TL;DR:
- Alcohol $7.8b
- All illicits: $1.8b
- Meth: $0.365b
I wanted a figure for cannabis and found this from 2020:
- All illicits: $1.9b
- Meth: $0.824b
- Cannabis: $0.911
I notice that the per kilograms measure for harm is also useful to account for volume of usage, but think that per ‘dose’ would be better.
- Meth: $1.1m per kg with 743kg consumption
- Cannabis: $0.35m per kg with 58000kg consumption
These figures include ‘associative crime’ as harm. So it apparent counts the cost of buying it as harm, it also counts the tax loss of that expenditure, so IMHO it skews unfavourabley to higher expenditure. But put that aside.
These figures show that all illicit drugs combined are less harmful to society than alcohol, and tautologically the harm is inflated by illegality.
There is definitely a place for legalization of some drugs; but there also needs to be an understanding on what the side effects would be of massive increases in usage.
Meth is some very addictive shit, look how hard we were working to get rid of smoking. I don’t think introducing another massively addictive substance into the mix is a great idea.
By most accounts meth is less addictive then tobacco or alcohol . We don’t think of it that way because people usually know a lot of people who drink responsibly but we often only see problematic meth users mostly because it’s usually people with problems that use meth. If normal healthy people had access to meth they would probably fall into similar use patterns that they have with alcohol, some people using it only on occasions, some more frequently and some that become full on addicts. That’s horrible for the people that do become addicts but if they have the genetic and emotional disposition for addiction they’d probably become addicted to something any way, whether that be illegal meth, or some other legal or illegal substance. Prohibition does not stop addiction because addicts will find some way to get there high.
This isn’t to say that it should be sold by just anyone and go by the rules of capitalism, as capitalism and addictive substances do not mix well. It should only be sold in non-profit or government run stores to remove profit motive, and there should be non-discript packaging with no advertising allowed FOR ALL ADDICTIVE SUBSTANCES not just meth. The main problem with a lot of these drugs is capitalism looking for endless growth at the cost of human lives.
Removed by mod
Agreed.
But the situation is more nuanced than simply saying everything is up for grabs.
Weed should be fully legal, controlled quality and trusted. Tax revenue would help pay for health complications from the usage.
There needs to be a harm based assessment of each substance.
Removed by mod
Every comment you’ve made here has been completely devoid of nuance, insight, or intelligence, and quite frankly, you sound like a bit of a moron.
Methamphetamine is an incredibly addictive and harmful substance, with drastic health risks to it’s consumption, and making it easier to access is a terrible idea.
Removed by mod
Hahaha
Heheh.
Seriously though I wish professors didn’t say stuff like that. It’s bad pedagogy.
If you’ve genuinely been to university, this shows that intelligence and education don’t always follow one another.
Removed by mod
I’m pointing out that people who hold a viewpoint that one thing is the way to go in all situations, with no exceptions, is something I typically associate with a lack of critical thinking ability.
What is this massive increase of usage you assume would happen? All drugs could be legalised without offering them for sale with minimal checks like alcohol currently is.
I’m not sure there are huge numbers of kiwis just itching to get a meth habit, if only it were legal.
I don’t think there is anyone out there, who is not starting a meth habit because it is illegal.
But lowering of social stigma, no chance of a criminal record and knowing you will get clean product; all will put upward pressure on usage numbers.