Chile's drug-crime relationship cost an estimated $268 million in 2006, with cannabis accounting for only 18% of costs compared to cocaine base paste at 53%, despite cannabis being far more prevalent.
Read this if you follow drug policy and want to see how enforcement costs break down by substance.
Cannabis: 18% of costs. Cocaine base paste: 53% of costs.
What the researchers found
Researchers estimated the socioeconomic impact of drug-related crime in Chile using Goldstein's tripartite model (psychopharmacological, economic-compulsive, and systemic violence). The total cost in 2006 was approximately $268 million USD.
Direct drug law enforcement accounted for 36% of costs, while the remaining 64% came from crimes partially linked to drug use and trafficking. Police bore 32% of enforcement costs, penitentiaries 25%, and productivity losses from incarceration represented 29%.
Strikingly, cocaine base paste (CBP) accounted for 53% of costs despite relatively low prevalence, while cannabis accounted for only 18% despite being the most commonly used drug. This disproportionality led the authors to recommend differentiating drug enforcement policies based on actual social and individual harm caused by each substance.
Why it matters
This analysis challenged the allocation of drug enforcement resources by showing cannabis, despite its higher prevalence, was associated with far less crime-related cost than cocaine products. Policy implications were clear: drug enforcement should be proportional to harm.
The numbers in context
Total cost: $268 million USD (2006). Cannabis: 18%. Cocaine hydrochloride: 29%. Cocaine base paste: 53%. Police: 32%. Penitentiaries: 25%. Productivity losses: 29%.
How the study worked
Socioeconomic impact analysis applying Goldstein's tripartite model. Quantified drug-crime connections and estimated costs across law enforcement, judiciary, penitentiary, and productivity losses for cannabis, cocaine hydrochloride, and cocaine base paste.
What this study cannot tell us
Single-country study (Chile, 2006). The model relied on estimates and assumptions about drug-crime connections. Currency and cost figures may not translate to other contexts. Did not account for health costs or family impacts.
How to read the evidence
Economic analysis with clear methodology. Single-country, single-year data limits generalizability but provides a useful case study.
When this study was published
Published in 2012. Chile has since relaxed some cannabis laws, and similar economic analyses have been conducted in other countries.
The bigger picture
When drug policy costs are quantified, the case for differentiating enforcement by substance becomes data-driven rather than ideological. Cannabis enforcement consumed significant resources despite contributing relatively little to the overall drug-crime burden.
Questions still open
- Would legalizing cannabis redirect enforcement resources to more harmful substances? How do these proportions compare in other countries? Does cannabis enforcement reduce the costs associated with harder drugs?
Common questions
Is cannabis a major driver of drug-related crime costs?
What does this mean for drug policy?
Read the original research
The socioeconomic impact of drug-related crimes in Chile.
The International journal on drug policy, 23(6), 465-72
Citation
Fernández, Matías. (2012). The socioeconomic impact of drug-related crimes in Chile.. The International journal on drug policy, 23(6), 465-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2012.03.007