Hard News: Spectacular but useless
109 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
Heres what a real economist says about drugs:
http://www.druglibrary.org/special/friedman/prohibition_and_drugs.htm
http://www.druglibrary.org/special/friedman/war_we_are_losing.htm
http://www.druglibrary.org/special/friedman/stop_taxing_non.htm
http://www.druglibrary.org/special/friedman/an_open_letter_to_bill_bennett.htm
http://www.druglibrary.org/special/friedman/bennett_fears_.htm
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/friedm1.htm
http://www.druglibrary.org/special/friedman/socialist.htm -
A kilogram of LSD would be pretty damaging, yes.
The Herald report -- surprise! -- left off half the sentence from the report. The full quote is:
LSD is the most damaging drug per kilogram, at $1.05 billion per kilogram, but due to the small amount used it causes little harm (0.5 percent of total harm, or $265 per user).
Do the responsible thing, kids: choose LSD.
-
I mean is there a part of StatisticsNZ that does a monthly street price survey?
It's only done annually, and not by StatisticsNZ. The report covers, pricing, availability, number of current users etc.
-
This graph is interesting, based on a paper in the Lancet. The colours represent suggested drug classes based on scientific merit, as outlined in this report to the house of commons (p.178).
-
I reckon that by using their methodology, you could make a good case for banning rugby. Add up all the money put into paying players, coaches, use of valuable land and resources, rugby related crime, rugby injuries and deaths. Take off a bit for increased fitness (but add on for people who eat like athletes when they're not).
Billions, I reckon.
-
Mathew:
As I said in another thread, sure tobacco costs waaaaaay more than pot in terms of cancers and other illnesses, but that's because pot isn't used as widely. Remove the legal sanctions on its consumption, and watch the related harm figures soar.
yes - but people have spent a lot of money and research on minimising the harm caused by tobacco (so they can keep selling it) - lets do some research on the relative merits of various delivery systems - for example I expect that pot brownies might cause more issues around cholesterol than smoking tobacco does - but might cause less lung cancer
-
Quite dishonest, actually.
Also the kind of shit that does -- or should -- get academics and journalists fired. Not surprised you didn't hear about it, Matthew, because IMNSHO it wasn't reported as widely or prominently as it should have been. Idiot/Savant is right, the Office of the Ombudsmen is not given to rhetorical over-kill, and by that standard Beverley Wakem's report was a slap in the face without getting your girlfriend to hold your gold first.
-
I do wonder what would happen if pot were, at the least, decriminalised and thus its use became a lot more prevalent. It's demonstrated to be physically more harmful than tobacco
Hi Matthew. Care to show some evidence for this? The Lancet report I mentioned above estimates that the physical harm from tobacco is higher. Additionally, that report suggests that the dependence associated with tobacco is higher, that even if both were legal, people are still going to smoke more cigarettes, and find it harder to stop using tobacco.
-
If you add in revenue loss from not taxing currently illegal drugs...
Aren't we measuring 'social harm' rather than impact on the treasury balance? Though I think it's clear the former means whatever you want it to.
On which:
Do all those enforcement agents actually help the GDP - keeping people in work and keeping the money circulating and so on? Though that effect may be dampened if they put people in jail. Especially seeing as that's supressing a thriving sector of the economy which operates unhindered by the fiscal drag of taxation.
"productive resources diverted due to drug production"
And seizing the drugs frees these up?
-
__[pot is] demonstrated to be physically more harmful than tobacco__
Hi Matthew. Care to show some evidence for this? The Lancet report I mentioned above estimates that the physical harm from tobacco is higher.
My guess is that you're both right (or, I suppose, both wrong).
The analysis that shows (smoked) marijuana to be more harmful than tobacco contrasts a joint with a cigarette - the carcinogen level of the joint is around 20-30 times (don't quote me) that of the cigarette, etc. (in part caused by the lack of filters in a joint).
The analysis that shows tobacco to be more harmful than pot takes account of the quantity differential. A pack of cigarettes may have about the same carcinogen levels as a single joint, but will be substantially worse for general lung function etc. And while a pack of joints a day would be far worse for you than a pack of cigarettes, people don't smoke a joints in packs.
-
Aren't we measuring 'social harm' rather than impact on the treasury balance?
No, it's looking at the economy as a whole, which is broader than the impact on government finances but narrower than trying to put a value on whether Johnny would be happier if he didn't do drugs.
Say marijuana was legal to grow and sell, and taxed to keep the price roughly the same as today, just as a for instance. The industry would become a lot more productive (through being able to farm overtly with less people, not needing to evade police, etc). The revenue from this would accrue to the taxpayer and offset healthcare costs.
-
"Road no one will be able to afford to use cost NZ society $1.025 billion, study shows"
I reckon it's time for a study into the social harm caused by one particular highly addictive drug: oil.
-
The analysis that shows (smoked) marijuana to be more harmful than tobacco contrasts a joint with a cigarette - the carcinogen level of the joint is around 20-30 times (don't quote me) that of the cigarette, etc. (in part caused by the lack of filters in a joint).
Couldn't resist quoting you Graeme. The "joint is worse than a cigarette" line is an interesting one, with the extra magnitude of harm highly variable and often, it appears, invented for the occasion. e.g., the media will happily cite figures anywhere between 7 and 30 times more harmful.
I would be willing to accept 7 to 30 times more helpful.
-
The analysis that shows (smoked) marijuana to be more harmful than tobacco contrasts a joint with a cigarette - the carcinogen level of the joint is around 20-30 times (don't quote me) that of the cigarette, etc. (in part caused by the lack of filters in a joint).
