The cost of drugs

[Torsten]

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."

[gomaos]

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.)

[Darklight]

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

[gomaos]

That's PsychoO, Darklight.

[coin]

(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*

[Darklight]

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.