They made more busts. There were more in which they collected drugs, sometimes by the tonne. The collective weight of what they took was greater than ever. They put more people before the courts. Although most were users, not dealers, the minority with skin in the game made up a record number, too.

But all of this activity does not appear to have had the slightest effect on the market, on supply, on demand, or even on price in the street after a big local bust. If some drug dealers went to jail, to general satisfaction, other drug dealers prospered, and drug users were not greatly inconvenienced.

At the beginning of last year, at least, those involved in this crusade had the enthusiastic support of a prime minister keen to get involved in a new law and order crusade. Tony Abbott called for war against this "scourge", declared there was "no excuse ever for illicit drug use, no excuse" and suggested to police they could arrest their way out of the problem. He was keen to help them with more money, more powers, and even gimmicks such as a $1 million dob-in-a-dealer scheme.

Abbott was somewhat hurt and surprised when the task force he set up to bring concern about ice to a crescendo at the appropriate political moment, seemed focused on treatment and rehabilitation of users rather than more law and order. It did not, however, stop him trying to politicise the issue. Later his successor, Malcolm Turnbull turned down the temperature by focusing his funds on treatment programs.

This week, Australians were shown something of the effects of billions of dollars going into law enforcement to deal with the problem of the abuse of drugs. The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission – a recent merger of the crime commission and Austrac – published its best estimates of the effects of the combined efforts of federal, state, territory and customs agents during the last year of Abbott government. Though it did not put it that way.

The impact of all those busts, those seizures on drug use and abuse on the street? Nothing. Zilch. Nada. The problem got worse. That's all.

The number of people using ice increased over the year. In 2007, we thought there were 100,000 Australian users. By 2013 we thought there were about 200,000. It is now probably north of 250,000. It is being used around Australia; indeed, the percentage of users in the population seems to be higher in remote and rural areas than in coastal cities.

The price of ice has been steady, and does not seem to have been affected, even in local markets, by short-term shortages caused by big drug seizures, even when these were of the order of a tonne of pure ice. Indeed, although the ice remained readily available, and the price seemed static, the average quality of what was on offer actually seemed to improve.

ACIC is using some sophisticated data to make its estimates, including analysis of waste-water at major sewerage works. After ice is smoked, injected or otherwise ingested, it passes through the body and into the sewerage system. Scientists are estimating use – and possibly assisting police to focus their efforts – with coverage, so far, of about 40 per cent of Australia, including Canberra, Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide.

Increasingly, this evidence is suggesting that previous estimates of the penetration and use of ice may be far greater than was indicated by self-reporting in anonymous statistical surveys. Established users are using more, and, purer ice. But word of mouth is bringing in a new marketplace.

Some seat- of-the-pants estimates have focused on the serious problems caused by regular users, most well-known to police. But only a quarter of regular users are using ice at least once a week. As with heroin, there are committed users who are far more abstemious, and not under police notice. Many living regular lives in the community. They seem to have their habits under control, use ice only occasionally, such as once a month. They are not figuring on crime sheets.

The national taskforce remarked on the lack of impact of intense police activity.

"Despite the efforts of law enforcement agencies, the market for ice remains strong," its final report reads. "Ice is still easy to get and its price remains stable. The lack of any discernible market response to the efforts by Australian law enforcement agencies to prevent the supply of ice is greatly concerning.

"In most markets – legal or not – the significant shock to supply caused by a large seizure of product, should at the very least push up prices, particularly when demand is so strong. It is remarkable that despite very large seizures there has been no increase in the street price of the drug."

Ice seems to have multiple sources of supply. Some is imported. A good deal is cooked locally, whether with imported chemicals or locally produced ones. Those who attempt to detect drug imports find illicit drugs, sometimes in considerable volume, stashed inside other, legal, material, hidden in luggage, or concealed in goods posted to Australia.

But it appears, according to one commentator, that the consumption of all of the illicit amphetamines in Australia – including Ecstasy and other base amphetamines as well as ice – may be 45 times the amount that police and customs agents are intercepting. Police and customs disruptions are simply not enough to make the slightest difference to the supply situation out on the street.

Some suppliers may have found effective and reliable ways of getting their products through the system, with customs detections being made only among more amateur smugglings. Likewise with local production. The apparently low seizure rate may be because some suppliers have been able to consistently outwit law enforcement, or have corrupted it, or, perhaps, have working arrangements that serve up business rivals with a regularity to suggest effectiveness.

