Except… heroin is also being lumped in with the prescription drugs, which technically is an opiod but you don’t have to start with prescriptions to start that.
I mean someone else said it above but suddenly we have illegal drugs and we care more about the people taking this one over this other one… it’s a strange scenario.
Although recent studies have shown that something like 75% of all Heroin users started with prescription painkillers.
Okay. If the data supports that then sure, but is there something about abusing prescription drugs that is somehow better than other drugs? And does the data say that people who abuse prescriptions actually had them legitimately in the first place. For example, if some white suburbia kid starts taking their dad’s pain killers from the medicine cabinet, is that being counted the same as if the dad himself abused it? And does it matter if you abuse one drug over the other… in most states, if not all, states these are narcotics if it’s not your prescription. It’s a little more grey I guess if it is, but if you are abusing it you can bet you’re going through it faster then recommended by the physician.
The stories that you see on the news tend to follow the same pattern: Middle class guy gets hurt at work, doctor prescribes opiates for the back pain, resulting in an addiction. I don’t know how representative this is of the actual addict population, but that is the perception.
I think we’ve all learned this year that data is barely relevant in the face of widespread perception reinforced by the media.
I have heard the Chief of Police here talk about how heroin use is now on the rise because “white collar people” who can no longer get their legal opiates are turning to what they can get. I have no idea what percentage he may be talking about but they seem to be the ones driving the great increase in heroin use.
:(
Jesus, I used to live in Euclid.
What the hell are they thinking? If the dude is that dangerous (which they didn’t appear to be, but it’s hard to tell what the item was they slid away from him), why not use a taser or something to knock them out instead of beating the shit out of them? Isn’t that the point?
You can’t tell much from video of the second half of a fight. From what we see there, you can reasonably conclude damn near anything.
Reminds me of my black conservative friend who thinks Stand Your Ground coming to Iowa is a good thing.
I pointed out to him: it’s good for me. For you, it’s almost never good. It’s far more likely to be used against you than ever help you.
Yeah, I posted this in the cop shooting thread earlier. Thought about putting it here, but couldn’t decide which was more appropriate.
So I’ll put this here:
http://www.espn.com.au/video/clip?id=20607969
Though it boggles my mind that we live in a world where we should have to stress something as self-evident as “black lives matter”, it’s clear that we do.
And then you’re called racist for saying that black lives matter.
So apparently there was a story yesterday that Kaepernick lost a chance to sign with the Ravens when his “girlfriend” tweeted a picture of Ray Lewis and the Ravens owner alongside a picture from Django. I guess Lewis and the Ravens owner are very good friends and Kaepernick was insinuating another relationship.
I saw this on Pardon the Interruption on ESPN and Michael Wilbon, the black guy on the show, pretty much called Kaepernick out for what he had done.
“Look, this black guy ran away from the sound of gunshots. What were we supposed to do? We, MINORITIES BTW, who were IN SUPER DANGER?”
The poor LVPD. I hope they’re okay.
At first I was like, “what’s not going to end well about an investigation?”
Then I saw who it was addressed to. Hahaha.
Ahem. I mean, oh dear God.
This past summer, the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division, which investigates terrorist threats from groups such as al-Qaeda, invented a brand new label and a brand new threat. In an intelligence assessment written in August but first disclosed by Foreign Policy last week, the FBI designated a new group of domestic terrorists: “Black Identity Extremists,” or BIEs. The report broadly categorizes black activists as threats to national security. It uses unrelated acts of violence, such as the July 2016 shootings of police officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge, as justification for targeting black dissident voices. And it labels black activists — whose central demands are that government officials be responsible stewards of their power, accountable to the people who elect them and transparent about decision-making — as a threat to national security.
According to sources close to the FBI, the term “Black Identity Extremist” didn’t exist before the Trump administration. But while the designation is newly manufactured, the strategies and tactics behind it are not. For anyone who remembers how the FBI used extrajudicial means to target civil rights leaders and other activists through COINTELPRO, the pretext is clear: Neutralize people or organizations whose attitudes or beliefs the federal government perceives as threatening.
