Hard News: Spectacular but useless
109 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
Jim Anderton emailed me ...
An index helps us to decide the relative harm of each drug - so we have a good basis for comparing regulatory responses. For example, cannabis is less harmful than P, which is why cannabis is a class C drug, and P is a class A drug. It also gives us a basis for working out how much resource to put into education, treatment and enforcement. An Index is never going to be the final word on it, but that is not the same as saying it is useless. It is, after all, peer reviewed. The Index is a good faith attempt to put a figure on the harm drugs do.
If you argue both that ‘drugs aren’t really very harmful’ and then reject the results of a study to find out how harmful they are, it implies your real point is: I don’t care how harmful they are. I think this is the underlying motive of most people who are arguing against drug and alcohol regulation. They know various drugs are harmful, but they don’t care.
I do care.
When ever someone points out drugs like cannabis and BZP are harmful, we get sneering accusation of running a reefer madness campaign.
Once you admit they are harmful, then you have some questions about what to do next - how do you manage the harm? That’s a bit harder than sneering about fun police.
Of course alcohol and tobacco do a lot more damage. I said exactly that in my speech releasing the index (you may have noticed that was way back in May.)
We already have studies measuring the impact of alcohol and tobacco. We don’t need this index to repeat it.
We know from those existing studies that alcohol has a smaller impact per user than really serious drugs like P. One direct implication is this: alcohol is not the most damaging in New Zealand because it is inherently the most damaging, but because it is the most widely used. That tells us what happens when we make drugs more liberally available. Harm results.
I am certainly pleased to have a fair, independent estimate of how much harm in dollar terms. And I think anyone who doesn’t want to know how much harm drugs cause is not interested in knowing about the harm because they think the high is worth it.
Hmmm ...
-
I think there is something published, I saw it on the NORMLNZ forums last night . . .
No, the Herald story today is based on selected parts (ie: the parts the police wanted to give them) of a report that isn't published. Would the Herald play that sort of game with any other government agency?
-
Anderton makes some perfectly valid points but I think this comment:
I am certainly pleased to have a fair, independent estimate of how much harm in dollar terms. And I think anyone who doesn’t want to know how much harm drugs cause is not interested in knowing about the harm because they think the high is worth it.
Is absurd.
He's effectively saying any criticism of this Index is purely self-interested; pot-heads wanting to avoid the reality. That's an entirely unreasonable representation of the comments I've read. He also neglects the methodological questions by simply saying it "was peer reviewed". I'm sure the Minister has seen the limitations of many many peer reviewed studies.
-
If you argue both that ‘drugs aren’t really very harmful’ and then reject the results of a study to find out how harmful they are, it implies your real point is: I don’t care how harmful they are. I think this is the underlying motive of most people who are arguing against drug and alcohol regulation. They know various drugs are harmful, but they don’t care.
I do care.
I really want to give Anderton the benefit of the doubt, but that e-mail pretty strongly implies to me that anyone who tells Jim anything he doesn't want to hear has a pretty torrid time of it. I guess the 'real point' of Mr. Anderton's e-mail is that he doesn't care that Police and media outlets are distorting -- or outright lying -- about simple matters of fact. You're either with Jim all along the line, or you're some evil bastard who doesn't care about human misery in the selfish pursuit of their own pleasure.
As I know Russell wants to encourage public figure like Anderton to engage in this forum, this recovering alcoholic will (for once) bite his tongue and play nice.
-
BTW, Jim, I'm one of these cranks who think you don't make good public policy off bad (or partial) data. Nor do you have worthwhile public policy debates when you've got parties making shabby and dishonest appeals to authorities, or accusing those who disagree of acting in bad faith.
-
3410,
Hmmm ...
Sometimes I feel like I'm living in the Mad Hatter's tea party.
-
As I know Russell wants to encourage public figure like Anderton to engage in this forum, this recovering alcoholic will (for once) bite his tongue and play nice.
Hey, don't go too far ...
-
Impartial? Where's Nandor ?
-
Actually Sofie, it'd be great to have Nandor's perspective to compare with Anderton's, I'm sure it will be different and well-considered; is there anyone who could suggest to him that he joins the debate?
-
I'd also be grateful if anyone who feels there are methodological or technical flaws in the index could explain them in some detail. It will come in handy next week ...
-
E mailed Nandor . Thanked him in anticipation of joining here. Loves a tryer :-)
-
I'd also be grateful if anyone who feels there are methodological or technical flaws in the index could explain them in some detail. It will come in handy next week ...
I'm happy to make a start, but I'm sure someone more expert can elaborate.
My main query is why did the study examine only the direct and not indirect costs etc?
Compared with what this study has done, a general equilibrium analysis would take the estimate of the costs etc (about which I have one question), and then model the impact of changes to policy to work out the relative benefits/cost effectiveness.
