macbeth79 Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 http://qz.com/210345/when-us-companies-drug-test-they-wind-up-hiring-more-black-people/ Abigail Wozniak, a Notre Dame labor economist, has developed a model to show how the rise of employee drug testing in the United States has affected different populations. What she found surprised her: In states where testing is prevalent thanks to supportive laws, black employment increased between 7% and 30%, and wages for black workers increased by between 1.4% and 13%. So the media has lied about black people and drugs usage for the past 50 years. + Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Hovis Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 I would strongly disagree with that last statement, the media does not create this image. If I read about a heroin addict or a cokehead I would assume (until I came to a name or photo that told me otherwise) that they were white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPin Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 I certainly work with more black people than I used to! I wear a pith helmet with a Union Flag on top, and a t-shirt with Queen Victoria on it! My colleague Mr Abujele finds that very funny. Somehow I can't convince him to get a bone through the nose, and boil missionaries in a big pot! I used to work with a nice bloke, I aways assumed was a bit of a ricist! Because he was from East London, and that short hair! Well, when I met his lady, she was very black! He could not wait to get as far away from his racist family as possible! So he moved tio Hillingdon! Now they have two children! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkman Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 http://qz.com/210345/when-us-companies-drug-test-they-wind-up-hiring-more-black-people/ Abigail Wozniak, a Notre Dame labor economist, has developed a model to show how the rise of employee drug testing in the United States has affected different populations. What she found surprised her: In states where testing is prevalent thanks to supportive laws, black employment increased between 7% and 30%, and wages for black workers increased by between 1.4% and 13%. So the media has lied about black people and drugs usage for the past 50 years. + What she found surprised her....... The media lied about black people and drug usage for 50 years......... Your post seems full of "backhanded racism" before any other issues can be addressed. She'd firstly need to explain why her findings surprised her. Did she expect all blacks to be riddled with drugs? If so, then that's her own prejudice. Secondly where is the data and research to show the media as a whole has lied about black people for 50 years? Without back up this is a huge assumption and horribly PC. Very in keeping with current trends I might add. Obviously some papers are right wing, just as some are left wing. It all balances out in the end. To suggest there has been a 50 year conspiracy in the media to demonise black people is wasting everyone's time. Now as for the stats themselves, they're interesting but definitely need careful examination before drawing any conclusions from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 What she found surprised her....... The media lied about black people and drug usage for 50 years......... Your post seems full of "backhanded racism" before any other issues can be addressed. She'd firstly need to explain why her findings surprised her. Did she expect all blacks to be riddled with drugs? If so, then that's her own prejudice. Secondly where is the data and research to show the media as a whole has lied about black people for 50 years? Without back up this is a huge assumption and horribly PC. Very in keeping with current trends I might add. Obviously some papers are right wing, just as some are left wing. It all balances out in the end. To suggest there has been a 50 year conspiracy in the media to demonise black people is wasting everyone's time. Now as for the stats themselves, they're interesting but definitely need careful examination before drawing any conclusions from them. Theres certainly been a long campaign to divide people, or to inject a racial element to something that is non-racial. Just look at media coverage of the Trayvon Martin case. I guess Riots=Ratings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geezer466 Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 Why would any of it matter? Why bother collecting the data? All drug users irrespective of colour creed or nationality are losers anyway. Must admit I agree with Frank, if I was reading an article or watching a news story where they were describing a drug user I would automatically assume they were white. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oracle Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 I would strongly disagree with that last statement, the media does not create this image. If I read about a heroin addict or a cokehead I would assume (until I came to a name or photo that told me otherwise) that they were white. tend to agree, the latter being mostly stockbrokers. heroin for those sorry cases who if it would not be available would be the wino's on the park bench with a brown paper bag and several cans of special brew. crack on the other hand is definitely a "black" drug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkman Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 crack on the other hand is definitely a "black" drug But is it? How do you come to that assumption? I assisted and knew a very successful film editor who was off his face on crack most of the time. He was upper class white. So there ya go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Eagle Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 So the media has lied about black people and drugs usage for the past 50 years. The media usually push the idea that black people are drug dealers, not drug takers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steppenpig Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 It makes sense that if you have a community that suffers low employment at least in part because it has, or