• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

NEWS: Cost to Fight Drugs - Illicit drug fight costs '$3.2b a year'

H

Haki

Bluelighter
Joined
Jul 10, 2006
Messages
116
Illicit drug fight costs '$3.2b a year'
Friday Aug 11 00:12 AEST

Australia's fight against illicit drugs costs about $3.2 billion a year, with more than half blown on drug-related policing, a hard-hitting report has found.

An ambitious independent report has calculated for the first time how much money state and federal governments spend on drug prevention, treatment and the consequences of addiction.

The document estimates that in the 2002-03 financial year the country spent between $1.5 billion and $4.9 billion on fighting illegal drugs.

But the researchers involved with the project are concerned the governments are "running blind" - spending money with no clue of the return on their investment.

advertisement
"That's a lot of money and the fact that we spend this every year means we should really known more about what works - but we don't and the governments don't either," said chief investigator Alison Ritter, from Sydney's National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC).

Prof Ritter said the agency was particularly concerned that of the average $3.2 billion spent each year, only $1.3 billion - or 40 per cent - was spent on proactive programs of treatment and prevention to improve the drug situation and the lives of drug users.

That leaves 60 per cent spent mopping up problematic consequences of drug use, like property crime and hospitalisation.

"We'd like to see this priority change so that governments are spending much more on direct responses to drugs like education, law enforcement and treatment and much less on the consequences," Prof Ritter told AAP.

The report found that 56 per cent of all spending went on law enforcement, another 23 per cent was outlaid on prevention strategies and only 17 per cent went to treatment.

World Health Organisation research has found that every dollar spent on treatment saves seven dollars, so Australia should be spending more, the University of NSW researcher said.

"Certainly 17 per cent seems a very low figure given that we know how well the treatment works and what a good investment it is," she said.

The statistics also showed that the commonwealth paid only 20 per cent of the total tab, leaving state and territory governments to pick up the remaining $2.6 billion.

This was concerning, Prof Ritter said, especially if it indicated federal underfunding which was being picked up at a state level.

The Drug Policy Modelling Program report was produced by the NDARC, and other research centres to kick off a five year project to work out the best investment mix.

"We aim to improve Australian drug policy by providing evidence about what's good value for money and improving the way decisions get made and what we should be spending money on," Prof Ritter said.

She said governments needed to be accountable for their spending but it was clear they did not know the return they were getting on their investment.

"The Australian public has the right to know the impact of this expenditure and whether we are getting the mix right."

She said Australia was running blind, largely because illicit drug policy was a "highly complicated and politicised arena".

Alcohol and Drug Council of Australia chief executive Donna Bull agreed, saying it was time to change the way policies were developed.

"Some the decisions that have been made have often been based on political expediency or strategies that are palatable for the community rather than what's supported by the evidence," Ms Bull told AAP.

"This provides a really authoritative basis upon which to determine appropriate value for money investment."
Click to expand...

'World Health Organisation research has found that every dollar spent on treatment saves seven dollars, so Australia should be spending more, the University of NSW researcher said.'

Considering the revenue from tobacco tax is at an all time high, due to all time usage- perhaps the government should start thinking in that light also..

Any thoughts?


EDIT : Link http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=121492
 
Portillo said:
Maybe the answer is to spend 6 billion instead.
Click to expand...
This will no doubt be the response from the liberals methinks. Chris Pyne needs to eat happytoast.
 
Last edited:
I've actually been pondering this quite a bit lately....

You can never stop people from taking drugs. No matter how hard you try, the people that want to do it will find someone willing to supply them. With the current stance of prohibition the profits are just too high to be overlooked and policing distribution is impossible. Now I had my time of playing up years ago and my experiences in the last 4 years or so have nearly all been bad. Is it just me or has the quality of what is available now just gone downhill? Everything just seems to be dirty these days and not what you expect it to be.

Sure they are making it a lot harder with restrictions on precursors for different drugs but they just find another way to extract the necessary chemicals or substitute it with something else entirely. To me they just seem to be making the profit margin higher for drug dealers and the product of lessor quality and more dangerous, leading to more social problems within the community. They then point to the damage that certain drugs are making when if it was available in a pure form, they would not be any where near as dangerous. (possible exceptions may be heroin which I do not have the faintest idea of so cannot comment on)

I would hate to be where I was (experimenting and abusing myself) years ago because I honestly don't know how bad the effect would be on my health and ability to function now. I praise God that I was able to constantly source good quality gear because even then I got a bad batch every now and then and got quite sick, but do you think it could stop me? No.

