Wow. All of that sounds absolutely, completely awful. I'd just like to say, in my defense, I don't agree with civil asset forfeiture the way it's practiced and I think I've said so before on Hubski. The deputy I talked to, also very much believes in what he does and talked about it in a compelling and charismatic way. So I think, in his defense, he thinks he's doing the right thing.
Beyond what has already been said, there's another dimension to the "morality" of the war on drugs that hasn't yet been covered. Despite what any well meaning police officer may believe about the moral nature of what he or she is doing, the war on drugs was started for a very explicit reason: to infiltrate the President's enemies (President Nixon, that is, and this isn't speculation or conspiracy theory--it is well documented). There is a longer history than that that extends back to post-prohibition when the G-men all needed jobs suddenly--and that history is mostly about racism. The modern incarnation of the DEA was convened by Richard Nixon because he saw hippies and radical blacks as his natural enemies, and the thing they had in common was a penchant for weed, LSD, and heroin. Thus, the drug war. It was started on a lie, and thus has literally zero moral credence. The premises don't hold, so the conclusions can't either. Everyone who supports the war on drugs is a stooge in Nixon dirty political game. The DEA is a great example of what is sometimes called "internal lobbying" (to distinguish it from industry lobbying). Once a government department has been created, that department has to spend a bunch of time, effort, and money to ensure that their people still have jobs. Because drugs do affect lots of people negatively, the DEA has done a splendid job ("THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON DRUGS") of making themselves appear important enough that no Congressperson will vote to kill them. It's effective and pernicious.
Thanks for the additional input. I knew most of that. I think I need to defend myself though, now, to you and kleinbl00 and cgod. I know there's some screwed up stuff that goes on and I don't have a strong opinion on the War on Drugs on one way or another (I think citizens rights being trampled on is bad, I think crazy ass drugs like meth and heroin are bad, origins and practices aside, I think the whole issue is too big and nuanced to take a single, solid stance). I just wanted to know why the particular practice I was told about is controversial. Now I know. If I ever talk to the guy again, I'll politely bring up the points provided and ask about his counter points. He striked me as a good guy and I think most honest, good hearted people who pursue careers in law enforcement do so with a desire to do good and I think it's safe to view him in that light.
I'm sure he means well. And from his perspective, he's making the world a better place. After all, it's those scumbag career criminals that are fucking shit up, not the street guys with a habit and the closer we can get to them the better we all are, right? But this presumes that (1) the street guys have any access to the career criminals (2) there's equivalency between crime and punishment and both assumptions are readily challenged. I mean, Brian was told that he probably wanted to stop dealing. Brian was making plenty of money dealing, so he wasn't about to stop. So the cartels stopped his ass. He was fully guilty of committing felonies. But he's also dead for buying and selling pocketfuls of the product the coast guard seized cargo-planefuls of. And your buddy would no doubt argue that the goal is to save Brian and punish the guys who cut his head off and threw it in a ditch. But an ecosystem that exists surrounded by punishment and betrayal is necessarily going to get more and more brutal over time.