CHICAGO | Politics and Current Events

[Handro]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I was not talking about at work. That much is obvious and my question had nothing to do with that. I was talking about if someone legally used on say a Saturday afternoon and did not work until say Monday morning. They are not under the influence while working.

Are companies writing into their policies that even though it might be legalized, that the presence of it at certain levels during a test will still be enforced the same..even if never under the influence while at work?

Yes, companies are allowed to maintain their own policies in regard to marijuana use regardless of the state law, mostly because it's still illegal federally.

[lakeshoredrive]

I hope the house passes the marijuana bill today so jb can sign it into law

[Investing In Chicago]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I've kind of wondered how that's worked with national/multi national in other places that have already legalized that you can buy currently. Obviously it's company policy, but have many not written amendments to their policy to still ban it for workers even if it's legalized? Can they even do that legally?

Marijuana is not legal at the Federal Level, so I'd assume there wouldn't be any issue.

[Buckman821]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/5/...4YiziPGEweWwrs

Burke is very very very done...

This truly is a new day for Chicago. Let's see how many alderbeasties can get sucked into the crackdown!

Seriously this is huge news...much more important than Marijuana testing. Can't wait to watch to see how this all unfolds and how Lightfoot can leverage this indictment to gather some more power.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by lakeshoredrive

I hope the house passes the marijuana bill today so jb can sign it into law

Just passed the house, it's about time. Illinois can now jostle for it's slice of the Marijuana pie!

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by marothisu

I was not talking about at work. That much is obvious and my question had nothing to do with that. I was talking about if someone legally used on say a Saturday afternoon and did not work until say Monday morning. They are not under the influence while working.

Are companies writing into their policies that even though it might be legalized, that the presence of it at certain levels during a test will still be enforced the same..even if never under the influence while at work?

That's why I went to explain the issue with their not being an accepted objective conclusive test as to whether someone is high. Whether it's broadly legal has little to do with it. You can conclusively determine if someone is currently impaired by alcohol while at work, but not for drugs. So it's a relevant distinction in response to your question. If a business can say you can't be at work with blood alcohol above X then of course they'll do the same with drugs regardless of recreational legality, and they'll likely err on the restrictive side due to the testing limitations.

[bnk]

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/6/...chicago-casino

House clears budget, gambling measure that includes adding Chicago casino

After two days of shaky behind-the-scenes negotiations, House lawmakers left Springfield having passed a comprehensive spending and capital plan. The Illinois Senate plans to return for bill action on Sunday and must still approve the gambling measure.

By Tina Sfondeles Jun 1, 2019, 6:37pm CDT

SPRINGFIELD — The Illinois House in overtime on Saturday passed a comprehensive capital and budget plan — including a measure that many thought would fail: a gambling and sports-betting plan that would add a long-awaited Chicago casino.

After two days of shaky behind-the-scenes negotiations, it was comprehensive enough for both Illinois House Speaker Mike Madigan and Illinois House Republican Leader Jim Durkin to dub the session “historic.”


...


House lawmakers on Saturday also achieved what once seemed impossible: agreeing on a comprehensive gambling expansion and sports-betting bill that not only survived a feud between a billionaire casino owner and two fantasy sports-betting companies, but also added authorizing a long-talked about and controversial Chicago casino. Money the city would get from the casino would be earmarked to pay for police and fire pensions. It also would bring slot machines to three horse racing tracks.

The measure also survived consternation from Mayor Lori Lightfoot, who late Friday said she couldn’t get on board with having slot machines at places like Soldier Field. By Saturday afternoon, after talks with Illinois House Republican Leader Jim Durkin and Gov. J.B. Pritzker, she changed her tune.

“Legalizing sports betting and expanding gaming will create jobs up and down the state, from Rockford to Chicago to Walker’s Bluff, where communities hungry for employment will see 10,000 new jobs,” Pritzker said in a statement after the passage. “After the Supreme Court legalized sports betting, I promised the people of Illinois that sports wagering would be a key element of my legislative agenda, so that we are competitive with our neighboring states and can create more revenue for communities around Illinois.”



