When you leave off the beginning of the quote it seems misleading:

“BM 110 implementation also lacked any training and education for law enforcement officers,” the report says. “Departments simply received a simple question-and-answer guide from the state and officers were unclear about how best to handle situations involving drug possession and leading to additional frustration.”

So everyone received training but somehow between you and me we found two sources that say there wasn’t training.

I think you’re just re-defining the word “training” to something other than what an average person would consider “training” to mean, and claiming you’re right. Just like the Reagan administration redefining ketchup as a vegetable in order to cut costs on children’s nutrition funding. Oh sneaky republicans.

Be real: if officers were unclear on how to handle situations- then they clearly didn’t receive as much instruction as they needed. Not receiving enough instruction = untrained. A Q&A pamphlet does not constitute training. It doesn’t matter if that’s what typically happens or if this is officially referred to as training, this is not what is normally meant by the word, or what a reasonable person would expect of “training”- especially when the health and safety of officers and the general public are at stake.

And I don’t think anyone is blaming police. It seems they were as frustrated as anyone with the lack of clarity, resolve and commitment from state and local government to address drug addiction’s terrible burden on communities, families, and individuals. Like they did in Portugal.

Anyway, you can have the last word, I’m done here.