To me they need to take steps to provide an alternative that is regulated and with strict quality controls because the majority of drug users are otherwise law abiding citizens and are forced into the ugly side of things to cater to their current state of mind. New Zealand have done so without any significant down side and of much benefit to the community. Alcohol and tobacco are very harsh drugs and according to a study done in the UK are much more socially damaging than both marijuana and ecstacy. (Ecstacy actually came in third last I think) Alcohol was only second to things such as heroin and cocaine.

With regulation would also come funds to the government via taxes etc that could then be used to fund the restriction of more damaging drugs and provide help for users of these drugs. It would also provide a legal alternative for those who do not otherwise break the law.

When used correctly and in moderation, some substances can be life altering in a good way and can actually benefit the lives of those responsible enough to use them correctly. The laws in this country must change from the current view of total prohibition because the damage done is only worse and at the very least extremely costly to the community compared to the benefits gained.

How can people who have never really experienced these substances have an open mind and consequently judge the best way to manage their use?.....

Simply, they can't.
 
We all know everyone does drugs, but like i always say drugs that are illegal are illegal not because they are more dangerous than legal drugs but rather because ppl do them for fun, not cause there sick.
 
they need to make drugs 10x more illegal spend 10's of billions more on the drug war bring out half hour long anti drug propaganda ads before the simpsons starts and make harm minimisation illegal give it 3 or 4 years and drugs will be a thing of the past :p
 
drink drank drunk said:
with the money the govt spent trying to fight it they could have given everyone 6 pingers :lol:
Click to expand...

Actually they could have given everyone quite a deal more. I would imagine when you are buying in extreme bulk prices would be pretty good. =D
 
War on drugs costs $3bn per year Herald Sun

[EDIT: Threads merged. hoptis]

Herald Sun
War on drugs costs $3bn per year

By Tamara McLean

August 11, 2006 12:40am
Article from: AAP


AUSTRALIA'S fight against illicit drugs costs about $3.2 billion a year, with more than half blown on drug-related policing, a hard-hitting report has found.

An ambitious independent report has calculated for the first time how much money state and Federal Governments spend on drug prevention, treatment and the consequences of addiction.

The document estimates that in the 2002-03 financial year the country spent between $1.5 billion and $4.9 billion on fighting illegal drugs.

But the researchers involved with the project are concerned the governments are “running blind” - spending money with no clue of the return on their investment.

“That's a lot of money and the fact that we spend this every year means we should really known more about what works - but we don't and the governments don't either,” said chief investigator Alison Ritter, from Sydney's National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
my god...our hard earned tax payer coin is spent on a 3.2billion dollar program...i would like to see the amount of convictions generally related to this program...surely the money could be better spent...
 
Machine said:
I've actually been pondering this quite a bit lately....

You can never stop people from taking drugs. No matter how hard you try, the people that want to do it will find someone willing to supply them. With the current stance of prohibition the profits are just too high to be overlooked and policing distribution is impossible. Now I had my time of playing up years ago and my experiences in the last 4 years or so have nearly all been bad. Is it just me or has the quality of what is available now just gone downhill? Everything just seems to be dirty these days and not what you expect it to be.

Sure they are making it a lot harder with restrictions on precursors for different drugs but they just find another way to extract the necessary chemicals or substitute it with something else entirely. To me they just seem to be making the profit margin higher for drug dealers and the product of lessor quality and more dangerous, leading to more social problems within the community. They then point to the damage that certain drugs are making when if it was available in a pure form, they would not be any where near as dangerous. (possible exceptions may be heroin which I do not have the faintest idea of so cannot comment on)

I would hate to be where I was (experimenting and abusing myself) years ago because I honestly don't know how bad the effect would be on my health and ability to function now. I praise God that I was able to constantly source good quality gear because even then I got a bad batch every now and then and got quite sick, but do you think it could stop me? No.

