Yeah, nah, all of this is not really great. The majority of overdoses at events like this are at the door when people see dogs and cops. The high presence of police officers is not only overkill and completely unnecessary, it's encouraging dangerous behaviour to avoid detection/imprisonment for taking a drug that does no harm to anyone but the person using it. Most, if not all, 'party drugs' don't magically make people violent. Violent people do violent things.
It's up to the police to serve the interests of the public, which they scarcely do nowadays. Do you think it is within the public's interest to have young men dying due to police presence? This is of course more of an argument to change the absurd drug laws in this country more than anything.
If you're so worried about drug use and violence, instead of using heavy handed tactics and oversaturation of officers, why not simply confiscate the drugs and let the possessors go about their business? You'll still have people smuggling them in regardless, but you won't have people terrified of getting caught and overdosing to avoid a prison sentence. If violence happens (protip: it's not because of drugs) then officers can arrest them for that inside the venue.
The high presence of police officers is to act as a deterrent for bringing drugs into the venue in the first place and it does serve that purpose well for the majority of the population because they don't want to risk the penalties.
Also, I never said drugs magically make people violent. Drugs can induce violent behaviour and whether or not it does is dependent upon the individual, but that risk of drug induced violent behaviour certainly exists when you consider a crowd of thousands of people.
There were 100 officers for 18,000 people. I don't think it's overkill. You need a large amount of manpower to cover a large crowd.
You say police scarcely serve the interests of the public nowadays. I would like to see what real evidence you have to justify that generalisation.
Also, the idea of simply confiscating the drugs and stopping there without penalty has the moral hazard of everybody bringing in drugs without any impressionable consequences. It would not act as a strong deterrent if there was no penalty. These are supposed to be proactive/preventative measures because with reactive measures (e.g. to a violent incident) the damage has already been done.
The alternative option of having a lower police presence means a lower deterrent and less chance of drug detection for the greater majority of people which increases the risk overall. It is not worth trying to make the small number of people who choose to take the high level of risk to take a relatively 'lower' level of risk (which may not necessarily work at all), at the cost of 'encouraging' a larger number of people taking on more risks and dangerous behaviour than they otherwise would. I also think there is a greater chance of overdosing happening within the venue if police just 'let people be'.
Yes, police are supposed to serve in the public interest but they can't save everybody from themselves. In my view, having a greater police presence is more in the public interest (in saving the majority of patrons from themselves) than a lesser one.