It is also worth remembering that evidence of decreasing effectiveness, in spite of greater activity and public investment, is occurring at a time when most jurisdictions have cooperated to effectively criminalise membership of "outlaw" motor cycle gangs, many members of whom are said to be involved in ice distribution. Police raids and new consorting laws were intended to neutralise the power of such bikies, but, on consumption patterns, do not seem to have succeeded. Nor does deportation of New Zealanders.

Ice, like heroin, does not have a good press.

It is, of itself, dangerous for the user, but can also render the user a menace to family, the public and police. People in an ice psychosis are extremely dangerous to others. Most members of the public have no sympathy with those engaged in the ice trade. They may believe, as they should, that there is a real distinction between using and selling, and that police devote too much attention to the former. But there will never be a constituency for decriminalisation of the sale of ice, and most members of the public rejoice to see smugglers or home-cookers caught, and their stashes seized and destroyed.

Would the public's attitude to police activity change if it were appreciated that being caught was almost a purely random event, like getting a speeding or a parking ticket, or, perhaps, being unlucky enough to be pulled over for a random breath test? Especially in an environment when it is appreciated that mere arrest and jail is entirely ineffective – perhaps counterproductive – in weaning a serious abuser from the drug.

Ice is not the only drug in which law enforcement activity is stumbling and ineffective. Despite the focus on ice, many more of Australia's two million regular cannabis users face charges each year than of the 250,000 or more ice users.

The widespread use of cannabis (perhaps 200 tonnes is consumed a year in Australia) helps undermine popular support for drug enforcement.

Widespread use of cocaine in professional and social circles (about five tonnes a year, or 100 million "lines", are said to be sold each year) is rarely punished.

Up to a million people have used Ecstasy over the past year. Probably 50,000 heroin users have about 40 million hits a year.

But even where the public supports drug enforcement, either because it recognises particular drugs as dangerous, or simply because they are illegal, the economist and the politician, and ultimately the taxpayer, must wonder whether the public investment in drug law enforcement can be justified.

Right now, drug law enforcement costs the legal system about $1.8 million a year. That's the cost of courts, police on drug business, and a proportionate share of the costs of prison and parole services. It prosecutes perhaps 120,000 people a year, and jails up to 4000 of them. All this activity, and all of this money, is having no impact in taking drugs off the street, or in keeping them off the street.

There are always the generals who declare that they could make a difference with twice as many resources, but this has been tried, repeatedly, here and elsewhere, without making the faintest difference.

There is nothing magic about the $1.8 billion figure. Had we been spending money at the rate of two decades ago, it might have been half that, in modern day prices. There is no evidence that it was less effective – or more – in its outcomes. If, tomorrow, the budget were cut in half, there is no reason to suppose that there would be any increase in drug use, or drug-related crime.

But there would be an outcry from the provider lobby, from judges down to prison officers, simply because there would be less work to do. Our system depends on a certain level of activity, regardless of the level of criminality.

There are other costs. The costs of official corruption. Of ruined lives. Of members of families and others affected by drug crime. And of the diversion of resources away from programs that might be able to check the harm of consumption.

A few years ago, I quoted drug researcher John Jiggins estimated that every extra dollar spent on drug law enforcement tended to increase the illegal drug market by about 10 times that. Extra spending on drug law enforcement is a waste of their time and our money.

This has not stopped some police spokesmen demanding more money and more resources, or suggesting that the problem would be over now if craven politicians would stop pussyfooting around. Even the head of ACIC, former WA deputy Police commissioner, Chris Dawson, seemed to suggest there was some achievement in the new records being set.

"These upwards trends not only highlight the continued vigilance of law enforcement in combating the supply of illicit drugs, they also highlight why illicit drugs continue to be a concern for law enforcement and the wider community", he says in his foreword to the ACIC report.

From the national AFP point of view, drug law enforcement is no longer as glamorous as it once was, now that it has a wide jurisdiction, and virtually unlimited power, to find terrorists. That also presents police with the opportunity to hold media conferences announcing big busts, with tough sounding statements about police efficiency, effectiveness and value for money. Perhaps. But is there yet any evidence of any relationship between dollars shovelled into the furnace and the speed of the train they are taking us on?