To me they need to take steps to provide an alternative that is regulated and with strict quality controls because the majority of drug users are otherwise law abiding citizens and are forced into the ugly side of things to cater to their current state of mind. New Zealand have done so without any significant down side and of much benefit to the community. Alcohol and tobacco are very harsh drugs and according to a study done in the UK are much more socially damaging than both marijuana and ecstacy. (Ecstacy actually came in third last I think) Alcohol was only second to things such as heroin and cocaine.

With regulation would also come funds to the government via taxes etc that could then be used to fund the restriction of more damaging drugs and provide help for users of these drugs. It would also provide a legal alternative for those who do not otherwise break the law.

When used correctly and in moderation, some substances can be life altering in a good way and can actually benefit the lives of those responsible enough to use them correctly. The laws in this country must change from the current view of total prohibition because the damage done is only worse and at the very least extremely costly to the community compared to the benefits gained.

How can people who have never really experienced these substances have an open mind and consequently judge the best way to manage their use?.....

Simply, they can't.
Click to expand...

exactly. well said.

if i ever get done for doing pingaz, im gonna ask the judge "have you ever had ecstacy sir? So then how can you judge me, you can't possibly understand" :p
haha

but seriously, you can't stop drug use. it's IMPOSSIBLE. well it is possible to limit societies use of certain drugs by targetting them,
but when you cut out one certain drug, people will just switch to another.
And then the cops would have to restrict the availability of that drug.

Then by the time the police forces drug team become so good at removing illegal drugs from society thanx to the billions of extra tax payers monies being spent,
recreational drug users will switch to far more dangerous ways of getting high like nitrous, methane, petrol, experimenting with plants etc...
And if not that, then prescription drugs will become more abused, and if things like tranqs/benzos ever get banned,
then your restricting the right to live healthy happy lives for those people who genuinely need such things.

I mean there are chemicals all around us. that's what life is made up of. when you take drugs, your just taking life (hmmm i better stop this hippy tangent....lol)
you can't take away a persons right to enjoy themselves (to that extent) without it becoming some sort of totalitariam (i dont know anything about politics btw) society.
can you picture it now?
hell sir, please upload your blood and urine sample for the day.
and please bend over while we rape your ass

:D

sorry if that all came out like an ass fart, but it was the only way i could "express myself"

what im trying to say it comes down to, is that stopping people from taking recreational drugs is not the answer.
almost all cultures across the globe have their own way enjoying themselves through chemicals.
people can take drugs and still be safe. well sure there is no such thing as "safe" drug use, because there is no such thing as safe anything.
there's no such thing as safe speeding, because there's no such thing as safe driving fullstop, there's no such thing as safe eating, there's no such thing as safe living.
as they say, everything you do is going to kill you eventually.
So seeing as we're all human, we're all in this together, ask a scientest, its quantum physics.
im made of atoms, you're made of atoms... (im not high i swear, just listening to ben lee :p )

So the governments role (don't worry im finnally getting there) is to help keep its people as safe as is reasonable (i.e safer), without removing peoples freedoms, the freedoms that allow them to enjoy life.
so how do they do this? well recreational drug use is one of these freedoms.
recreational drugs can "save peoples lives", and it can "take them away".
so why remove rec. drugs completely? you'll be taking away the good with the bad.
Yes you can enjoy life without drugs, and most of us do most of the time, and that's more than cool.
But other people also like to enjoy their lives with the occasional drug use, and what right does another person have to say you can't have this freedom?

So why not put the focus on just removing the bad?
Stop targetting ecstacy users (arguably one of the safer drugs unless adulterated), spend money on educating people on the dangers of drug use and the nature of addiction, spend money helping drug addicts get clean.
Ahhh fuck that, the gov't should just manufacture the drugs themselves to remove the risks associated with "lucky dip factor" (random chems in pills etc...)
haha, inlikely

i hope someone atleast read this, cos i put some thought into it. :)
 
Last edited:
The other thing the government ignores is that every time they manage to sucessfully wipe a drug out from popular use, it's almost inevitably replaced with something far more dangerous. They should've stopped in the 60s with LSD and cannabis, if they had've done so we might not have crazy, violent, paranoid freaks running away from invisible enemies cause they've been up smoking ice for the lazy 4 weeks.
 
