Torsten Posted January 24, 2003 I wonder what the numbers would look like if drug enforcement costs was taken out.....? http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2003/0...42911331591.htm Tobacco, alcohol top the drug abuse toll Date: January 21 2003 By Ruth Pollard, Health Writer Tobacco and alcohol accounted for 83 per cent of the cost of drug abuse in Australia, dwarfing the financial impact of illegal drugs, a Commonwealth Government report has found. It estimates that in 1998-99, tobacco accounted for $21 billion, or 60 per cent, of the costs of drugs to individuals, business and government, and alcohol made up $7.5 billion, or 22 per cent. But the illicit drug toll was fast catching up with alcohol, accounting for $6 billion, or 17 per cent of total costs, according to the report Counting the Cost produced for the Federal Government's National Drug Strategy. One of the report's authors, David Collins, a professor of economics at Macquarie University, said that the report had measured, for the first time, the cost of passive smoking to the community. "A lot of the impact of ... involuntary smoking is on the unborn child, and on children under 14 years - it hits the young very hard because they have no control over their lives," he said. Measuring hospital bed days, other health care costs and deaths in 1998-99, the report found involuntary smoking cost the community $47 million. "Tobacco is still the greatest killer by far and imposes the greatest costs," Professor Collins said. The cost of fires resulting from smoking was put at $81 million. "The message from this report is that the costs [of drug use] are so high the potential benefit of a small reduction is substantial," Professor Collins said. "Anti-tobacco programs yield very high rates of return, and the same is true for illicit drugs." The problem of alcohol use was more complex, because it had beneficial as well as damaging effects on drinkers. "If you reduce alcohol consumption you may reduce the benefits," Professor Collins said. "That said, people should not be encouraged to binge drink. It is moderate, low level consumption that provides the benefit." The report estimates that in 1998-99, alcohol caused 4286 deaths, but prevented 7029. The costs of drug use include both the tangible - crime, policing, cancer, hospital bed days, car accidents, death, fires, loss of productivity, less tax revenue - and the intangible, such as pain and suffering due to illness and death. Based on surveys and interviews with people in police custody and prisons conducted by the Australian Institute of Criminology, the report estimates the cost of drug crime totalled $4.6 billion, with illicit drugs making up $2.9 billion and alcohol contributing $1.7 billion. The information officer for the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, Paul Dillon, said experts had been aware for some time that alcohol and tobacco were the biggest cause of drug-related problems and costs. But there was a vast gap between the reality and public perception. "People really do perceive that illicit drugs are the major issue ... [and] they don't actually want to acknowledge that their drug of choice is really problematic," he said. "For most Australians those drugs will be legal drugs." The Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association said the report was a wake-up call for all governments to expand drug treatment and prevention programs. Professor Collins said the costs contained in the report were conservative calculations, and represented only minimum costs. "The real figures could be much higher." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gomaos Posted January 24, 2003 The problem of alcohol use was more complex, because it had beneficial as well as damaging effects on drinkers. Oh does it really? To me it appears that the people responsible for this report, out of all drugs, like a bit of alc themselves every now and then, hence now here's a drug that's "beneficial" when all illegal drugs are just "harmful". They must be such hippocrits. I don't need to "binge"drink to be an alcoholic. Even just 6 stubbies a day of normal strenght beer are enough to spoil the whole day, every day. Unless you are just "starting off" and not yet subject to addiction, there are no beneficial effects. Alcohol deludes your mind, makes you first feel "happy" and later sad, hence the possible "benefit" is evened out, if you drink only a little too much, you're guaranteed to have a hangover, if you drink "moderately" (i.e.6 stubbies/day)you'll still have a hangover, you'll be depressed more or less all day, etc etc etc. Alcohol on script only! Free Marihuana! It's way more "beneficial" than alcohol! "If you reduce alcohol consumption you may reduce the benefits," Professor Collins said. "That said, people should not be encouraged to binge drink. It is moderate, low level consumption that provides the benefit." Right, Prof. Go home and have some Jack D. And then another one. And then another one. Just slowly, so it can't be called "bingeing". In the end the result is the same! The report estimates that in 1998-99, alcohol caused 4286 deaths, but prevented 7029." It prevented 7029? How can they come up with this number? Ok, every person who dies from alc would be registered, but those who don't die...? I suppose they said: "Man, if you hadn't given me that drink just then, I would have killed myself..." What a way to produce "statistics"... Based on surveys and interviews with people in police custody and prisons conducted by the Australian Institute of Criminology So they are the ones responsible. Gimme a drink, or I'll kill myself. Just joking. (Still off it and fighting it day by day...W.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darklight Posted January 24, 2003 Lies, damn lies and statistics... Pity there isn't a way to estimate & include the financail advanteges of consumed illicit substances- insights gained, lifesaving changes in perspective, a reduction in stress levels when used sensibly ( as with all intoxicants ) and of course the big questions- the cost/ benefit of medical use of substances which are currently legally unavailable such as medical marijuana and MDMA in treating Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Whose sig file is it here that reads " The difference between a medicine and a poison is the dose" ? Couldn't agree more Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gomaos Posted January 24, 2003 That's PsychoO, Darklight. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
coin Posted January 25, 2003 (i think that's Paracelsus - "All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison and a remedy" but i've seen a similar quote ascribed to Hippocrates) anyhoo..*waves* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darklight Posted January 25, 2003 Did I mention the social and economic cost of remedies which will never be trialled b/c they are constituents of scheduled plants or are themselves scheduled? The possible antidepressant effects of Sally D spring to mind, sure there are prolly more examples. I know i'm drawing a long bow with the analogy, but I reckon they're asking the wrong questions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites