You get less and less each year from the mayor and you know that most 70-80% of the crime is drug related, you start shifting resources to take care of the items that are most concerning.
Define drug related crime? Those percentages may be true, but the kid that gets pulled over for rolling through a stopsign on a Sunday evening with a joint in his cigarette pack still gets chalked up as a 'drug related crime'.
Now, instead of ending with a traffic ticket, this routine stop has occupied probably 2-4 officers for an hour or two, however many detention people to run him through the system, occupies a cell for at least a day, requires a judge the next morning, etc... Because he didn't come to a complete stop.
That's just for the arrest. After this comes the a prosecutor, public defender, judge and all the clerks required to find this person innocent or guilty which will tie up the court system until his case is resolved.
After he pleads no contest to having pot, the court tosses the original traffic ticket (don't want any further record of that to link the two), fines him the $300+ in just court costs and sentences him to time served and 6 months probation, for rolling through a stop sign.
Now we tie up another system, the Salvation Army and their merry band of POs (yet another group that needs a substantial budget to operate) and they get to keep track of this kid for the next 6 months, for rolling through a stop sign.
So don't feed me the company line of 'drug related crime' without something relevant.
Edit:
And Sheriff Rutherford needs MORE cops to crack down on the crime? Right. Stop basing how good a job he does by the amount of criminals he locks up and then we can have an honest discussion regarding what is needed to fund his department.