Allegedly there is disproportionate amount of U.S. police effort to perform drug bust versus fighting other classes of crimes, as the law allows them to confiscate property, which then can be sold with proceeds going directly to the police departments budget.
Are both these claims true? Is it disproportionate? Does confiscated property go directly to PD budgets?
Example of such a claim:
Ever wonder why police spend so much time enforcing failed drug laws? To find the answer, you just need to follow the money. Funding schemes and asset forfeiture laws have given law enforcement agencies strong financial incentives to continue the drug war. Because funding for drug task forces is often based on the number of arrests made and the amount of property seized in drug busts, the easiest way for local police to up their numbers and boost their careers is to target low-level drug offenders, not violent kingpins. To create arrest opportunities, police routinely rely on untrustworthy informants, conduct dangerous home invasions on flimsy evidence, frame suspects and commit perjury. Asset forfeiture laws allow law enforcement agencies to seize property with minimal proof, putting the burden instead on suspects to prove their own innocence. Because these assets often go straight into the coffers of the enforcement agency, these laws have created financial incentives for property seizures that encourage corruption.
Related question: Are SWATs in the US mostly used for serving marijuana warrants?