The costs of tobacco, alcohol and illicit drug abuse to Australian Society in 2004/05
7. Aggregate results
7.1 Total costs
This section of the paper presents a summary of the overall social costs of drug abuse, classified by type of drug.Table 33 presents a summary of tangible costs, Table 34 presents intangible costs and Table 35 presents total costs. Note that commentary on the costs attributable to individual drugs is complicated by the joint nature of some crime costs and by the adjustment to be made to the all drugs total for the interactive effects involved in the estimation of aetiological fractions for conditions attributable to more than one drug.
Table 33, Tangible social costs of drug abuse, 2004/05
|
|
Alcohol ($m) |
Tobacco ($m) |
Illicit drugs ($m) |
Alcohol and illicits together ($m) |
Total ($m) |
Total adjusted for interaction ($m) |
|
|
Labour in the workforce |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reduction in workforce |
3,210.7 |
4,969.5 |
889.4 |
|
9,069.5 |
8,872.1 |
|
Absenteeism |
367.9 |
779.6 |
733.5 |
|
1,880.9 |
1,840.0 |
|
|
Total |
3,578.6 |
5,749.1 |
1,622.9 |
|
10,950.5 |
10,712.1 |
|
|
Labour in the household |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Premature death |
1,423.9 |
9,156.4 |
458.5 |
|
11,038.8 |
10,798.5 |
|
Sickness |
146.9 |
686.7 |
37.0 |
|
870.6 |
851.7 |
|
|
Total |
1,570.8 |
9,843.1 |
495.5 |
|
11,909.4 |
11,650.2 |
|
|
Total paid and unpaid labour costs |
5,149.4 |
15,592.2 |
2,118.3 |
|
22,859.9 |
22,362.2 |
|
|
Less consumption resources saved |
1,611.3 |
7,583.1 |
469.5 |
|
9,663.9 |
9,453.5 |
|
|
Total net labour costs |
3,538.0 |
8,009.1 |
1,648.9 |
|
13,196.0 |
12,908.7 |
|
|
Healthcare (net) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Medical |
540.7 |
158.4 |
104.7 |
|
803.8 |
786.3 |
|
Hospital |
662.2 |
223.4 |
86.5 |
|
972.1 |
950.9 |
|
|
Nursing homes |
401.2 |
(177.3) |
6.2 |
|
230.1 |
225.1 |
|
|
Pharmaceuticals |
297.6 |
77.3 |
|
|
375.0 |
366.8 |
|
|
Ambulances |
74.8 |
36.6 |
4.4 |
|
115.8 |
115.8 |
|
|
Total healthcare |
1,976.7 |
318.4 |
201.7 |
|
2,496.8 |
2,445.0 |
|
|
Road accidents n.e.i. |
2,202.0 |
|
527.6 |
|
2,729.6 |
2,729.6 |
|
|
Fires n.e.i. |
|
63.0 |
|
|
63.0 |
63.0 |
|
|
Crime n.e.i. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Police |
747.1 |
|
1,716.9 |
320.2 |
2,784.2 |
2,784.2 |
|
Criminal courts |
85.8 |
|
146.8 |
28.0 |
260.7 |
260.7 |
|
|
Prisons |
141.8 |
|
348.6 |
146.6 |
636.9 |
636.9 |
|
|
Property |
67.1 |
|
445.4 |
144.6 |
657.1 |
657.1 |
|
|
Insurance administration |
14.3 |
|
94.6 |
30.7 |
139.6 |
139.6 |
|
|
Productivity of prisoners |
368.0 |
|
892.1 |
387.7 |
1,647.9 |
1,647.9 |
|
|
Total crime |
1,424.0 |
|
3,644.5 |
1,057.8 |
6,126.3 |
6,126.3 |
|
|
Resources used in abusive consumption |
1,688.8 |
3,635.6 |
892.7 |
|
6,217.1 |
6,217.1 |
|
|
Total |
10,829.5 |
12,026.2 |
6,915.4 |
1,057.8 |
30,828.9 |
30,489.8 |
|
|
Proportion of total unadjusted tangible costs |
35.1% |
39.0% |
22.4% |
3.4% |
100.0% |
|
|
Notes: n.e.i. denotes not elsewhere included. Numbers in brackets are negative.
