Search

Aim. To estimate how much governments in Australia spend on reducing and dealing with illicit drug problems. Methods. Government documents and supplementary information sources were used to estimate drug-related expenditure for the financial year 2002-03, in Australian dollars. Public sector expenditure on reducing drug problems ('proactive expenditure') was classified into four policy functions: prevention, treatment, harm reduction and enforcement. Expenditure related to the consequences of drug use ('reactive expenditure') was included as a separate category. Results. Spending by Australian governments in financial year 2002-03 on all drug-related activities was estimated to be $3.2 billion. Proactive expenditure was estimated to be $1.3 billion, comprising 55% on enforcement, 23% on prevention, 17% on treatment, 3% on harm reduction and 1% on activities that span several of these functions. Expenditure on dealing with the consequences of drug use was estimated to be $1.9 billion, with the majority the result of crime-related consequences. Conclusion. Several insights result from estimating these expenditures. First, law enforcement is the largest drug policy component, with Australian governments also spending significant amounts on treatment and prevention programmes. Secondly, apart from the prevention component, Australia's drug policy mix is strikingly similar to recent international estimates. Finally, expenditures associated with dealing with the consequences of illicit drugs are large and important for assessing drug-related public sector expenditure. [Moore TJ. The size and mix of government spending on illicit drug policy in Australia. Drug Alcohol Rev 2008;27:404-413] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The development of policies in relation to unsupervised doses of methadone (take-away doses) should be based upon the best available evidence. There are both risks and benefits associated with take-away doses. This study aimed to explore the relationship between take-away policies and one measure of harm: methadone injection rates. Six different states in Australia were compared in relation to their methadone take-away policy and rates of methadone injection within their population of injecting drug users. At a simplistic level, those states with restrictive and less flexible take-away policies tended to have the lowest reported prevalence of methadone injection. However, this does not fully explain variability in methadone injecting. There were also considerable differences between those states with similar take-away policies. Variables which appear to impact upon methadone injecting rates include: take-away policies, drug preference, drug availability, treatment availability and degree of treatment penetration. Consideration of the benefits, rather than merely the harms, of various take-away policy options may provide an evidence-based platform for take-away policy development. [Ritter A, Di Natale R. The relationship between take-away methadone policies and methadone diversion . Drug Alcohol Rev 2005;24:347 – 352] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]