The Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs Association along with criminology experts call for drug reform.

A report from the Australian Institute of Criminology reviewed the benefit-cost analysis of programs designed to reduce demand for illicit drugs, and found while they're generally economical, the cost of implementing and maintaining demand reduction programs was substantial, with estimates suggesting the Australian government invests $1 billion per year.

The government established the National Drug Strategy in 2017 to combat illicit drug use, comprising three pillars of harm minimisation: demand reduction, supply reduction and harm reduction.

The report noted that the plan "extensively" focused on demand reduction.

This involves preventing the uptake or delaying the onset of illicit drug use in a community, such as border drug seizures and a bigger focus on law enforcement.

Commenting on the report, chief executive of The Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs Association Alison Lai said they were working with the Tasmanian government to deliver a more health-based response.

"We're obviously pushing very strongly around asking the government not to commit to decriminalisation but at least to have conversations with the community about whether or not there is an appetite for more health based responses."

"This is the first report of its kind in a number of years where they've done this big meta analysis to bring together these economical cost benefit analyses around these types of approaches," Ms Lai said.

"There's a significant amount of money invested into supply reductions."

Ms Lai said health-based responses are the best approach to drug and alcohol policy.

"There's a lot of evidence in Australia, and also internationally that shows that the criminalisation of illicit substances is what's doing more harm to people in the community."

"Reports like this are handy for us when people are talking about trying to persuade the government at times to think more about health based responses, and that they can be very effective, but it doesn't get nearly the same amount of investment as the supply reduction side does."

"We're obviously pushing very strongly around asking the government not to commit to decriminalisation but at least to have conversations with the community about whether or not there is an appetite for more health based responses."

She said the decriminalisation of cannabis is the first step.

A report from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare found over 80 per cent of Tasmanians were comfortable with the concept of decriminalising cannabis.

"Here is a really classic example of how community attitudes are changing towards drug use, particularly around the criminalisation of it."

Tasmanian Health Minister and Premier Jeremy Rockliff said the Tasmanian Drug Strategy (TDS) will provide a whole-of-government strategic framework to reduce harms from alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, and guide collaborative action and activities across both the government and community sectors.

"The Government has supported the TDS in the 2022-23 Budget with investment of $1.27 million over four years. Public consultation on the draft TDS commenced in May and was extended due to strong interest, until 18 July."

"Tasmania's response spans health, education, law enforcement and justice, in partnership with the non-government sector."

IN OTHER NEWS:

He said the report is anticipated to be launched by early 2023.

Senior Criminology lecturer at University of Tasmania Dr Vicky Nagy said Australia has its own history with the war on drugs.

"The war on drugs has been around since the 1970's, and it stems from the US. We've basically hitched our cart to that idea, that the way we deal with drugs is by declaring war on them."

"Why we keep doing this when the evidence says it doesn't work is a really good question," she said.

She said part of the reason stigma around drugs exists is a lack of understanding.

"It's partly people. The general community doesn't understand why people take them."

"The war on drugs has demonstrated that it doesn't end well when instead of dealing with the underlying issue, you're trying to deal with the substance of people using and abusing."

She said court mandated diversion, a sentencing option that diverts eligible offenders into treatment for their drug use in Tasmania, was very effective.

"It demonstrates time and time again that people who go through it are less likely to reoffend with a drug offence as well."

"It needs to be better funded, currently there's only something like 150 a year that can go through it."

"It's not an easy option and most of the time it's a two-year court order. So you're telling someone to stay clean and get help for two years, which is much harder to say than you're going to spend six months in prison."

Dr Nagy said the number of people who go to prison who didn't have a drug problem but come out with a drug problem is double-digit percentage high.

"It's not the place you go to rehabilitate people."

She said court mandated diversion is a way of diverting people away from prison.

"It costs a couple hundred dollars, whereas sending someone to prison will set you back about $150,000 a year per prisoner."

"It's a harder slog, and it's hard work to do but it costs less in the long run."

"It means less violence in society and it's better for people's mental and physical health."