It was often pointed out, during the era of stop-and-frisk, that it was disproportionately targeted at the poor and black, despite the reputation of Wall-Street-types for cocaine use.
So when cops finally started targeting cocaine users, you'd think society and the rich were stuck without an excuse.
You'd be wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Co3w6PYPSEo
It's 5 minutes long, but if you need a summary, it's basically "Gavin McInnes tries to justify cocaine use by associating it with productivity."
Which leaves behind a few questions; if such an addictive substance is justified in use by supposedly promoting productivity, why is it illegal in the first place? Is it that people who consider it justified don't speak for the voting public? If so, why isn't stop-and-frisk applied to cocaine use? Why make a drug illegal in the first place if you don't intend to enforce its prohibition like you would with other illegal drugs?
Me? I'm more of the "rehabilitate, don't incarcerate" school of thought. The whole point of incarceration was to make people too terrified of prison to do drugs, and that hasn't worked. Rehabilitate them instead; rich or poor; but don't legitimize the idea of sacrificing health itself on the altar of "productivity." If something healthy like coffee isn't drastic enough to make someone productive, then our bodies are trying to tell us something we really shouldn't actively ignore.
