Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
As if we needed any more evidence that drug prohibition causes massive corruption in our law enforcement agencies, look what's going on in Indianapolis.
The arrests of four Indianapolis police officers are forcing the dismissals of more than two dozen pending cases and could cause drug-crime convictions in other cases to be overturned on appeal, prosecutors said Monday.As of today, the Marion County prosecutor's office expects to have dismissed 20 cases investigated by former narcotics officers Robert Long and Jason Edwards, officials said.
And wait till you see why these officers have been arrested:
Long, Edwards and former patrol officer James Davis are accused of stealing cash and marijuana from drug dealers. A sweeping FBI investigation used wiretaps and other surveillance methods to track the three officers committing crimes, according to a federal indictment.Long, Edwards and Davis were arrested June 16 and are in Marion County Jail while they await trial in U.S. District Court.
Jason Barber, 31, was in Marion Superior Court on Monday on state charges of selling a handgun to a felon and official misconduct. Barber worked with Long and Edwards in the dangerous drug section but has not been linked to the alleged drug dealer rip-offs. He was arrested at his home Friday.
The arrests have tainted the credibility of the roughly 1,700-member force in the eyes of the public, Brizzi said, even if most officers are honest. The three officers were part of a 19-member narcotics unit.
3 out of 19 sounds pretty significant to me. And this on the heels of the gutting of the Atlanta anti-drug unit, where officers were carrying bags full of drugs in the trunks of their patrol vehicles so they could plant it on people and solicit confessions - not to mention shooting old ladies based on a tip they coerced from an informant. End the insanity: legalize drugs.
Politics
Comments
I'm confused. Are you saying that the fact that drug prohibition causes corruption is a good rationale for legalizing drugs? That sure is what it sounds like. And that's idiotic.
These officers are corrupt because they like abusing their position of power to become more rich and powerful. If it wasn't drugs it would be something else.
Should we legalize human trafficking, black market gun sales, and racketeering as well because those can lead to police corruption?
There may be many reasons to legalize some or all drugs, but I don't see the point of this post in trying to make that case.
Posted by: dkw | August 7, 2008 10:17 AM
The point is that making something illegal - something that is enjoyed by many and is also easily available - causes corruption in the police forces. The mere fact that it is illegal and readily available means that cops who want to make a fast buck can do so on the backs of people who may or may not have done anything wrong at all. It provides an easy way for an authoritarian to engage in oppression of the people he is nominally charged with protecting.
Regulating drugs in a legal market would put an instant stop to that. Would you like to argue that is a bad thing?
P.S. This is just one good reason to legalize drugs. There are many more.
Posted by: BruceH | August 7, 2008 10:27 AM
dkw,
Corruption is a small price to pay for human freedom, but exorbitant if all you get in return is a slight decrease in drug use.
Posted by: Cooper | August 7, 2008 10:46 AM
I still say it's not a good reason because it's not the criminalization of drugs that causes corruption amoung police officers.
Police officers become corrupt because they are given powers that most normal people don't have. This is the same reason that some politicians and leaders of big business become corrupt.
Even if drugs are legalized, as long as some other action or substance is illegal, some police officers will become corrupt. I don't see how you can claim that there will be less incentive for an officer to become corrupt if drugs are legalized. For police, it's not about the drugs, it's about the money and/or the power. That will always be available.
P.S. And yes, I KNOW there are completely valid reasons for legalizing drugs (as I said before). This, however, is not one of them (at least not a very good one).
Posted by: dkw | August 7, 2008 10:50 AM
dkw -
And the biggest excuse police agencies use for demanding more and more power is the War on Drugs. Increased search and seizure powers, no-knock rules, and automatic property forfeiture are all "justified" because of drugs. That isn't to say the police wouldn't request these things anyway, but they'd have a much harder time making their case.Posted by: Taz | August 7, 2008 11:11 AM
Prohibition and corruption go hand in hand.
Almost 100 percent of our so-called "drug-related crime" is drug prohibition
created crime. When pure pharmaceutical grade Bayer heroin was legally sold to anybody with no questions asked in grocery
stores and pharmacies, the term "drug-related
crime" didn't exist. Neither did drug lords, drug cartels or even drug dealers as we know them today.
Posted by: Kirk Muse | August 7, 2008 11:52 AM
"Corruption is a small price to pay for human freedom, but exorbitant if all you get in return is a slight decrease in drug use.
Umm...besides which, you can't buy freedom with corruption. What you'll end up with is corruption, not freedom. I think the Atlanta case shows this pretty clearly.
