Why Do Police Really Oppose Marijuana Legalization? Part II
Yesterday's post failed to address the prevalence of police officers who privately oppose the drug war, but silently uphold it even though they know it's wrong. My argument is quite incomplete without addressing this important phenomenon.
LEAP director Jack Cole has told me that police constantly admit to him in confidence that they agree with LEAP's arguments. Former Seattle Police Chief and LEAP speaker Norm Stamper has also stated that several high-ranking police officials have privately commended his efforts to end the drug war.
How then do we explain the behavior of police who carry out a war they don't believe in? Are they just following orders and collecting their paychecks? Are they fearful that speaking out will compromise their status within a profession they otherwise enjoy? Do they believe the laws are here to stay, so someone has to enforce them? Are some just waiting for their pension to kick in before joining LEAP?
I'm sure all of these factors contribute here, but I suspect that many officers have a more nuanced view of drug enforcement. I once asked a highly-regarded police sergeant what he thought of a controversial teenage curfew law aimed at curbing crime in D.C. "It's a useful tool," he replied, meaning that it gave him the authority to take action against suspicious youths in the absence of other evidence. If he can't prove they're out tagging cars, he can at least stop them and send them home.
Drug laws, particularly marijuana, perform a similar function by granting police the discretion to forgive or destroy individual suspects based solely on their demeanor and the contents of their pockets. Police can ignore the smell of marijuana when dealing with a polite citizen, or fabricate it entirely when they believe someone's hiding something. A law that criminalizes vast portions of the population, justifying detentions, searches and arrests, is a "useful tool" indeed. Officers needn't believe they're winning the war on drugs to find value in the vast authority it bestows upon them.
Wielding inflated drug war powers with the best of intentions may help some officers justify their participation in something they otherwise find distasteful. Of course, none of this justifies the massive collateral damage that occurs in the process, but it might help explain how conscientious people could engage in behavior that shocks the conscience.
digg
redditre: Institutional demands
Comment posted by smorgan on Sat, 09/29/2007 - 2:04pmGerald,
Thanks. This is an important point that I left out only in the interest of space and because it's a familiar argument.
To whatever extent police believe drug policy reform puts their jobs on the line, they're just wrong. We'll always need police, and it's exciting to think about how much more they could accomplish if they weren't chasing after some of the most harmless people in America.
I've had three bikes stolen here in D.C. and MPD couldn't have been less interested. If police spent more time on crime victims and less time on victimless crimes, people would just love it. Of course, my bikes were probably stolen by a non-rehabilitated repeat drug offender whose needs could be better addressed post-prohibition and might not have to follow me around stealing my bikes.
Oh my god, you're right! Tons of insidious crap would just completely stop happening if our drug policy wasn't the precise opposite of what it should be. But with all the money we're wasting kicking the piss out of each other, I'm sure we could easily afford to find work for displaced drug war profiteers.
When Good People Do Nothing
Comment posted by Giordano on Fri, 09/28/2007 - 7:10pmThe drug war makes it extraordinarily difficult for ordinary people and professionals who know better to confront a system of justice so heavily invested in achieving an impossible goal.
As the impossibility of the agenda becomes more and more evident, drug culture warriors work to save face. Potential criticism and critics are derailed by using harsh measures that camouflage the absurdity of the drug war, and which create a climate of fear that discourages dissent.
The tactics being used by the drug warriors resemble those used to establish a fascist state. One of Naomi Wolf’s latest books, "The End of America," cites ten steps leading to fascism. Seven of the steps are applicable to the drug war. They are:
(1) Invoke an internal and external threat
Drug users and dealers are scapegoated for all the ills of society, i.e., if American public schools are lousy, it’s the fault of drugs, etc. Pot growers from Mexico are portrayed as foreigners invading America, while simultaneously providing cover for Islamic terrorists.
(2) Develop a Paramilitary Force
Or hire one, as the Dept. of Defense recently did when they contracted Blackwater USA to do drug surveillance.
(3) Surveil Ordinary Citizens
The Fourth Amendment has been emasculated. CAMP intrudes on private property using helicopters and foot patrols. Honest, non-drug using citizens are subjected to involuntary, random drug tests.
(4) Target Key Individuals
Peter McWilliams, Ed Rosenthal, and Tommy Chong were not targeted for growing medical pot or selling bongs as much as they were persecuted for their first amendment activities that cast a true or humorous light on drugs and their use.
(5) Restrict the Press
The media is expected to cooperate in the drug war, and they do this by publicly reiterating, without criticism, whatever the drug warriors want them to say. For instance, how many times has a major TV broadcast network given a true accounting of medical marijuana?
(6) Cast criticism and dissent as treason
Criticism of the drug laws is still the third rail of politics.
(7) Subvert the Rule of Law
Erosions of due process and violations of the Constitution are a continuing phenomenon in the drug war.
With all this going on, it’s easy to see why people think twice before taking on the drug laws. It only takes a few state legitimized attacks by cross-eyed crusaders to instill fear among honest citizens.
Time will tell if we are to be good Germans or good Americans.
Giordano