The economic cost of drug-related crime in Chile: cannabis was the least costly substance

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.

Fernández, Matías·The International journal on drug policy·2012·Preliminary EvidenceCross-Sectional
RTHC-00560Cross SectionalPreliminary Evidence2012RETHINKTHC RESEARCH DATABASErethinkthc.com/research

Quick Facts

Study Type
Cross-Sectional
Evidence
Preliminary Evidence
Sample
Not reported

What This Study 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.

Key Numbers

Total cost: $268 million USD (2006). Cannabis: 18%. Cocaine hydrochloride: 29%. Cocaine base paste: 53%. Police: 32%. Penitentiaries: 25%. Productivity losses: 29%.

How They Did This

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.

Why This Research 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 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.

What This Study Doesn't 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.

Questions This Raises

  • ?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?

Trust & Context

Key Stat:
Cannabis: 18% of costs. Cocaine base paste: 53% of costs.
Evidence Grade:
Economic analysis with clear methodology. Single-country, single-year data limits generalizability but provides a useful case study.
Study Age:
Published in 2012. Chile has since relaxed some cannabis laws, and similar economic analyses have been conducted in other countries.
Original Title:
The socioeconomic impact of drug-related crimes in Chile.
Published In:
The International journal on drug policy, 23(6), 465-72 (2012)
Database ID:
RTHC-00560

Evidence Hierarchy

Meta-Analysis / Systematic Review
Randomized Controlled Trial
Cohort / Case-Control
Cross-Sectional / ObservationalSnapshot without intervening
This study
Case Report / Animal Study

A snapshot of a population at one point in time.

What do these levels mean? →

Frequently Asked Questions

Is cannabis a major driver of drug-related crime costs?

In Chile, no. Despite being the most commonly used drug, cannabis accounted for only 18% of drug-crime costs. Cocaine base paste, with much lower prevalence, drove 53% of costs. This disproportion argues for differentiated enforcement policies.

What does this mean for drug policy?

The authors argued that enforcement resources should match the actual harm each drug causes. Spending heavily to enforce cannabis laws while cocaine base paste drives the majority of drug-crime costs is an inefficient allocation of limited resources.

Read More on RethinkTHC

Cite This Study

RTHC-00560·https://rethinkthc.com/research/RTHC-00560

APA

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

MLA

Fernández, Matías. "The socioeconomic impact of drug-related crimes in Chile.." The International journal on drug policy, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2012.03.007

RethinkTHC

RethinkTHC Research Database. "The socioeconomic impact of drug-related crimes in Chile." RTHC-00560. Retrieved from https://rethinkthc.com/research/fernandez-2012-the-socioeconomic-impact-of

Access the Original Study

Study data sourced from PubMed, a service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

This study breakdown was produced by the RethinkTHC research team. We analyze and report published research findings without making health recommendations. All interpretations are based solely on the published abstract and study data.