This kind of analysis allows you to compare different interventions i.e. tighter border controls and policing compared with more needle sharing; which best reduces the number of dependent drug users, STD infections, B&Es, incarceration and the costs of prison as well as the externalised costs experienced by families etc.
Obviously there's all sorts of assumptions but over time you become more and more confident of the validity of the assumptions. This approach is increasingly common in Australia and I've had involvement in a couple that examined the comparative benefit of various education and labour market interventions.
However, there may be sound reasons why this approach was not taken here and, I suspect, the advantage of international comparisons was a key consideration.
-
It's great Mr Anderton joined the debate here, but I agree Craig, robust critique of the index doesn't equate indifference to drug harm.
This still leaves us with an index which is limited, and it would have been great if all drug policy agencies (cops, customs, health...) worked jointly on an index - we deserve and need the best index we can get: otherwise we run the risk of pulling bad policy out our a***. This index really doesn't tell us where we could more effectively invest our limited drug-harm-reduction money: overseas work shows a 1:7 benefit investing into drug treatment.
Wouldn't it be great if in NZ we could have a rational debate about whether shifting money from drug enforcement into prevention or treatment or clean injecting equipment is a good idea.
Unfortunately, it's too often the case when people attempt to raise issues in those rare public discussions about drug policy that we too quickly fall into the typical "soft" vs "hard". We are going to need to get past this phenomenon pretty quickly, and the media probably needs to soon show some maturity on drug issues, because later this year the review of the Misuse of Drugs Act will go public - and it will be a great disappointment if we can't talk sensibly about (new and better ways of doing) drug policy.
Interestingly, the NZ drug law review will occur parallel to the United Nations review of global drug control – and member states are already lining up to push a significant rethink of global drug control efforts.
If you’re interested in the international drug stuff can I recommend a glance at the following:
+ the Harm reduction and human rights blog
+ the Transnational Institute
+ International Drug Policy ConsortiumRussell, our peer review won't be done by next week, sorry.
I look in envy at some of the great work being done in Oz at the moment on these issues. For those with an interest in drug policy wonkery check out Uni of NSW's Drug Policy Modelling Program, and especially their harm index work. This is what we anticipated when we first mooted an index to officials.
I'd suggest NZ drug policy officials invest some money into some of these Aussie projects, so we can piggyback on their work.
-
Thanks Sofie for the heads up :)
Couple of things.
The first is that its a tragedy that the Drug Foundation was initially informed but then not included in the development of the index. A proper harm index would be enormously helpful in two way
1. in placing different substances on a scale of harm and allowing them to be treated in a coherent and consistent manner. That doesn't mean legalise all drugs, but rather being rational about what should be relatively freely available (Chocolate and coffee?), what should be regulated by eg age and advertising (BZP?), what should be decriminalised but not commercialised (tobacco?) and what should be only available on prescription eg to registered addicts (heroin)
2. evaluating policy approaches to see what kinds and levels of harm are caused and mitigated by different policy approaches.
But as is obvious from the discussion here, the point seems to be getting more funding for the drug squad. Another missed opportunity in the drug policy world!
I havent read it but the discussion reminds me of the NZIER analysis of the waste minimisation bill. It basically applied a neat economic formula to the issue, but the author clearly had no actual knowledge of how the waste industry worked so it was largely irrelevant. A nice ideological wallpapering of a subject far too complex to be susceptible to such generalisations.
second thing:"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)."
Cannabis does contain substances that should be cancerous, but unlike tobacco we don't appear to have oncology wards full of cannabis smokers. Accepted that prohibition makes id a little more difficult but even so.
There is growing evidence that cannabis also contains substances that inhibit cancers. Maybe they mitigate? Like many other studies of cannabis, many (not all) of the supposed problems don't show up in real world data.
The point is, if you want to talk about cancer don't study (isolated examples of) what's in the joint, have a look at whose in the wards.
ps hope you're all tuning in to my valedictory tomorrow - 5.30pm on www.parliament.nz
-
I'd also be grateful if anyone who feels there are methodological or technical flaws in the index could explain them in some detail.
Tomorrow.
But in short:
- the assumption that all inputs associated with the production of drugs are not economically useful underlies the whole "study". We don't make this assumption with many products of negative social benefit (alcohol, gambling, flash cars, suburban living) so why drugs?- the cost of anti-drug enforcement has been factored as a cost of drug use, rather than a cost of prohibition
- it is assumed that when an offender cites drug use as wholly or partly responsible for their behaviour, this is 100% "drug-related" offending. This ignores any chance that the offending would have happened anyway or that drug use is being cited purely to offer a mitigation.
- the "study" makes frequent reference and extrapolation from opiate abuse. Since this is fairly unusual in NZ, this casts doubt on a lot of the numbers. (For instance, without opiates, the number of drug related deaths in NZ drop close to zero).