I've made the detailed arguments before, but for now I'll just re-iterate that I believe a regulation- and rehabilitation-based approach to drug abuse (and drugs as a criminal enterprise) are far more effective than a prohibition- and punishment-based approach.
Leaving aside that the regulation/rehab model is the saner moral choice (it is), I think that it generates better results on at least three fronts than the prohibition/punishment approach.
1. it eliminates (most of) the illegal market, and therefore the incentive to pursue drugs as criminal enterprise. I say "most of" because we still see stuff like cigarette, alcohol and legal drug smuggling. As long as any kind of commodity can be bought cheaper somewhere else and smuggled in, you'll have those who seek profits by doing so.
2. it educates the public about drugs and the effects of abuse
3. it cuts down on the costs of housing prisoners, since you eliminate all the prisoners who should actually be in a rehab program.
Posted by: yogi-one | August 7, 2008 12:02 PM
When Prohibition began, illegal booze was available everywhere for a higher price, and the business was protected by paying off the police.
The difference between bribery and extortion is this: Bribery is what do you get if you pay; extortion is what do you get if you don't pay.
If the cops demand payoffs to look the other way, that is extortion, which means the cops were already corrupt, this was just a new venue for their extortion racket.
Outlaw gambling, and criminals -- and the police -- will cash in. Outlaw alcohol, and ditto. Outlaw drugs, ditto.
When Prohibition ended, many counties and cities when 'dry' rather than let the profits from the illegal liquor racket dry up, impoverishing the criminals and cops alike.
Posted by: Gilipollas Caraculo | August 7, 2008 12:08 PM
All the arguments in the world will never change historical facts. Alcohol is a drug. Alcohol prohibition was just another drug prohibition. Alcohol repeal cut down all the evils of that prohibition. Our current drug prohibitions will follow the same course. Only difference is that the Federal Government did learn one thing. Don't bother creating Amendments to the Constitution to authorize prohibition. Amendments can be repealed.
Posted by: MWM | August 7, 2008 12:38 PM
dwk, sounds like you're making a "guns don't kill people, people kill people," type argument. It's true as far as it goes. Drugs didn't make these cops go bad, they chose their own course. But at the same time, this war on drugs provides mechanism which supports and encourages such behavior. It needlessly channels tremendous sums of money into the hands of criminals, who are then in a position to attempt to bribe and corrupt officials.
If we were to eliminate this revenue stream into the criminal sector, I'd bet cashy money we'd see a drop in corruption. I agree with your point that reducing corruption is not in and of itself a good reason to repeal the drug laws. But if I was to tabulate a list of pros and cons for such laws then I'd say reduced corruption is a valid pro.
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 7, 2008 12:50 PM
Er, a list of pros and cons for eliminating such laws.
Posted by: Abby Normal | August 7, 2008 1:02 PM
dkw,
Another reason that corruption will drop on legalization is simply that there will be fewer cops needed and therefore fewer bad ones.
Posted by: Ed T | August 7, 2008 1:13 PM
Would the actions these officers were arrested for be possible if drugs were not prohibited?
Posted by: Azkryoth | August 7, 2008 1:57 PM
I don't think that four cops who deal with drugs becoming corrupt tells us much.
They might have been corrupt if they had been charged with investigating bank robbers, for all I know.
The money involved probably makes a better case for drug prohibition causing corruption. The large drug profits could be seen as leading to payoffs to keep the cops from busting gangs, mafia. Nevertheless, we'd need statistics to judge how much corruption drug prohibition causes.
Anyway, the costs of associated violence and other crime (degradation of neighborhoods, etc.) likely makes a better case against prohibition than does police corruption.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | August 7, 2008 2:25 PM
Dkw, I wouldn't say that Ed's argument is one in favor of decriminalizing drugs (although I know that his stance is one that favors complete decriminalization of drugs,and I share that viewpoint) so much as it is pointing out the absurdity and futility of the War on Drugs TM
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 7, 2008 2:34 PM
Bad cops are going to be bad cops, no matter what laws they are enforcing. For example, one of the officers in question sold a handgun to a felon.
The drug issue is just a red herring that evokes strong emotions. The real story here is that roughly 1 in 6 cops are corrupt and need to be pulled off the streets.
Posted by: Paul | August 7, 2008 5:57 PM
Probably nobody will read this because it's been so long, but I've been at work, and I can't make comments there.
I don't get why this story is here. A few cops wanted to steal valuables (money and drugs) so they framed a few former criminals. Drugs aren't the cause. Drugs were the tool used by crooked cops to steal. You can call it extortion or whatever, but drugs didn't cause this.