Tangible costs attributable to alcohol in 2004/05 were $10.8 billion, to tobacco were $12.0 billion, and to illicit drugs were $6.9 billion. Alcohol and illicit drugs acting together in the causation of crime contributed a further $1.1 billion. Labour and health costs constituted the major cost component for alcohol. Workforce costs were a large component of tobacco tangible costs. Crime costs comprised a very high proportion of illicit drug costs.
Top of Page
Table 34, Intangible social costs of drug abuse, 2004/05
Alcohol ($m) | Tobacco ($m) | Illicit drugs ($m) | All drugs ($m) | All drugs adjusted for health interaction ($m) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Loss of life | 4,135.0 | 19,459.7 | 1,204.7 | 24,799.5 | 24,259.6 |
| Pain and suffering (road accidents) | 353.6 | 69.7 | 423.4 | 423.4 | |
| Total intangible costs | 4,488.7 | 19,459.7 | 1,274.5 | 25,222.9 | 24,683.0 |
| Proportion of unadjusted total intangible costs | 17.8% | 77.2% | 5.1% | 100.0% |
In relation to intangible costs, with the exception of pain and suffering of road accident victims, only the value of loss of life (to be precise, the loss of a year’s living) could be estimated. Intangible alcohol costs were $4.5 billion, tobacco costs $19.5 billion, and illicit costs $1.3 billion. The predominance of tobacco-attributable intangible costs is a direct result of the high level of premature mortality caused by smoking.
Table 35, Total social costs of drug abuse, 2004/05
Alcohol ($m) | Tobacco ($m) | Illicit drugs ($m) | Alcohol and illicits together ($m) | All drugs ($m) | All drugs adjusted for health interaction ($m) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tangible | 10,829.5 | 12,026.2 | 6,915.4 | 1,057.8 | 30,828.9 | 30,489.8 |
| Intangible | 4,488.7 | 19,459.7 | 1,274.5 | 25,222.9 | 24,683.0 | |
| Total | 15,318.2 | 31,485.9 | 8,189.8 | 1,057.8 | 56,051.8 | 55,172.8 |
| Proportion of unadjusted total | 27.3% | 56.2% | 14.6% | 1.9% | 100.0% |
Of the total social costs of drug abuse in 2004/05 of $55.1 billion, alcohol accounted for $15.3 billion (27.3 per cent of the unadjusted total), tobacco $31.5 billion (56.2 per cent) and illicit drugs $8.2 billion (14.6 per cent). Alcohol and illicit drugs acting together accounted for another $1.1 billion (1.9 per cent).
Top of Page
7.2 Incidence of abuse costs
The term incidence as used here describes how the burden of drug abuse costs is split among various sections of the community (households, business and government). As indicated in Section 2 above, the concept of incidence used in these estimates is impact incidence, a term explained in that section.The following three tables relate only to tangible costs. Intangible costs by their nature are borne 100 per cent by individuals. It was not possible to determine the incidence of the property losses associated with crime, although it is to be expected that households would have borne a substantial proportion of these costs. Neither Table 36 nor Table 38 take account of the crime-attributable costs which are attributable jointly to alcohol and illicit drugs.
Table 36, Incidence of the tangible social costs of alcohol misuse, 2004/05
Households ($m) | Business ($m) | Government ($m) | Total ($m) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Workforce labour | 0.0 | 2,811.9 | 766.6 | 3,578.6 |
| Household labour | 1,570.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1,570.8 |
| Hospitals | 21.6 | 111.4 | 529.2 | 662.2 |
| Medical | 60.0 | 54.9 | 425.8 | 540.7 |
| Nursing homes | 84.3 | 1.0 | 316.0 | 401.2 |
| Pharmaceuticals | 56.2 | 0.0 | 241.4 | 297.6 |
| Ambulances | 23.3 | 8.6 | 43.0 | 74.8 |
| Road accidents n.e.i. | 742.0 | 481.2 | 106.4 | 1,329.6 |
| Crime n.e.i. | n.a. | 418.4 | 494.8 | 913.2 |
| Resources used in abusive consumption | 0.0 | 1,688.8 | 0.0 | 1,688.8 |
| Total quantified tangible costs | 2,558.2 | 5,576.3 | 2,923.2 | 11,057.7 |
| Percentage of total quantified costs | 23.1% | 50.4% | 26.4% | 100.0% |
Note: n.a. signifies not available.
