There is a follow up today to the State House Drug Dealer story that first appeared in Sunday's Montgomery Advertiser. Today's story is about the Montgomery County D.A.'s office opening their own investigation into the matter.
Here's the money quote:
State Rep. Craig Ford, D-Gadsden, said that the investigation could have an impact on hiring and employment practices in the future, including whether there will be drug testing of House employees.
I say we drug test every elected official in the State House. Normally, I am against that kind of thing, but these are the jackasses who sit on their thrones and pass laws that put other people in prison for smoking marijuana, or using harder drugs, when many of them probably use drugs when no one is looking. They are the very first ones that should be tested and they should be tested every other day as long as they are elected. Every other day would be better than just random testing because most illicit substances have a 72 hour half-life in ones system.
After the Alabama Bureau of Investigation questioned Hooks and had the drugs analyzed, the agency determined that it did not have enough to prosecute.
And that is the thing that gets to me the most. How did the ABI come to that conclusion? Lorenza Hooks admitted to owning the bag and the video camera showed him putting the bag in the empty legislator's office. The ABI investigated and conducted tests to see if the marijuana was actually marijuana. It was. How does that equate to 'not enough evidence to prosecute'?
Someone commented on the original post here a few days ago that the only reason a person isn't charged when they are caught red handed is if they are an informant for the police or they are rolling on someone. I wonder if that is the case here?
3 comments:
If State House employees are going to be subjected to drug testing, absolutely the legislators should be as well.
I went to work for a small management company in the early 90s and was required to take a drug test. A few months later, I heard my boss telling a new CEO we'd hired for one of our managed businesses that he could skip the "required" drug test. I objected loudly. Don't know if he had to take the test or not -- probably not, as he was a guy in a higher level job than mine. Amazing how that works...
I knew I liked Craig Ford.
I'd like Ford a lot better if her were calling for legalization instead of calling for house employees to be drug tested while not calling for elected officials to be drug tested.
I still say someone BIG is involved in this cover up. Only a very powerful person could have made things come out this way.
Post a Comment