One side doesn’t want anything enforced that might result in disproportionate and inequitable results, the other side doesn’t want to enforce anything under the the idea that the worse things get, the more the public will turn to “law and order” (aka, more funding for them).

Both can be true at the same time.

And both err towards non-enforcement.

And that non-enforcement works to the advantage of both.

Whether it’s “look at all the harm” or “look at all the harm that disproportionally falls on low-income/BIPOC” doesn’t really matter.

The more negative affects there are, the more there is for each side to blame on the other.

You can’t argue about how bad things are, who it disproportionately affects, whose fault it is, and all that, unless there’s bad stuff.

And, of course, “bad stuff” means someone needs to fund more of something.

As long as we all agree something is bad and something needs more funding, then all the major players are happy.

From there we can argue who is at fault, who has the solution, and who should get more money.