Top of Page
Table 37, Incidence of the tangible social costs of tobacco abuse, 2004/05
Households ($m) | Business ($m) | Government ($m) | Total ($m) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Workforce labour | 0.0 | 4,517.4 | 1,231.6 | 5,749.1 |
| Household labour | 9,843.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 9,843.1 |
| Hospitals | 7.3 | 37.6 | 178.5 | 223.4 |
| Medical | 17.6 | 16.1 | 124.8 | 158.4 |
| Nursing homes | (37.2) | (0.4) | (139.6) | (177.3) |
| Pharmaceuticals | 12.7 | 0.0 | 64.6 | 77.3 |
| Ambulances | 11.4 | 4.2 | 21.0 | 36.6 |
| Fires n.e.i. | 16.4 | 36.5 | 10.2 | 63.0 |
| Resources used in abusive consumption | 0.0 | 3,635.6 | 0.0 | 3,635.6 |
| Total quantified tangible costs | 9,871.2 | 8,247.0 | 1,491.1 | 19,609.3 |
| Percentage of total quantified costs | 50.3% | 42.1% | 7.6% | 100.0% |
Table 38, Incidence of the tangible social costs of abuse of illicit drugs, 2004/05
Households ($m) | Business ($m) | Government ($m) | Total ($m) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Workforce labour | 0.0 | 1,275.2 | 347.7 | 1,622.9 |
| Household labour | 495.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 495.5 |
| Hospitals | 2.8 | 14.5 | 69.1 | 86.5 |
| Medical | 11.6 | 10.6 | 82.4 | 104.7 |
| Nursing homes | 1.3 | 0.0 | 4.9 | 6.2 |
| Pharmaceuticals | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Ambulances | 1.4 | 0.5 | 2.5 | 4.4 |
| Road accidents n.e.i. | 146.3 | 94.9 | 21.0 | 262.2 |
| Crime n.e.i. | n.a. | 986.8 | 2,212.3 | 3,199.1 |
| Resources used in abusive consumption | 0.0 | 892.7 | 0.0 | 892.7 |
| Total quantified tangible costs | 658.9 | 3,275.2 | 2,739.9 | 6,674.1 |
| Percentage of total quantified costs | 9.9% | 49.1% | 41.1% | 100.0% |
The government sector bore a relatively small proportion of the tangible costs of drug abuse (26 per cent of alcohol-attributable costs, 8 per cent for tobacco and 41 per cent for illicit drugs). In all cases business bore a greater proportion of the burden (50 per cent for alcohol, 42 per cent for tobacco and 49 per cent for illicit drugs). By their nature, all intangible costs are borne by individuals.
Top of Page
7.3 Budgetary implications
The following three tables present estimates of the budgetary implications of drug abuse— that is, of its impact upon public expenditures and revenues at both federal and state levels. It should be noted that the estimates here relate to the budgetary impact of drug abuse, not drug consumption. Furthermore, they incorporate estimates of the revenue losses resulting from drug-induced morbidity and premature mortality. Results are presented for the overall budgetary impact of drug abuse, as well as estimates for federal and state governments separately for each type of drug.7.3.1 Alcohol
Table 39, Impact of alcohol misuse on the federal government budget, 2004/05|
Outlays |
$m |
|
|
Health |
|
|
|
|
Hospitals |
277.5 |
|
Medical |
425.8 |
|
|
Nursing homes |
300.5 |
|
|
Pharmaceuticals |
241.4 |
|
|
Ambulances |
8.7 |
|
|
Total health |
1,253.9 |
|
|
Road accidents n.e.i. |
18.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total outlays |
1,272.6 |
|
|
Net revenue minus outlays |
1,802.9 |
|
|
Receipts |
$m |
|
|
Excise tax |
|
|
|
|
Beer |
1,653.0 |
|
Spirits |
739.0 |
|
|
Total excise tax |
2,392.0 |
|
|
Customs duties |
|
|
|
|
Beer |
83.0 |
|
Wine |
