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.
I promise you that meth would cause far more problems if it was consumed anywhere near the frequency of alcohol. Anyone who has watched someone destroy their lives with meth knows just how dangerous and damaging it is. The scariest part is the speed at which it can happen. People destroy their lives with alcohol too, but it usually takes decades. I've watched people become hollow shells of their former selves, completely unrecognizable, and standing on death's doorstep, within six months of their first usage of methamphetamine. It's a destructive, dirty, dangerous drug.
Yeah, the US has known for a long time that alcohol is involved in the vast majority of violent crime. We deal with it by having corrupt politicians write the alcohol laws so that no one is ever very far from lots of booze.
For a start I would love to prohibit alcohol aimed at kids. In my student days I participated in a lot of market research groups and there were so many groups about late teens taste-testing insanely sweet gross RTD alcohols or discussing which alcohol bottle design was more "fun" "feminine" "flirty" etc.
Good for you guys, hopefully they do something about it because it really is problematic (alcohol certainly ruined my childhood!).
They did try to outlaw it in the US over 100 years ago, right after women got the right to vote. Among other things, part of the rational was women getting beaten by alcohol abusing husbands. Unfortunately it takes a lot more than an amendment to stop something so pervasive though.
The general awareness that alcoholics tend to do far more damage to their lives and people around them than potheads do, that goes back a very long time.
Even if we weren't looking at raw data, common sense and basic powers of observation let us draw solid general conclusions.
I feel like you're right, but perhaps not for the reason you might be implying.
Meth causes a tiny fraction of the harm of alcohol because there isn't a legal meth store on every corner with meth companies sponsoring rugby games. Police are talking about where their efforts should be placed rather than suggesting it would be better if meth was legal and alcohol illegal.
However, in my view meth should be decriminalised, because the justice system is the wrong place to treat heath problems.
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.
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.