[ijpoijpoihpiuoh]

Broadly speaking, the law in question is Title 21 Chapter 13 of the US Code. Buying and selling controlled substances without appropriate authorization is illegal. Disruption of illegal activities by law enforcement is generally legal, provided no other laws are broken in the process.

Now, whether buying and selling these substances should be illegal is another question. But it's definitely not obvious that law enforcement is outside its typical role here.

[jMyles]

I didn't mean to suggest that law enforcement is outside its typical role, just that it is outside its legitimate role if it were behaving in a way, as dewaine suggests, of blindly enforcing a law for that law's sake.

This action doesn't appear to actually enforce any law, only to create acrimony and violence in communities where some people choose to violate it.

[ijpoijpoihpiuoh]

> blindly enforcing a law for that law's sake.

I think this take is really uncharitable. I believe many/most people in the US believe that the laws controlling illegal drugs have at least some good purposes. Sure, most people want weed to be legal (not everyone, but most people). But heroin and fentanyl? I'm guessing support for legalizing those is well below the 50% mark. I bet in an unbiased poll, most people would support efforts to disrupt marketplaces that sell these goods.

I agree that if law enforcement believed what, say, many HNers believe about the effectiveness of prohibition laws, this type of enforcement would represent a slavish devotion to the law over justice. But I'm guessing they generally believe the law is a good law and that the country is better off with it enforced.

> This action doesn't appear to actually enforce any law

I already referenced the law that it enforces. I'm not sure what you mean by reasserting that it doesn't enforce any law, while in the previous paragraph you conceded that "[law enforcement were] enforcing a law for that law's sake." Are they or aren't they enforcing a law?

[jMyles]

> while in the previous paragraph you conceded that "[law enforcement were] enforcing a law for that law's sake." Are they or aren't they enforcing a law?

It seems that you've gotten mixed up about who is saying what in this convo. I am actually contesting the notion that anybody was "enforcing a law for that law's sake" - it was dewaine who said that, and has repeated that assertion in a sibling comment to this one.

The primary thrust of my point is that these sorts of actions don't reflect a devotion to the letter of the law, but rather a nebulous "whatever it takes" approach, even unto naked PsyOps, to achieve a misguided end.

[dewaine]

They are certainly enforcing the laws against selling and purchasing drugs. It is uncharitable but if the state actually cared about people it would treat drug addiction as a health issue. It can be treated, current policy obviously has done nothing to solve the problem in the US. The police are enforcing the supremacy of the state, these people are flaunting the law and must be punished otherwise the government looks weak. Nobody wants to admit defeat because it is admitting they are much less powerful than they want people to believe they are.

All of this is conjecture and would of course be unconscious motivation. People want to think they're the good guy, people justify what they're doing so they can sleep at night.

[jMyles]

> They are certainly enforcing the laws...

> The police are enforcing the supremacy of the state...

It strikes me that these two concepts are mutually exclusive; that was the reason for my objection in the first place.