5.0 |
|
|
Spirits |
980.0 |
|
|
Total customs duties |
1,068.0 |
|
|
Wine equalisation tax |
676.0 |
|
|
Total alcohol revenue |
4,136.0 |
|
|
Less |
|
|
|
Revenue forgone |
|
|
|
|
Income tax |
667.7 |
|
Indirect taxes |
392.9 |
|
|
Total revenue forgone |
1,060.6 |
|
|
Total net revenue |
3,075.4 |
|
Table 40, Impact of alcohol misuse on state government budgets, 2004/05
|
Outlays |
$m |
|
|
Health |
|
|
|
|
Hospitals |
251.7 |
|
Medical |
0.0 |
|
|
Nursing homes |
15.4 |
|
|
Ambulances |
34.3 |
|
|
Total health |
301.4 |
|
|
Road accidents n.e.i. |
87.8 |
|
|
Crime n.e.i. |
|
|
|
|
Police |
747.1 |
|
Criminal courts |
85.8 |
|
|
Prisons |
141.8 |
|
|
Total crime n.e.i. |
974.6 |
|
|
Total outlays |
1,363.8 |
|
|
Net revenue minus outlays |
(387.3) |
|
|
Receipts |
$m |
|
GST |
976.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net revenue |
976.5 |
Note: numbers in brackets are negative
Top of Page
Table 41, Total budgetary impact of alcohol misuse, 2004/05
|
Outlays |
$m |
|
|
Health |
|
|
|
|
Hospitals |
529.2 |
|
Medical |
425.8 |
|
|
Nursing homes |
316.0 |
|
|
Pharmaceuticals |
241.4 |
|
|
Ambulances |
43.0 |
|
|
Total Health |
1,555.3 |
|
|
Road accidents n.e.i. |
106.4 |
|
|
Crime n.e.i. |
|
|
|
|
Police |
747.1 |
|
Criminal courts |
85.8 |
|
|
Prisons |
141.8 |
|
|
Total crime n.e.i. |
974.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total outlays |
2,636.4 |
|
|
Net revenue minus outlays |
1,415.6 |
|
|
Receipts |
$m |
|
|
Excise tax |
|
|
|
|
Beer |
1,653.0 |
|
Spirits |
739.0 |
|
|
Total excise tax |
2,392.0 |
|
|
Customs duties |
|
|
|
|
Beer |
83.0 |
|
Wine |
5.0 |
|
|
Spirits |
980.0 |
|
|
Total customs duties |
1,068.0 |
|
|
GST |
976.5 |
|
|
Wine equalisation tax |
676.0 |
|
|
Total alcohol revenue |
5,112.5 |
|
|
Less |
|
|
|
Revenue forgone |
|
|
|
|
Income tax |
667.7 |
|
Indirect taxes |
392.9 |
|
|
Total revenue forgone |
1,060.6 |
|
|
Total net revenue |
4,052.0 |
|
Alcohol tax revenue in 2004/05 exceeded alcohol-attributable costs borne by the public sector by $1.4 billion. The Commonwealth Government accrued an alcohol-attributable surplus of $1.8 billion, while the states were in deficit to the amount of $387 million.
7.3.2 Tobacco
Table 42, Impact of tobacco abuse upon the federal government budget, 2004/05|
Outlays |
$m |
|
|
Health |
|
|
|
|
Hospitals |
93.6 |
|
Medical |
124.8 |
|
|
Nursing homes |
(132.8) |
|
|
Pharmaceuticals |
64.6 |
|
|
Ambulances |
4.3 |
|
|
Total health |
154.4 |
|
|
Fires n.e.i. |
0.4 |
|
|
Total outlays |
154.8 |
|
|
Net revenue minus outlays |
2,709.3 |
|
|
Receipts |
$m |
|
|
Excise tax |
5,220.0 |
|
|
Customs duties |
518.0 |
|
|
Total tobacco revenue |
5,738.0 |
|
|
Less |
|
|
|
Revenue forgone |
|
|
|
|
Income tax |
1,025.0 |
|
Indirect taxes |
1,848.9 |
|
|
Total revenue forgone |
2,873.9 |
|
|
Total net revenue |
2,864.1 |
|
Note: numbers in brackets are negative.
Top of Page
Table 43, Impact of tobacco abuse on state government budgets, 2004/05
|
Outlays |
$m |
|
|
Health |
|
|
|
|
Hospitals |
84.9 |
|
Medical |
0.0 |
|
|
Nursing homes |
(6.8) |
|
|
Ambulances |
16.7 |
|
|
Total health |
94.8 |
|
|
Fires n.e.i. |
9.8 |
|
|
Total outlays |
104.7 |
|
|
Net revenue minus outlays |
832.7 |
|
|
Receipts |
$m |
|
GST |
937.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net revenue |
937.4 |
Note: numbers in brackets are negative.