Police could always target criminals with priors for violence and plant guns (like they did here) or bomb-making equipment or whatnot.
I just disagree with Ed's title "How Drug Prohibition Causes Corruption". It should be something like "How Drug Prohibition Can Facilitate Corruption" or somesuch. Read the linked-to IndyStar article and tell me how drugs were a causal factor in this. The cause is greed and an under-policed police force.
Posted by: dkw | August 7, 2008 9:48 PM
Sadie-
You may not see Ed's argument as for legalizing drugs, but that's the point I got from it. (hint: see Ed's last sentence: "End the insanity: legalize drugs.")
I think the real message here is that we need to curtail corruption by cops. How do we do that? Legalize drugs? This does nothing to the cops.
I don't know exactly what to do, but educating the people about their rights (the story involves an illegal warrantless search) is a must as is increasing independent police oversight (maybe an investigative unit that isn't cops, so there's none of this blue wall of silence or whatever).
Posted by: dkw | August 7, 2008 10:14 PM
dkw: Your point is interesting, and I think that I would agree with your title modification. The difference I see, though, between corrupt cops being tempted by making money, extorting local businesses for protection money, say, vs. this type of greed is the public attitude toward it, and how pervasive and accepted it is in society. I remember reading a book about the hidden hand of the marijuana trade (I know nothing about economics!). People give token support to drug prohibition (same for prostitution), but they are in some ways victim-less crimes (of course, that's a whole 'nuther discussion) that involve an enormous underground market economy.
Someone at work sent on a link to a DVD about the large number of kidnappings that are occurring Mexico, one reason being proposed for it that criminals are looking for other sources of revenue when the war on drugs is locally successful. So, to me it's like prohibition-era Chicago, where alcohol prohibition created a lawless environment that allowed other types of crime to flourish.
I tend toward utilitarianism when it comes to society and laws, and while total decriminalization has its own host of problems, I have to agree that drug prohibition does foster corruption in those cops who would not necessarily resort to less socially-acceptable forms.
My 5 cents (inflation).
Posted by: ildi | August 7, 2008 10:26 PM
I've long seen our draconian drug laws as the police and DEA full employment act. Almost all the crimes relating to drugs are transgressions of the laws prohibiting or a consequence of them. By banning them society creates a rich opportunity to make huge amounts of money. Huge amounts of money are lures for corruption of every stripe. We incarcerate more one percent of the US male population. Why? Because of drug crimes. No other country in the world has the problem we have except those countries on our borders into which our paranoia about private behavior spills over. Illegal drugs cost this country billions of dollars and thousands of ruined lives every year. Make them legal and control them, like we do with alcohol, and we would cut our prison population by more than 50%, eliminate more than half the police we now employ, and spare an awful lot of people from ruined lives. Oh, and we'd also eliminate one huge opportunity for abuse.
Today's incident in Berwyn Heights MD is perfect example. A scheme to ship marijuana cross country by FedEx resulted in a suburban family being picked out as an unwitting courier. So the police with support from the feds, waited in the bushes for when the family came home and take the innocent looking package on their porch inside. Once it was inside the police executed a no-knock warrant, cuffed the husband (who happens to be the part time mayor of Berwyn Heights) for two hours in his boxers (he was taking shower when they invaded), and killed the family's two labrador retrievers. All in the interest of making one arrest for a few pounds of marijuana. That's what draconian drug laws produce. The AP story can be found at Yahoo.
These draconian laws are a product of our religious intolerance and puritanical heritage. The sooner we get rid of them, the better off the country.
Posted by: Keanus | August 7, 2008 10:34 PM
dkw - The War on Drugs is by far the largest avenue to police corruption and overreaching. That's the reason it's being singled out.
Posted by: Taz | August 7, 2008 10:46 PM
DKW wrote:
Let's look at the converse: should we criminalize having bad manners, having a bad temper, using bumper stickers the local authorities don't like, and not praying 5 times a day?
I mean, none of these things could result in corruption and overreach, right, because the dirty cops will always find something to be dirty about, right? You can forbid whatever the hell you feel like, it will just be a slight inconvenience.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | August 8, 2008 5:25 AM
I don't know about legalization. That may be an ideal goal, but pragmatically it is unattainable at the moment.
I would settle with decriminalization. This would involve removing mandatory sentencing, thus allowing judges to give proper sentences to junkies versus dealers.
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | August 8, 2008 7:08 AM
Not exactly corruption, but things like this are also overwhelmingly due to the War on Drugs:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/08/08/maryland.mayor/
Posted by: Taz | August 8, 2008 3:25 PM