They can use discretion on civil asset forfeiture too, if they want. Something would be better than the current approach, which is feeling more cartel-esque by the year.
Nihilist and fatalist approaches like yours make the outcome certain. If I show up, speak like a big boy, and provide evidence someone might listen. This is the difference.
It's not quite as simple as "they can use discretion", because there is no single "they". There's a boatload of states and the federal government, and states have sovereign power on these topics, and states that have outlawed the practice have collaborated with the federal government through "equitable sharing" practices.
But this is literally the first time in this thread that you've mentioned "oversight." Perhaps you're advocating that something be done, but I cannot tell what it is.
It seems like you've been suggesting just that "the relevant authorities should use their discretion." That doesn't strike me (or, apparently, others) as much of a reform, since that exactly describes the status quo, which does not seem to be working.
What is the role for oversight that you're suggesting? Who does the overseeing? How?
excuse me; i commented on the legislature's allergic reaction to actually making changes to the law in this area, noting the difficulty of the task which you have chosen.
Nihilist and fatalist approaches like yours make the outcome certain. If I show up, speak like a big boy, and provide evidence someone might listen. This is the difference.