That was part of it, yes. Also that pot smoke is held in the lungs for longer, which increases the absorption, and that pot burns hotter which has other negative effects. I suspect that a lot of it is because joints, as you say, aren't routinely smoked with filters, but that's still a harm-causing behaviour.
James, if you really want me to go and hunt for it, I'll try and track down the article, but Graeme's summed it up pretty well.
-
Graeme, Matthew compared cannabis to tobacco, not a joint to a cigarette. Comparing a cigarette to a joint is about as useful as comparing either of those to the kg of LSD mentioned in the report.
So if you can show some evidence that the physical harm of cannabis is worse than tobacco, then I'd be interested (because at least on my current reading, it doesn't appear to be true). -
Heh, funny thing.
Assuming BERL are exactly right (BIG assumption, I know), and say the harm per kilo of cannabis works out at $11,790. Pro rata that for a one gram $20 tinnie, and it's less mark-up than petrol, booze and ciggies already gets stung with.
Thank you, cops, for justifying the legalisation and taxation of marijuana!
-
__I can only conclude that the knowingly set the brief for this report clearly with PR in mind.__
I think that is the correct conclusion, unfortunately.
I think an equally likely explanation is that Police believe they need more resources and this is a way to wedge government (I've had my own experience managing projects like this, albeit focused on investment in education). The current fascination with various forms of modelling is a function of Treasuries' control in most jurisdictions; you want Treasury to support your budget bid, better get some evidence they consider valid (econometric modeling is best, Input/Output analysis of limited value).
Although there's bound to be some methodological limitations to this study, they'll not be great nor unacceptable to the brethren and therefore Police go to go the top of the budget list.
I suspect if the Salvo's had had this funding, they'd do a similar study but focused on alcohol and would gazzump the Police by a significant factor.
-
Interestingly, this looks like it examined only direct costs and didn't account for any second-round effects (i.e. Input/Output analysis only). Perhaps someone can correct me if I've missed something? If this is, as they say, the industry standard, then it's understandable (it enables extra-jurisdictional comparisons such as they've made with Australia) but the methodology is not capable of addressing questions like the long-run costs of some sort of decriminalisation? Surely this is an important question when considering optimimum levels of resourcing for Policing?
Consistent with New Zealand public policy, and the argument set out in Collins and Lapsley (2002: 20-21), this study assumes that illicit drug consumption is abusive and imposes a social cost. Therefore, all resources diverted by illicit drug consumption are regarded as social costs.
I find this a little frustrating. What if pot-smoking doesn't only lead to psychosis, at x-cost factor per annum, but is a substitute for alcohol for which the cost factor is 2-3x? This isn't a criticism of the methodolgy, as above, rather the assumptions that are fed into this study.
-
Matthew compared cannabis to tobacco, not a joint to a cigarette. Comparing a cigarette to a joint is about as useful as comparing either of those to the kg of LSD mentioned in the report.
Oh, so you want to argue on semantics? In which case, which method of tobacco consumption? Chewing? Snorting?
When one talks of consuming tobacco, for most the first thought is a cigarette. Similarly, a joint is the first thought for most when discussing pot. Sorry if I didn't make myself sufficiently clear. -
Surely this is an important question when considering optimimum levels of resourcing for Policing?
The police aren't interested in optimising the level of resources committed to policing. They're interested in maximising it. Hence, studies like this.
-
I/S; it appears this way.
Given though that Treasury are part of the reference group for the study, they seem to be happy with the methodology which, they will surely have known, leads in only one direction.
-
Oh, so you want to argue on semantics? In which case, which method of tobacco consumption? Chewing? Snorting?
When one talks of consuming tobacco, for most the first thought is a cigarette. Similarly, a joint is the first thought for most when discussing pot. Sorry if I didn't make myself sufficiently clear.I assumed the point wasn't so much about the standard method of delivery/use (about which you are correct), but about the levels and styles of use.
e.g., 20 cigarettes per day, every day, versus one joint twice a week, often shared with a friend or two.
Smoking an entire joint, by yourself, in one sitting would be quite a mission, I imagine. The prospect of another one 20 minutes later would pose even more challenges.
i.e., cannabis is often smoked in relatively small quantities. The alleged increases in potency presumably encourage this.
-
As I said in another thread, sure tobacco costs waaaaaay more than pot in terms of cancers and other illnesses, but that's because pot isn't used as widely. Remove the legal sanctions on its consumption, and watch the related harm figures soar.
Actually, no.
The drug use survey by the School of Public Health at Auckland Uni consistently demonstrates that the legal status of marijuana is a very weak factor in people's decisions to use it or not.
It comes way down the list, below the likes of "didn't like it any more".
OTOH, I don't think legalising everything right now would work out too well. One of the problems with P has been that it found its way to people with no experience of hard drugs -- and who thus didn't recognise any personal warning signals about use and addiction. Amplifying that phenomenon by legalising methamphetamine would get terribly messy, at least for a while.
-
my two cents worth re: the various arguments about whether cannabis is more harmful than tobacco.
There seems to be a trend already away from smoking cannabis. Vapour and more refined versions of cannabutter in particular.
IF it were to beccome decriminalised I can only see this increasing, as people are able to discuss such matters more freely.
this is over and above the comparing apples with watermellon argument of course.
otherwise send em all to hamsterdam, Omar will sort out the rifraf.
-
I find this a little frustrating. What if pot-smoking doesn't only lead to psychosis, at x-cost factor per annum, but is a substitute for alcohol for which the cost factor is 2-3x? This isn't a criticism of the methodolgy, as above, rather the assumptions that are fed into this study.
This occurred to me too. I actually know former problem drinkers and alcoholics who now content themselves with a social toke. By any reasonable measure, harm has been greatly reduced, but there's no way of modelling that here.
But again: I don't think that was the intention of the exercise.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.