Table 44, Total budgetary impact of tobacco abuse, 2004/05
|
Outlays |
$m |
|
|
Health |
|
|
|
|
Hospitals |
178.5 |
|
Medical |
124.8 |
|
|
Nursing homes |
(139.6) |
|
|
Pharmaceuticals |
64.6 |
|
|
Ambulances |
21.0 |
|
|
Total health |
249.3 |
|
|
Fires n.e.i. |
10.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total outlays |
259.5 |
|
|
Net revenue minus outlays |
3,542.0 |
|
|
Receipts |
$m |
|
|
Excise tax |
5,220.0 |
|
|
Customs duties |
518.0 |
|
|
GST |
937.4 |
|
|
Total tobacco revenue |
6,675.4 |
|
|
Less |
|
|
|
Revenue forgone |
|
|
|
|
Income tax |
1,025.0 |
|
Indirect taxes |
1,848.9 |
|
|
Total revenue forgone |
2,873.9 |
|
|
Total net revenue |
3,801.5 |
|
Note: numbers in brackets are negative.
Tobacco tax revenue in 2004/05 exceeded tobacco-attributable costs borne by the public sector by over $3.5 billion. Of this surplus $2.7 billion accrued to the Commonwealth and around $800 million to state governments.
7.3.3 Illicit drugs
Table 45, Impact of abuse of illicit drugs on the federal government budget, 2004/05|
Outlays |
$m |
|
|
Health |
|
|
|
|
Hospitals |
36.2 |
|
Medical |
82.4 |
|
|
Nursing homes |
4.6 |
|
|
Ambulances |
0.5 |
|
|
Total health |
123.8 |
|
|
Road accidents n.e.i. |
3.7 |
|
|
Total outlays |
127.5 |
|
|
Net revenue minus outlays |
(427.0) |
|
Receipts |
$m |
|
Total revenue |
0.0 |
|
|
|
|
Less |
|
|
Revenue forgone |
|
|
|
Income taxes |
185.1 |
Indirect taxes |
114.5 |
|
Total revenue forgone |
299.5 |
|
Total net revenue |
(299.5) |
|
Note: numbers in brackets are negative.
Top of Page
Table 46, Impact of abuse of illicit drugs on state government budgets, 2004/05
|
Outlays |
$m |
|
|
Health |
|
|
|
|
Hospitals |
32.9 |
|
Medical |
0.0 |
|
|
Nursing homes |
0.2 |
|
|
Ambulances |
2.0 |
|
|
Total health |
35.1 |
|
|
Road accidents n.e.i. |
17.3 |
|
|
Crime n.e.i. |
|
|
|
|
Police |
1,716.9 |
|
Criminal courts |
146.8 |
|
|
Prisons |
348.6 |
|
|
Total crime n.e.i. |
2,212.3 |
|
|
Total outlays |
2,264.8 |
|
|
Net revenue minus outlays |
(2,264.8) |
|
|
Receipts |
$m |
|
Revenue |
0.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net revenue |
0.0 |
Note: numbers in brackets are negative
Table 47, Total budgetary impact of illicit drugs abuse, 2004/05
|
Outlays |
$m |
|
|
Health |
|
|
|
|
Hospitals |
69.1 |
|
Medical |
82.4 |
|
|
Nursing homes |
4.9 |
|
|
Ambulances |
2.5 |
|
|
Total health |
158.9 |
|
|
Road accidents n.e.i. |
21.0 |
|
|
Crime n.e.i. |
|
|
|
|
Police |
1,716.9 |
|
Criminal courts |
146.8 |
|
|
Prisons |
348.6 |
|
|
Total crime n.e.i. |
2,212.3 |
|
|
Total outlays |
2,392.2 |
|
|
Net revenue minus outlays |
(2,691.8) |
|
|
Receipts |
$m |
|
Revenue forgone |
0.0 |
|
Income tax |
185.1 |
|
Indirect taxes |
114.5 |
|
Total revenue forgone |
299.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total net revenue |
(299.5) |
Note: numbers in brackets are negative
By their nature, illicit drugs yield no tax revenue. Their production or importation by a clandestine industry renders taxation impossible. Indeed, overall tax revenue is reduced (by an estimated $299.5 million in 2004/05) because drug-attributable mortality and morbidity reduce revenue from general taxes on income and consumption. At the same time, the consumption of illicit drugs imposes substantial costs, particularly crime costs, on the public sector. In 2004/05 attributable public sector outlays together with revenue losses amounted to a total of almost $2.7 billion, of which 84 per cent was borne by state governments.
