Posted on 03/12/2008 10:11:25 PM PDT by cryptical
the funny thing is that when you go into Home depot and see the drug free workforce they have assembled it looks like they all were ex-addicts and drunks and to boot they provide the crappiest service anywhere. But they are Drug Free and that’s what counts.
Qualifies for a Nanny State Ping? I think so. Anytime the gubmint wants to get in your pants.....
Posted early this morning. Threads like this are easy to over look but I think it deserves a look-see.
Pee in a cup Ping for all the libs in your Libertarian ping list.
I’m not up to date with the latest racial breakdowns, but 8% of the white population is many more people than 9% of the black population.
Off the top of my head I’d guess there’s 5 or 6 times more whites than blacks in the US.
***It’s a two-way street.***
No, its not.
“I’m not up to date with the latest racial breakdowns, but 8% of the white population is many more people than 9% of the black population.”
So whites are under represented among drug users.
If you production is as good related industries and your workplace is as safe as related workplaces, why should you care?
Besides, you only catch people the have used cannabis. The other drugs leave the body post haste. Evidence of cannabis stays in the body and is detectable for a month after the use. That means that 718 hours after it has caused any effect whatsoever.
So, what would be the point? 
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Percentage of users, yes. Number of users, no.
What is the dollar value of illegal drugs consumed by whites, and what for blacks, for hispanics, etc?
For example, the owners of taxpayer-built sports stadiums.
“Percentage of users, yes. Number of users, no.”
Of course not, but comparing about 12% of the population to about 77 to 80% will just about always yield that result.
Usually, yes.
In this case, it wouldn't surprise me if whites accounted for. say, 80% of the illegal drug consumption, dollar-wise.
“In this case, it wouldn’t surprise me if whites accounted for. say, 80% of the illegal drug consumption, dollar-wise.”
I wouldn’t know and getting into wholesale versus retail, and various market prices for different markets, different products etc. seems like a challenging bit of research and pretty meaningless.
Yes, difficult, but not meaningless when deciding whether or not white drug use “drives” the trade, demand-wise.
It would be very apparent if an employee had a problem drug or alcohol habit, and they could be easily weeded out by the basic common sense workplace policies. As an employer, I would NEVER drug screen my employees. If someone shows up for work, does a great job, and is always sober on the job; I couldn't care less what they do on their own time away from work.
If you want to post those numbers and why they matter then do, why do you keep bothering me with nothing.
The drug trade is not mostly supported by ghetto folks scoring dope 5 or 10 dollars at a time, the real money comes from the middle-classers coming in from the suburbs with 100, 200 dollars at a time.
That might be a true statement, even though a higher percentage of "ghetto" people use illegal drugs. Correct?
If you want to post those numbers and why they matter then do, why do you keep bothering me with nothing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.