posted on Jul, 16 2009 @ 01:16 PM
reply to post by grimreaper797
Been reading through the thread and considered disagreeing with you (and others) many times but on this point, I must. Here is a link you might
consider:
www.druglibrary.org...
An excerpt:
Contradicting the "unproductive drug user" stereotype, while the National Household Sur- vey on Drug Abuse [1] finds that 71% of il-
licit-drug users are employed, U.S. Depart- ment of Labor statistics [2] show that only 65% of those 20 and over are employed. From the data we can
extrapolate that the aver- age illicit-drug user is more likely to be employed than the average person [3].
The evidence suggests that, while not favor- able to police-state mega profits, the most true-to-life stereotype could be: "The pro- ductive and
motivated drug user."
Why might this be so? It's possible that the desire for the reward of drug intoxication acts as astronger incentive to work more (in an effort to
earn the money necessary to purchase the drug-reward) than non-drug rewards act as an incentive for nonusers to work more. Such is Economics 101: the
higher the reward, the higher the output to acquire it; or, the sweeter the carrot on the stick, the faster the horse will run after it.
There are plenty of links there backing up the information.
An anecdotal bit: I'm a very healthy, active and fit woman who has, in the past, used every illicit drug (have NOT used a needle though due to
personal limits) recreationally without harm or addiction. I've always been gainfully employed until now. These days I spend my days on the golf
course at our country club. My husband, an Ivy League educated medical doctor, has experimented with illicit drugs in a responsible fashion and
without addiction or harm. These days, he touches nothing stronger than a good scotch while I will occasionally smoke pot or have a mushroom. Both
of us use the drugs of our choice at home or (in my case) in countries that are less pernicious about jailing non-violent drug users. Side note: We
do this even as we pay ~$100k yearly in federal income tax alone- money that could very well have me sitting in jail, or apparently worse, for
avoiding arrest over a plant.
Oh, and I grew up not far from Livingston Parish (St. Charles) and I know how aggressive cops can be in LA.
I do hope you will read the link(s) provided, do your own research and reconsider your position based on the evidence provided. The drug war is a
failure on every level and hysterical claims do nothing to deal rationally with the very small, but real cases of abuse and crime.
edit to add: While the officer indeed killed the victim, I don't believe it can be called murder. That of course will likely depend on which legal
dictionary you use but I don't think anybody can say killing the victim was the officer's intent. I think my viewpoint on the officer's action can
probably be gleaned from my above comment and would rather not get into a "you hate cops" argument.
edit after watching >8 mins. provided by smurfy: This was clearly excessive force. The "plastic bag of white powder" was likely < $150 street
value considering the effort taken to pull it from the victim's clenched fist or mouth. Then there were a couple minutes that the cops simply asked
whether he was breathing (@ 5:19 & 5:46- and one answered, "I don't know, I didn't ??? him.") Again the question was asked @ 6:31 before they
look down his mouth for more drugs and it appears that chest compression didn't start until 7:36- if that's what was happening.
[edit on 7/16/2009 by libertarianlady]
[edit on 7/16/2009 by libertarianlady]