Top of Page
7.3.4 Summary of budgetary impacts
The 1999 Intergovernmental Agreement, which inter alia created the GST and removed the states’ abilities to tax tobacco and alcohol except through the GST (see Section 3), caused a very significant adjustment of taxing powers between the states and the Commonwealth. It is now the Commonwealth Government which is the major beneficiary of the tax revenue from tobacco and alcohol.7.4 Drug-attributable costs and gross domestic product
Estimates of aggregate drug-attributable social costs tend to produce numbers which are very large in absolute terms. This study is no exception. Commentators often attempt to put these numbers in context by expressing them as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), which is a measure of the total value of national production or national income. Similarly, attempts to make international comparisons of the relative sizes of aggregate drug abuse costs in economies of very different sizes (for example, Australia and the USA) tend to be made by comparing aggregate costs expressed as a percentage of GDP.One problem with this approach is that estimates of drug abuse costs contain certain (sometimes very large) components that are not measured in conventional national account measurements of GDP. In the present study these unmeasured components consist of all intangibles (loss of life, and pain and suffering) and production losses in the household (unpaid) sector. Thus, when total drug-attributable costs are compared with GDP, like is not being compared with like.
In order to address this problem, Table 48 below compares GDP at factor cost (that is, not including taxes and subsidies) with only those components of drug abuse costs which are conventionally measured in national accounts data.
Table 48, Comparison of some tangible cost categories with gross domestic product, 2004/05
Alcohol ($m) | Tobacco ($m) | Illicit drugs ($m) | Alcohol and illicits ($m) | Alcohol (% of GDP) | Tobacco (% of GDP) | Illicit drugs (% of GDP) | Alcohol and illicits (% of GDP) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labour in the workforce | 3,578.6 | 5,749.1 | 1,622.9 | 0.45 | 0.73 | 0.20 | ||
| Net healthcare | 1,976.7 | 318.4 | 201.7 | 0.25 | 0.04 | 0.03 | ||
| Road accidents n.e.i. | 2,157.0 | 420.7 | 0.27 | 0.05 | ||||
| Fires n.e.i. | 123.4 | 0.02 | ||||||
| Crime | 1,611.5 | 3,840.5 | 1,261.0 | 0.20 | 0.48 | 0.16 | ||
| Resources used in abusive consumption | 1,688.8 | 3,635.6 | 892.7 | 0.21 | 0.46 | 0.11 | ||
| Total | 11,012.6 | 9,826.5 | 6,978.5 | 1,261.0 | 1.39 | 1.24 | 0.88 | 0.16 |
Note: The"Alcohol and illicits" columns refer to the impact of alcohol and illicit drugs, jointly consumed, in the causation of crime.
Top of Page
7.5 Sensitivity estimates of results
Given the nature of the epidemiological and other data which underpin the calculations for this report, it is not possible to produce a complete sensitivity analysis. However, this report does indicate the impact which the adoption of a range of alternative assumptions or methodologies would have upon the results:- The differential effects of the adoption of DUMA upper and lower bound estimates on the alcohol-attributable and illicit drug-attributable costs of police and criminal courts are presented in Table 17.
- The impact of the possible exclusion of healthcare savings is indicated in Table 18.
- The effect of the possible exclusion of the costs of resources used in the production and distribution of abusive consumption of drugs can be seen in Table 33.
- The impact of the adoption of a higher assumed proportion of abusive alcohol use is indicated in the above section,"2.3 Abusive and addictive drug use" on page 5.
- The impact of an alternative method for estimating alcohol-attributable absenteeism is given in the above section,"3.2.2 Absenteeism" on page 24.
- The effect which a decision to exclude GST revenue on alcohol and tobacco from the estimated budgetary impacts on state governments would have can be calculated from Table 40 (for alcohol) and Table 43 (for tobacco).