...

[animositisomina]

Originally Posted by bnk

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2019/6/...chicago-casino

House clears budget, gambling measure that includes adding Chicago casino


...

What are the potential locations for a land-based casino in Chicago?

4,000 gaming positions sounds nice but I wonder how well it will be doing after it's been open for 5 years? The luster of these places wear off pretty quickly.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by animositisomina

What are the potential locations for a land-based casino in Chicago?

4,000 gaming positions sounds nice but I wonder how well it will be doing after it's been open for 5 years? The luster of these places wear off pretty quickly.

Id put it in McCormack Place and make it high end to keep the riffraff out.
Let the conventioneers and out of state folks pay the stupid tax.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by animositisomina

What are the potential locations for a land-based casino in Chicago?

4,000 gaming positions sounds nice but I wonder how well it will be doing after it's been open for 5 years? The luster of these places wear off pretty quickly.

I'd move it into a struggling pre-war building and try to sell it to tourists as a bona-fide historical tourist site. Something like 175 W Jackson which has had some leasing issues and is just around the corner from Sears with an L stop.

Make up a story of how it was Al Capone's favorite prohibition gambling den. I'm sure the city of Chicago can dig up some real murders that happened in the vicinity and a good ghost story to go along with them. Put a few jazz bars and gangster gift shops, and, congratulations we have a tourist trap for those rainy/snowy days.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by bnk

Id put it in McCormack Place and make it high end to keep the riffraff out.
Let the conventioneers and out of state folks pay the stupid tax.

I do think a Motor Row location would work well... maybe 24th and Michigan or 23rd and Wabash?


OR...

The Union Power Station. With a water taxi stop.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Lakeside center... Get the casino to pay for the MP expansion.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Lakeside center... Get the casino to pay for the MP expansion.

Not a bad idea, since basically nobody would be bothered by it there. Although the transit access is a bit awkward (maybe they can finally run a city bus down the McCormick busway?)

[Kngkyle]

Casino at One Central seems a likely candidate

[Kenmore]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

I'd move it into a struggling pre-war building and try to sell it to tourists as a bona-fide historical tourist site. Something like 175 W Jackson which has had some leasing issues and is just around the corner from Sears with an L stop.

Make up a story of how it was Al Capone's favorite prohibition gambling den. I'm sure the city of Chicago can dig up some real murders that happened in the vicinity and a good ghost story to go along with them. Put a few jazz bars and gangster gift shops, and, congratulations we have a tourist trap for those rainy/snowy days.

lol, place would probably print money

[the urban politician]

Whether or not you agree with Pritzker, one thing is for certain. The gridlock years are gone with a bang:

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg...ession-decades

[the urban politician]

I’m pretty sure the casino will end up in the near south side somewhere. Makes too much sense. The land there is cheaper, there is more of it, plus it’s closer to the convention center, and could be a good source of employment to south side residents.

I mean, a giant casino will literally employ over a thousand people. Hopefully it’s built near transit

[Baronvonellis]

Good lord! Get out your umbrella it's raining taxes!!!

So, now we're getting 19 cent increase in gas tax, 3 cent additional increase in gas tax in Chicago, $50 increase in annual vehicle registration, $1 a pack cigarette tax increase, e-commerce sites would have to pay sales tax, graduated income tax, Chicago casino, other Illinois casinos in the north and south suburbs, sports betting, increase in Illinois minimum wage to $13 an hour by 2025, legal weed, balanced budget, and Capital Spending program!!

Wow!!! Hold on to your hats!

[SIGSEGV]

https://www.chicagotribune.com/colum...531-story.html

[k1052]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

Whether or not you agree with Pritzker, one thing is for certain. The gridlock years are gone with a bang:

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg...ession-decades

Kind of amazing what years of pent up legislative demand and a governor who is a reasonable human being can do. I wasn't exactly passionate about JB but thus far his competency in actually governing seems to greatly exceed Rauner's.