Local and State law enforcement immediately began to advocate for a repeal of Section 6077. The argued (and admitted) that law enforcement agencies were circumventing local/state laws, but, without the benefits of forfeitures, they would not be working as hard to enforce drug laws. This included the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina admitting that law enforcement would focus on criminal convictions instead, were they not incentivized to pursue drug crimes due to the gains from asset forfeiture.

Law Enforcement Justifications for Forfeitures

When bureaucrats realized that police were using the Comprehensive Crime Act to circumvent local forfeiture laws, they proposed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act f 1988. Section 6077 repealed the ability to use federal laws over local laws in forfeitures.

University of Oklahoma

If we assume that public officials, like the police, will act like a regular person and attempt to maximize their utility, then allowing local law enforcement ot profit from strict enforcement of drug policies means that the Comprehensive Crime Act incentivized the police to increase their efforts against drugs.

The Comprehensive Crime Act and Distorted Incentives

Benson, Bruce & RASMUSSEN, DAVID. (1996). Predatory Public Finance and the Origins of the War on Drugs. The Independent Review. I. 

Predatory public Finance and the Origins of the War on Drugs

The problem of distorted incentives, especially when it comes to funding and drug criminalization, goes back to the Treasure Department in the early 1900s. Because the Harrison Act required federal taxes on narcotics, the Treasure Department had a Federal Bureau of Narcotics to enforce it. The enforcement was strict and harsh, and it is believed that the bureaucrats played a role in getting the Marijuana Tax Act passed in 1937. The Bureau was facing a strict competition for funding, as both Congress and the public wanted enforcement of narcotics laws to be handled by the FBI.

A History of Distorted Incentives

The Bureau of Narcotics was responsible for gross misrepresentation of the effects of consuming marijuana back in the 1930s, as they were trying to get the Marijuana Tax Act (1937) passed. Marijuana was alleged to cause insanity and criminal behavior, including rate and other violent crimes. 

Historic Misinformation Spread by Law enforcement

Attempts to Overthrow the Comprehensive Crime Act

We can see the effects of the warped incentives by looking at the fact that states which allowed police to keep as much of the seized property as they wanted (as opposed to using federal laws that required giving federal agencies at least 20%) had significantly more drug arrests. These laws raise the ratio of drug arrests to total arrests by between 35 to 50%. Furthermore, as the drug war began to wind down, juvenile arrest rates fell

Learn Before

Related

Learn After