is assumed to have, a significant drug problem, then a system which enabled you to monitor individuals from that community to ensure they do not have a drug problem, would increase the chances of them being employed. It doesn't mean there isn't a drugs problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunderthine Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 Why would any of it matter? Why bother collecting the data? All drug users irrespective of colour creed or nationality are losers anyway Yeah! Check out this gallery of nobodies, drugs are bad mmmkay: http://coed.com/2009/02/06/the-10-most-successful-potheads-on-the-planet-cool-enough-to-admit-it/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geezer466 Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 Yeah! Check out this gallery of nobodies, drugs are bad mmmkay: http://coed.com/2009/02/06/the-10-most-successful-potheads-on-the-planet-cool-enough-to-admit-it/ I must have mis-understood, I thought the thread was about cocaine and heroin addicts. Interesting that a few of your so called celebs (I would only list Michael Phelps as a real achiever on that list) denounce pot taking as a mistake in their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunderthine Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 Not too bothered about "celebs", a term usually applied in the pejorative sense to people who have become famous for no particular reason, for better or worse. No, the individuals on that list are actual productive people, who have achieved massive success in their fields and (in the main) continue to advocate recreational drug use. They are winners by most of society's metrics. I think you might have misunderstood what constitutes a drug, yes. And looking at your avatar, you appear to enjoy a decent beer? May have some shocking news for you... Unless its the alcohol that ruins Fosters - do you stick to alcohol free later to avoid that slippery slope to loserdom? If so good for you, a steadfast commitment to your ideals, however misguided, is a rare thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geezer466 Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 Not too bothered about "celebs", a term usually applied in the pejorative sense to people who have become famous for no particular reason, for better or worse. No, the individuals on that list are actual productive people, who have achieved massive success in their fields and (in the main) continue to advocate recreational drug use. They are winners by most of society's metrics. I think you might have misunderstood what constitutes a drug, yes. And looking at your avatar, you appear to enjoy a decent beer? May have some shocking news for you... Unless its the alcohol that ruins Fosters - do you stick to alcohol free later to avoid that slippery slope to loserdom? If so good for you, a steadfast commitment to your ideals, however misguided, is a rare thing. Eh? Fosters is just shite in a glass. Give me cask ale any day of the week!! Mind you I got barred from a pub once for telling the landlady that if it wasn't for people like me, no-one would talk to her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 This whole drugs debate really needs to grow up a little. People take drugs because they like them. Something that seems to be taboo for the media to make clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geezer466 Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 This whole drugs debate really needs to grow up a little. People take drugs because they like them. Something that seems to be taboo for the media to make clear. Why do we need a debate? It is unlawful to supply or use certain substances and there is a good reason for that. The elected representatives decided so. If there has been a fundamental change of opinion I am sure they would debate the matter again. I often visit deprived areas I see the effects of long term addiction and it is not pretty. I used to own several handguns for competition shooting. Post Dunblane they were outlawed and whilst I did not agree with the law I understand the need for it and abide by it. Such is the responsibility of living in a democratic system. Now if your telling me there is a hell of a difference between using a bit of a pot now and again for personal use and addiction to crack cocaine where it affects the very fabric of day to day life I can accept that. As I understand it Plod treats use of substances completely different these days anyway preferring to concentrate their efforts in the supply chain. What exactly would you want changed anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 Why do we need a debate ? Because the 'war on drugs' is s waste of time and time and time again retiring politicians and police state this. The whole 'democracy' thing means very little too. They don't exactly gave a good track record of ' doing the right thing ' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 What would I like changed ? Legalise the lot. That's about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geezer466 Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 What would I like changed ? Legalise the lot. That's about it. I could live with that provided the dangers of it all was explained in the same way as tobacco and alcohol use is today and tax/duty was applied to fund (ringfenced) the extra demand on the NHS public services ect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 I could live with that provided the dangers of it all was explained in the same way as tobacco and alcohol use is today and tax/duty was applied to fund (ringfenced) the extra demand on the NHS public services ect I imagine the demand on the NHS would fall massively if what was being sold was properly produced and checked. Just like booze or fags - I doubt many would head out and start injecting heroin just because it was legal. Putting the tax aside as you say would make sense though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuG III Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 Most high achievers in the 1800s or earlier would have used opiates of one form or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.