This video from the officer’s body cams, Thomas Lane and J. Alexander Kueng reveals a bit more about what actually happened to George Floyd that day.
There was a complaint made about a dodgy twenty dollar bill, a counterfeit, and no proof it was actually him who did the counterfeiting, but he was obviously under the influence of a lot of drugs.
The real question is to me, could this have been avoided? The existence of junkies is a given, you can’t stop a certain large number of people taking drugs of some sort or another.
Thousands of times more people die from tobacco and alcohol than all illegal drugs combined if you look at the main causes of heart disease, and more people OD from legal pharma opiates, although Fentanyl is becoming more of a problem which is apparently what he was on.
They give that to cancer patients when the other pain killers don’t work anymore, as they’re about to die or after surgery.
I’ve talked about how the heroin programs in Switzerland and other European countries, cut the crime in half, and also reduced the ODs and homelessness, it seems to me to be a possible solution, if not the final solution.
When you add it all up, there’s only a very small number of people who use drugs to that extent, the side effects alone are enough to turn most people off using too much of them, and a managed program has been shown to be effective at harm minimization.
The harm caused by drugs is not just the health problems and changes to a person’s personality or behavior.
The crimes committed include armed robbery, car jacking, gang violence, murder, torture, kidnapping of children, prostitution, fraud, pretty much most of all the crime is caused not by drugs directly, but because of money for drugs.
These are, at least in part, the drugs that the US government are responsible for dealing, because they occupy Afghanistan and Columbia, gave immunity to the Sinaloa, and basically just cover up their involvement.
The ecstasy, meth, or other drugs like weed might be made or grown locally, or it might be imported from China or other countries, but generally speaking, if they wanted to give people the drugs they took, or an alternative, they could do it easily and cheaply through the government or health system, or just sell them in a store like alcohol and tobacco.
This is never going to be a popular way to deal with the problem, but they already give people prescription drugs like methadone, brupenorphine, valium, codeine, morphine, and oxycodone, in such quantities that those drugs kill more people from overdoses than the illegal ones.
The difference between extending the prescription drug program to include slightly different drugs for slightly different people at an affordable price, possibly resulting in a few more health and mental health problems, is the majority of all crime, and a financial cost of over a trillion dollars a year in the USA.
They pay a hundred grand a year per person for keeping millions of people in prison, and tens of billions a year for the close to a million police and special agencies that pretend to try to stop the drugs that the same government deals, for the most part, to counter another country bankrupting America by them dealing all the same drugs.
The logical argument they make is drugs are bad, OK? However when you consider that the majority of the half a million kids who go missing every year in the US alone are probably mostly kidnapped to sell for money for drugs, and that you could stop most of that crime by just giving junkies their drugs for free?
When you add that one thing to the financial cost, the suffering caused by years in prison, the cost to society of crime and violence and the fact that alcohol and tobacco still causes more health problems and deaths like lung cancer and heart disease, it doesn’t seem like zero tolerance is a strategy that works.
It quite simply doesn’t work, it never worked, it causes more suffering by far, which is exactly the same conclusion they came to after they tried prohibition of alcohol, which is still the largest cause of death in the world.
As far as arguing that those people are easier to get along with in society, I disagree, I think that when many people are really drunk, they’re just as crazy, and they can die from alcohol poisoning in a day, and do, in higher numbers.
Those figures don’t really take into account how many years it takes off your life, because you can’t really calculate it accurately, for example many things cause cancer and heart disease like bad diet and lack of exercise.
The brainwashing that one drug is better than another and that it’s better to force an authoritarian regime of intolerance, with everything that results from that, everything that resulted just from this one case over twenty bucks for a pack of smokes, I just disagree.
I think he possibly might have overdosed and died sooner if they had just given him all the free drugs he wanted, but that would have resulted in less suffering for everyone due to lower crime, lower financial cost to the taxpayer, and no endless riots and the threat of civil war in America.