They should've stopped in the 60s with LSD and cannabis, if they had've done so we might not have crazy, violent, paranoid freaks running away from invisible enemies cause they've been up smoking ice for the lazy 4 weeks.
Click to expand...

Methamphetamine (aka methedrine) has been around for decades and in fact was being used extensively during the sixties along with LSD, dope and a myriad of other drugs.

As Pete Gasparino mentions in this post, at one time the problem was so bad that notable musicians and performers of the late sixties did underground radio ads to try and dissuade people from injecting heroin and meth.

I've posted this before although the thread/s may have been chucked out with the recent cleanup.

Adapted from Robert Sabbag's "Snow Blind" (A brief Career in the cocaine trade)


Speed in the counterculture is effectively known as that which kills. Misused correctly it can burn you out faster than smack. It was the methedrine shooters who were dying all over Haight (St) in San Francisco and up on the corner of Hazelton Avenue in Toronto in the late 1960's: speed, a kind of white man's scag, the young middleclass loser's own hat full of rain, coming off the street cut with anything that would melt in a spoon; bleach, rat poison....anything man just give me the spike The speed freak was a counterculture hero, the last daredevil cowboy - guaranteed to vanish. He had an air of death about him.

A good hardline methedrine habit is the electromotor Grand Prix of suicide drug use - out of the needle, speed will throw your insides into overdrive and take you out on the high side. It is the ultimate challenge to tolerance, dying with your boots on the American way, vital organs pumping to the limit, synapses firing - you redline.

In the death house of modern chemistry, where barbiturates are the gas chamber, speed is the chair - one high-voltage electro-orgasmic jolt and the lights go out. Overlord. Oblivion Express.

It was the methedrine that was responsible for all those strange autopsies coming out of the drug underground in the Leary years - sixteen year olds with the insides of a eighty year old men. The pathologists had never seen anything like it. It was this new and hideous phenomenon that subsequently spawned all the public service announcements made by people like Grace Slick and Frank Zappa....

"...look, man, smoke all the grass you want, and do acid, if it's Owsley, but for your own good stay away from speed - it'll fry your brains and ruin your liver and, in general it'll make you about as fucked up as your parents....speed kills"

So, apart from the method of administration most popular today, I doubt much has changed since the late sixties.

Another interesting thing to note with methamphetamine use is that there tends to be cycles which run roughly every 10-20 years. It seems that while one generation shudders at the thought of becoming that which the past generation was well known for, the following generation seems to have forgotten all about it. From a study I did some years ago, it seems this model, or something similar exists in most countries where speed was once prescribed freely. Some might suggest interest/addiction stemmed from legit use, which was quickly replaced with illegally sourced meth almost from the moment the drug was banned.
 
^I don't think you are totally off beam mepat1111. Of course, p_d has nailed it with respect to methamphetamine (again I recommend "Synthetic Panics" Philip Jenkins) - but there are some switches in drug markets that are probably influenced by police activity. For example - the switch to methamphetamine production from amphetamine production by illicit manufacturers in the 90s in Australia is undoubtedly at least in part due to crackdowns on precursor chems for amphetamine production.

As far as $ spent by state and federal governments - the figures in the cited articles are comparable with figures released by ADCA recently - just over 50% of the spend goes on law enforcement - harm reduction strategies (like needle syringe programs - NSPs) get 3%. This is a humorous figure, particularly when you consult research commissioned by the Department of Health and Ageing itself. NSPs have been shown to return $16 for every $1 spent - and that's in terms of HIV and hep C transmission alone (Check "Return on Investment in Needle and Syringe Programs in Australia" - you can download it from their website). Law enforcement, on the other hand, gets rated as "insufficient evidence" ("The Prevention of Substance Use Risk and Harm in Australia" - also on the health & ageing website).

But of course research shows that playing the law and order card, and being "tough" on drugs is a sure fire vote winner...
 
In the death house of modern chemistry, where barbiturates are the gas chamber, speed is the chair - one high-voltage electro-orgasmic jolt and the lights go out. Overlord. Oblivion Express.
Click to expand...
Awesome line.. never thought of it that way, so true though
also, I wonder if they add the cost of black market cash fluctuations, its cost to the economy through non-taxed sales and things like that? I've seen them do these types of studies before and they make the $Xbn figure look much more intense by talking about the impact of black market money on the economy..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top