3 ms·

I don't think that blame is a conserved quantity. Yes, the whole war on drugs complex is a problem, but that doesn't absolve the individual cops of responsibili

I don't think that blame is a conserved quantity. Yes, the whole war on drugs complex is a problem, but that doesn't absolve the individual cops of responsibility. More pragmatically, a lack of serious consequences is part of why cops have learned to behave this way. Get rid of the war on drugs, and you haven't fully solved the problem. Nothing about this situation would be any more acceptable if instead of drugs, they had been searching for child pornography, a bomb, or an abused animal.

AnthonyMouse 13y ago
> Nothing about this situation would be any more acceptable if instead of drugs, they had been searching for child pornography, a bomb, or an abused animal. The difference is that the other things you've listed are far less common and far less lucrative than illegal drugs. If you took away the war on drugs then you could give law enforcement significantly less than their current budget and still have them allocate more officers to each case, have them each spend more time on it, train them each better, etc. etc. The war on drugs is the primary impetus for the militarization of the police force. Police should be investigators, not soldiers. The war on drugs encourages them to behave like soldiers which is the root cause of their unacceptable behavior.
- mistercow 13y ago
  The police are already militarized. Yes, that happened primarily due to the war on drugs, but that doesn't mean that ending the war on drugs will fix it. The bleeding doesn't stop just because you pull the knife out of the wound.
  - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
    Well sure, removing the war on drugs doesn't solve 100% of the problem instantaneously. But it solves 80% of it over a relatively short period of time. You still have to stop the bleeding, but you at least move the problem to "stop the bleeding" from "prevent additional stab wounds." And properly ending the war on drugs should imply "bringing the troops home" so to speak: Dissolving the paramilitary police units and separating their members from one another, and putting them on desk jobs or into community outreach programs that don't involve making arrests or serving warrants. (Or making it attractive for them to take early retirement.)

AnthonyMouse 13y ago

> Nothing about this situation would be any more acceptable if instead of drugs, they had been searching for child pornography, a bomb, or an abused animal. The difference is that the other things you've listed are far less common and far less lucrative than illegal drugs. If you took away the war on drugs then you could give law enforcement significantly less than their current budget and still have them allocate more officers to each case, have them each spend more time on it, train them each better, etc. etc. The war on drugs is the primary impetus for the militarization of the police force. Police should be investigators, not soldiers. The war on drugs encourages them to behave like soldiers which is the root cause of their unacceptable behavior.

mistercow 13y ago
The police are already militarized. Yes, that happened primarily due to the war on drugs, but that doesn't mean that ending the war on drugs will fix it. The bleeding doesn't stop just because you pull the knife out of the wound.
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  Well sure, removing the war on drugs doesn't solve 100% of the problem instantaneously. But it solves 80% of it over a relatively short period of time. You still have to stop the bleeding, but you at least move the problem to "stop the bleeding" from "prevent additional stab wounds." And properly ending the war on drugs should imply "bringing the troops home" so to speak: Dissolving the paramilitary police units and separating their members from one another, and putting them on desk jobs or into community outreach programs that don't involve making arrests or serving warrants. (Or making it attractive for them to take early retirement.)