Police operations to destroy cannabis production and distribution are being described as the most successful in 5 years. The police claim they have saved us, the community, $336 million in socio-economic harm.But how do they arrive at that figure?
They destroyed 124,000 plants - or a yield of 992,000 oz - or 62,000 lbs - or 28,180 kg.
Then they multiply that figure (28,180) by the BERL Drug Harm Index figure of $11,800 per kilo.
Opioids and stimulants, such as P/methamphetamine and cocaine, were two of the most harmful illicit drug types causing $1.1 million and $403,000 harm per kilogram. Cannabis is estimated to cause harm of $11,800 per kilogram. LSD has the potential to cause over $1 billion of harm per kilogram, but it is used in very small amounts per occasion.
So the Police are not talking here about the selling value of the cannabis. They are basing their success on an estimate of the harm prevented.
Notice that the higher the estimate is (the more damage that is apparently done per kilo) the more success the cops can claim. That's handy.
Now I am wondering how many plants the police have failed to seize. Another ten for each destroyed? Another 20?
People keep on growing year on year so the chances of getting caught can't be very significant. Yet the total harm cost of cannabis use was put at $431 million just earlier this year. That would indicate the police are destroying 3 out of four cannabis plants.
Yes. I find that very hard to believe.
We have every reason to be skeptical about the sorts of numbers bandied about by the police and those contracted by them.
8 comments:
How much of that harm is caused by
a) Forcing people to deal with criminals
b) Sending people to jail and ruing their lives for what they choose to put in their body.
Talking to a police officer some time ago I was informed police long suspected i had been growing weed for my own consumption. Because I was not a cause for concern to the local authorities, they left me alone as they had more important issues to deal with other than bringing to justice a crazy artist living in the back-blocks. What more can I say?
Dirk
So reducing the supply of cannabis increases the price and thus the harm it causes.
Makes sense.
And how much does it cost to process 780 offenders through the courts and imprisonment? I doubt we get anywhere near the perceived harm figure.
This solution is very 1800's make them criminals, send them to jail.
In more caring forward thinking countries (Holland, 5 Aus states, Canada etc)it's either tolerated or for large amounts drug counselling is offered. Imagine that, actually helping people.
There still has been no cost benefit of prohibition of cannabis.
(or indeed despite there being several select committees that highly indicated policy reform AND/OR any acknowledgement that tough on cannabis policy and actions equates to higher prevelence of other drugs which carry higher penalties.)
When John Key and Gerry Prownless et all were touting their 'tough on crime' wares in Cathedral Square, 2 days before the election, they found it inexplicable that someone could challenge the current thinking on drug policy... yet Dr Brash and now Mr Key failed to acknowledge Milton Friedman's letter to the New York Times subsequently supported by two more Nobel Laureates and 513 Professors of Economics... instead refering to the protagonist as 'an idiot'.
See http://www.prohibitioncosts.org
Circular reasoning on their part. Part of the "harm" done by drugs is crime (mostly theft) committed to pay for said drugs. If the police interdict a large supply the price of drugs goes up requiring the user to commit more crimes in order to pay for the drugs. To lower this cost they need to make fewer arrests not more.
Another cost is the violence. That is tied strongly to the profits available in dealing. Profits in dealing are related to the demand vs the supply. Police change the supply without really changing the demand. If they lower the supply through greater number of successful busts they drive up the price hence driving up the profit. Higher profits attract more criminals to the markets who fight for turf. So once again much of the "cost" of drugs is tied to the prohibition more strongly than to the drugs themselves.
Another major are of "costs" for drug use is the risk to one's health. This is somewhat tied to the quality of the drugs. One reason for no quality control is that there is no legal market. The prohibition drives up this cost above what it would be.
Another harm is the cost to taxpayers for the war on drugs. But that is entirely the cost of prohibition. Do they count the cost of paying cops to arrest? Do they factor in the cost of corruption among some cops because of the war on drugs? Another cost of prohibition is that we divert police from real crimes to drug usage instead.
There is no doubt that drug use will cost "society" something. But I can't see where the war on drug reduces any of those costs. All I can see is how the police efforts increase those costs in some substantial ways. If we want to reduce the total cost of drug usage we have to legalize.
The saddest thing about canabis use is that the users come up with all the bullshit excuses they can think of as to why it is OK and does them no harm etc.
All I can say is that over 40 years experience of employing people who are users and people who are not it is always the users who seem to have the most problems in life.
These can be monetary, lifestyle, marital, whatever problems. Users tend to just lose their drive to succeed in life and end up suffering the consequenses of this. Still they think canabis does them no harm. I sincerely believe that the first victim of drug abuse is self esteem.
Of course they've got problems Johnny.
The pigs are busting down the door all the time and their wives are leaving them when they are in jail just for having a puff. Im with all the anonymous. Legalise it and make it easy to get counselling etc for those that want it.
Post a Comment