Pretty sure most of them take anabolic steroids, whose effects can lead to -guess what- delusion, aggressiveness and violence (not unlike cocaine). I wounldn't be surprised at all if random drug tests on cops confirmed this.
Chapter 3 has a lovely abstract:
The anabolic steroid abuse problem within law enforcement is straightforward. Police culture embraces images of aggression and masculinity, serving up both institutional and social rewards for those that conform. Denying this reality is not reasonable. Anabolic steroids help provide an easy path to those short-term rewards. However, these rewards are temporary, high risk, and illegal. Additionally, as with any form of illegal drug use, it doesn’t occur in a vacuum. Anabolic steroid abuse requires committing any number of crimes and direct association with other criminals — including those who deal other illegal drugs.
Law enforcement has a professional obligation to public safety that includes employing and deploying only those officers that are fit for duty. It is not possible to use anabolic steroids and also maintain psychological or character-related fitness for duty. However, because of related performance- and image-enhancing benefits, in combination with ignorance of the law, anabolic steroid abuse is tolerated by some public safety agencies and many in the legal community. This short-sighted approach, which amounts to the burying of heads in the sand, ensures that harm will be caused and that legal liability will be incurred.
> Anabolic steroid abuse requires committing any number of crimes and direct association with other criminals — including those who deal other illegal drugs.
Is that actually true? I was under the impression that you could find a doctor that would prescribe them to you. Not the case with, say, cocaine.
I was under the impression that you buy them from your friend at the gym. In the US, the whole class of anabolic steroids are Schedule III controlled substances. There are many compounds that went through clinical and animal trials, steroid chemistry was big in the 1950s and 1960s, the story of Syntex is one of treachery and villainy, but not many are available at market these days. The only use case is cachexia in the very elderly or in cancer patients. A physician who prescribes them too frequently would attract attention, unless of course he has a special relationship with law enforcement.
Thr authors list the risk factors: employment as nightclub bouncer, professional male dancer, professional wrestler, or law enforcement officer. BMJ is highly reputable.
So the reason smalltown police act like BOPE in Rio is that they want to look buff like a male stripper! They don't want to be the arm of the law, such work is dirty, boring and tedious, their goal is to look sexy with their guns, their kink escaped from the bedroom into the streets!
No wonder that they have a recruitment problem, regular people won't join Anabolics Anonymous, only slightly troubled weirdos and high school bullies will come. It makes you very pessimistic about police violence and proper discipline in the force, they won't ever improve unless they solve their drug abuse problem first.
Seems like a better phrase is 'I find this hard to believe. Do you have a source?'
I certainly doubted the 'most' part of that statement but after looking into it, it really does seem like there is a problem with steroids and the police. Potentially still not 'most' police but certainly enough that it's an issue.
Most was surely an exaggeration on my part, however some well known brutal beatings by cops in my country ending with the death of the arrested had the family of the victim being ridiculed and verbally attacked by police associations. Eventually in the most famous case to date it took one of the involved officers to talk after 9 years to expose what everyone was certain of: a coverup. There has been zero cooperation from above.
What made me even more angry then however was the fake camaraderie LEOs associations showed when protecting their colleagues; that's not camaraderie, that's collusion plain and simple, which is probably even worse than having the brain f'ed up by hormones.
You seem very pleasant. While I guess asking other people questions on here is beneath you, I (and seemingly tons of other people) like to ask other people information when they say they know information and have a conversation. Did anyone anywhere ever claim HN is a courtroom? Even so... I'm pretty sure questions are allowed in a courtroom.
It's more about the accusatory nature of it. It implies "I don't believe you", which is not really a question. It's rude, and stymies a conversation. You're making the other do work to get back to the same point in the conversation they were at, before you said anything. I, as a reader, just saw a pissing match, but didn't learn much new.
Moreover, it's intellectually lazy: I could ask for sources after anything anyone says, ever. How does that advance any situation? Can you imagine the tone of those conversations?
Naturally, sometimes it's genuine curiosity. You can usually tell from the way it's phrased. "This isn't true. Do you have a source?" is not it.
But even in that case, I genuinely suggest people to take all of three seconds to type the keywords into Google. It's about as quick as typing that reply, and it frees up the comment section like a quick vick's vapo rub.
The original poster already went through the trouble of sharing the comment, and, presumably, their experience with it. The least you can do is help.
