its a perfect argument. In both cases people were asked to give up freedom in the name of safety. In both cases it wasn't entirely clear how the proposed legislation was actually going to provide any safety.
Both were defending as "doing something" and the opponents were "standing with the terrorists/drug dealers".
How about we eliminate shoes? No way those drug dealers will be out there in the winter with no shoes on. That could eliminate almost all drug dealing from Nov-Apr. Can we all agree that since a Chicago shoe ban would "do something" that its a good idea?
How about we eliminate shoes? No way those drug dealers will be out there in the winter with no shoes on. That could eliminate almost all drug dealing from Nov-Apr. Can we all agree that since a Chicago shoe ban would "do something" that its a good idea? WCE
ReplyDelete____________________________________
WCE, comparisons are always a very poor form of argument. The above statement you did just clarifies why this is so. We're not talking about shoes and we're not talking about the Patriot Act.
If you can find an expert in law enforcement who has done research that clearly shows eliminating the sale of these baggies had no effect on drug sales, I'm all ears. As it stands now, we're both guessing what works (or doesn't work). It's just my opinion as it is yours.
I try to judge these things on a simple principle. Are we treating the symptom or the cause?
ReplyDeleteBanning baggies does not cure people of drug addiction. Banning baggies does not make a drug dealer see the error of his ways.
Banning guns doesn't prevent someone from being a homicidal maniac and does not treat his or her mental instabilities.
Adding police cameras doesn't make a criminal decide to stop committing crime.
These are all treating symptoms. It's like giving a cancer paitient some asprin because he's in pain. Great, he's still dying of cancer...
The REAL solutions to problems like these are far more difficult, and most people are happy trying whatever is easiest. Usually the easiest solution to societal problems is also the least effective. The real solutions require us to get our hands dirty.
As it stands now, we're both guessing what works (or doesn't work). It's just my opinion as it is yours.
ReplyDeleteSo, because nobody can offer any evidence that its going to work, and nobody knows for sure if it won't, we should just give up our rights and walk away.
My whole point was, this is another case where people are just happily signing away their rights for some possible hope of safety. Nobody can explain how we'll actually be safer, just a thought that we might be safer.
Apparently you a just like some many other Americans that will happily give their rights away just for a wispy dream of safety.
If you want to take my rights away then the burden of proof is ON YOU. But you have none, and now try to guilt me into giving up. Which I refuse to do. Freedom and Liberty may be quaint notion in America, but I still value them.
confused, no one said banning baggies is treating the root of the problem. I would guess the root of the problem is poverty, society's desire for quick fixes, racism, a general aversion to any type of accountability that's so prevalent in today's society, etc. I can still focus on addressing symptoms of the problem while still realizing that work to address the causes will take many decades if not centuries to resolve. I also want world peace.
ReplyDeleteWCE, you're using the ole slippery slope argument about threatening one right will destroy our other rights. That's another very poor form of argument that holds no validity.
Are you telling me I gotta start buying weed in quantities larger than a dimebag at a time now?? Ok, if you insist...
ReplyDeleteI'm kind of pissed off by the tone of this original post. This ordinance is f*cking stupid and impotent, whether or not Shiller opposes it. I'm a little weary of the people who seem to think everything Shiller says or does is absolutely wrong, and anything she opposes is absolutely the best idea in the whole damned world. Yeah, she's a dumbass, but even stopped clocks are right twice a day, and to dismiss anything she backs or opposes out of hand is extremely short-sighted.
ReplyDeletePassing and enforcing ordinances like this cost you and me and every taxpayer money that could go to social services, and they inconvenience businesspeople like jewelers, crafters, and other people who have a legitimate need for the bags. Caravan Beads on Lincoln will find another way to dispense beads, spacers, and those other miniscule little pieces of crap you need to make a necklace--but not as quickly as drug dealers find an alternative. Those f*ckers are resourceful.