-
3410,
[Apologies for any repetition of points already made by previous commenters. The following is taken from notes I made last night.]
The primary problem with the methodology of the NZDHI is the inclusion of the costs of prohibition into overall social harm costs of illicit drugs. These costs (Customs, Police, Criminal courts, prisons, community sentences, preventative expenditure, etc.) account for approximately two-thirds of the total DHI.
Inclusion of these figures is simply a feedback loop of self-justification. The State deems certain drugs illicit because they are harmful, and a State agency deems these drugs harmful because (in large part) they are illicit.
I could, according to this “logic”, spend $500,000 protecting my house from being attacked by pterodactyls, and then conclude that pterodactyls are extremely “harmful” because of the enormous cost of protection against them.
[T]his 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. (3.3.1)
This is a spectacular assumption, and one which the study does not explicitly justify, other than by claiming that such an assumption is industry standard. Everything which follows in the report is built on this erroneous foundation.
So, whilst work absenteeism due to cannabis use is valued at $6.4m p.a. (Appendix Table 1), no account is made of any avoided absenteeism due to cannabis use. Despite the fact that the difficulty of measuring each figure is the same, the latter (despite having tangible financial benefits) is simply ignored because the report “does not analyse consumption benefits of illicit drugs. Nor does this study aim to include any potential benefits of illicit drug consumption.”
The report describes depression as being “recognised widely as affecting many drug users”(5.4.1) and includes related health care costs in its calculation of social harm. This assumes (without any given justification) the causal direction of the correlation between the two, yet provides no evidence for that assumption.
In short, the report’s authors take every opportunity to include all possible “related” costs in their calculation of social harm, and similary exclude any possible benefits. Every assumption works in the same direction. The report is designed, not to create an accurate measure of social harms, but to maximise reported social harms.
A secondary problem with this report is its total absence of data relating to licit recreational drugs. Clearly, to include measurement of the social harms of alcohol and tobacco use, would be too embarrassing to the commissioners of this report; the hypocrisy would shine from every table. Nevertheless, in accurately calculating social harm, the distinction is between licit and illicit is arbitrary. Worse, it is invalid circular reasoning (again) to make such a distinction, if the conclusions of the report are intended, in part at least, to be used to drive funding decisions.
But why not? It's entirely in the interests of the NZP to demonise recreational drugs as much as possible, since the worse the percieved problem, the stronger the argument for the allocation of more resources to fight against it, and anyone who would criticise such an approach simply "do[es]n’t care how harmful [drugs] are", right?
Rather than conclude, which would, I fear, employ disdainful language of Ranapian proportions, I’ll just leave it there, for now. Thanks for reading.
.
PS. One more random thought: As we know, when percentages approach zero, their reliabilty as an indicator also approaches zero. So, what are we to make of the claim (extrapolated from given figures) that smoking cannabis will cause the average smoker to lose his life after 812,533 years, and thus costs each cannabis smoker $3.75 p.a. in "loss of life"? -
Maybe I should take up smoking dope. I mean, if nothing else gets me in the next 812,533 years, I'd rather die of being stoned than from the sun exploding?
-
I could, according to this “logic”, spend $500,000 protecting my house from being attacked by pterodactyls, and then conclude that pterodactyls are extremely “harmful” because of the enormous cost of protection against them.
nice, i'm gonna use that.
-
Ah, but the difference is: you never see any pterodactyls around here. So like the elephant powder keeping the elephants away, but unlike cannabis prohibition, those protection measures work. In that sense, pterodactyl prevention provides better value for money...
-
3410,
Rich, just make sure you can afford the $11.31 per year in "lost quality of life".
-
No where does teh report measure teh benifits of illicit drugs either..
And lets face it.. with a lot of drugs people consume them because the WANT to, not because they have to.
i.e. pot, e, bzp etc.
-
Maybe I should take up smoking dope. I mean, if nothing else gets me in the next 812,533 years, I'd rather die of being stoned than from the sun exploding?
How does it work out if you're stoned and then the sun explodes?
I'm sure that happened to me once.
-
This BERL DRUG HARM report is absolute evidence that Accountants should stay away from Drugs.
It is yet to be explained by either NZ's Drug Intel community, or the poiticians who pander to 'drug fears' why 515 Professors of Economics including 3 Nobel Laureates say the 'cost/benefits' of prohibition has yet to be done. (www.prohibitioncosts.org)
Curiously the BERL harm benchmark is based on the financial/social differential between the drug harms 'under prohibition' and drug hams if there was no drugs....
BERL has accurately measured failure!
-
How does it work out if you're stoned and then the sun explodes?
That's LSD and flotation tanks:-)
-
No where does teh report measure teh benifits of illicit drugs either..
Apparently it doesn't improve typing ;)
This BERL DRUG HARM report is absolute evidence that Accountants should stay away from Drugs.
I would have put them top of my list for people who need them actually.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.