Community Attitudes to Cannabis use in Western Australia: Part II

Discussion

a. Attitudes to Cannabis Legalization
b. Attitudes to Cannabis Decriminalization
c. Predictors of Attitudes to Cannabis Decriminalization
d. Other Cannabis-related Attitudes

Although the overall response rate for the study was only 38%, this was not surprising given the length of the interview; however, this could not be shortened substantially without compromising the aims of the study. If the length of the interview did result in a lower response rate, it is not apparent that this has systematically biased the sample. The sample was not significantly different to population figures with regard to gender or general political affiliation and, although it was significantly different with respect to age, the data were weighted to control for this potentially confounding variable. The age bias itself was consistent with a sampling strategy based on telephone connections, in that those under 20 and over 60 years of age were underrepresented in the sample.

a. Attitudes to Cannabis Legalization

The high level of recall of media reports concerning cannabis law reform suggests that it was an issue that interested many in the community. Although Just over half the respondents were against making cannabis as legal as alcohol, a large minority were in favor of it. This finding represents an increase in support for legalization over that reported in the NCADA Social Issues Survey 1991 (Advisory Committee on Illicit Drugs 1993) and the Western Australian data from the 1993 NCADA national household survey reported by McAllister (1993). The latter difference could reflect possible sampling effects as both these NCADA surveys included smaller rural towns, whereas the present study did not. Alternatively, it could be an effect of the different wording of the questions. In the current study the question used included alcohol as a referent as legal as alcohol, whereas in the 1993 NCADA survey no such referent was used as people were asked to what extent they supported or opposed the personal use of marijuana being legal. It is our hypothesis that without such a referent, respondents may construe legalization as free availability, which is unlikely to be supported by many. Yet with the alcohol referent, respondents may recognize that, despite the fact that alcohol is legal, it is regulated and there are restrictions on its availability and use. Further research is needed to explore the effect of question wording on responses regarding cannabis legalization. The variables predicting support for legalization were as expected.

b. Attitudes to Cannabis Decriminalization

Support for cannabis decriminalization in the current study was significantly higher than that reported in the NCADA social issues survey 1987 (cited in Cannabis and the Law in Queensland, Advisory Committee on Illicit Drugs 1993) where 47% of Australians surveyed were in favor of keeping cannabis criminal, and a slightly smaller proportion were against it.

In the present study, the support for decriminalizing the possession and use Of small amounts of cannabis appeared to be even stronger when the likely penalties associated with decriminalization were described (Item 5). The proportion supporting removal of criminal penalties when the penalties were described was similar to the level of support for decriminalization of small amounts found by Bowman and Sanson-Fisher (1994). The finding in the present study supports the hypothesis that people would be more supportive of decriminalization if told what it meant, including the penalties that would be applied. There are, however, other explanations for this result that need to be considered. The result may be non-criminaldue to the different way the items are structured in that Item 3 is a question asking for a dichotomous yes/no response whereas Item 5 is a statement allowing degrees (strongly or somewhat) of endorsement or rejection. Alternatively, it may be that support for Item 3, which reflected the current legal status of cannabis in Western Australia, was due to the general reluctance of the Australian population to support changes in laws. Additionally, Item 3 could have biased responses as although it described the current legal sanctions available for possession and use of small amounts of cannabis (a criminal record and possibly a jail sentence), the majority of convictions under the current system result in a criminal record, but rarely in a custodial sentence. However, the wording of Item 3 does reflect the current statutory position in jurisdictions where such offenses are criminal. Furthermore, although this explanation addresses the proportion of respondents expressing support for cannabis decriminalization in Item 3, it says nothing about the even greater proportion of respondents supporting cannabis decriminalization in Item 5, where possible non-criminal penalties were likened to a speeding ticket in that they would result in a fine but no criminal record. Although not providing conclusive proof, examination of the predictors of attitudes to decriminalization in the two items suggests the hypothesized impact of an explanation about likely penalties on beliefs has some construct validity.

c. Predictors of Attitudes to Cannabis Decriminalization

It is perhaps to be expected that age and religious convictions predicted scores on the variable representing support for cannabis law reform and that this variable influenced attitudes to the various legal options for cannabis. The finding that attitudes to decriminalization of cannabis were predicted by age, political affiliation, residency in the city or country, and scores on the PROCAN law reform variable when decriminalization was not explained, was not surprising. However, it is of interest that when the term was explained, age, political affiliation, and residency in the city or country ceased to predict attitudes, and the contribution of the support for cannabis law reform variable was substantially reduced. This suggests that when non-criminal penalties are explained, these variables become less relevant to respondents' attitudes and they make judgments based on the information presented.

The findings that women were more supportive of the decriminalization of cannabis when the term was explained and that women represented a greater proportion of those who changed their opinion in favor of decriminalization were

unexpected, given that earlier research (e.g., McAllister et al. 1986) has found women tend to be less in favor of relaxing laws relating to cannabis than men. However, at the risk of dispositionally stereotyping women, it may be that female respondents, if on the whole more nurturing than males, may be more supportive of penalties that would be less likely to adversely affect a person for life unlike a criminal record. Further investigation is required to explore these hypotheses.

The fact that the majority of respondents who moved against supporting decriminalization when it was explained were more likely to support legalization, suggests that these individuals may have previously confused decriminalization with legalization an , when they understood the difference, expressed disfavor With the former. This result supports the hypothesis that it was the provided about likely penalties, rather than other confounding factors, that influenced level of support for decriminalization in the latter item.

It should be of interest to legislators that respondents' political orientation (right or left wing) did not predict their attitudes to changing the laws relating to cannabis, once the term was explained. Support for changing the laws was found across the political spectrum.

d. Other Cannabis -related Attitudes

The finding that a majority of respondents believe that many people in the community use the drug without experiencing serious problems due to its use probably reflects the experience of many who know people who use cannabis, or who use it themselves. The recognition by the majonity of respondents that the current legal situation with regard to cannabis puts a burden on the courts shows an awareness of one of the social costs of cannabis law, which was the major focus of the first evaluation of cannabis expiation in South Australia (Sarre et al. 1989). Further broad support for chan ing laws regarding cannabis is indicated by the result that a majority believe that it would not be a bad thing for the community if it were legal to cultivate small amounts of cannabis for personal use. Such results suggest community debate around changing cannabis laws should be broadened to include options such as partial prohibition. Under this option cultivation and possession of small amounts for personal use would not be an offense, however, the supply, cultivation, or possession of commercial quantities would attract severe penalties.

Conclusion

Seven out of ten respondents favored cannabis decriminalization when the term was explained, and this level of support was greater than when the term was not explained. Respondents who shifted their attitudes to favor decriminalization mostly came from the group who had previously been against this option although 7 out of 10 of those who had been unsure or did not know, also changed to favor decriminalization when it was explained to them. Those who moved to favor decriminalization far outweighed those who moved against it once it was explained. The majority of these respondents had apparently said they favored this option because they had confused it with legalization, and once the difference was made clear to them they stated they no longer supported the decriminalization option. The level of support for decriminalization was substantially greater than support for legalization. This study has shown that apparent levels of public support for the various legal options for dealing with cannabis are significantly affected by misunderstandings held by some in the community about what terms such as legalization and decriminalization mean. The use of a referent term to explain the concepts of legalization, current criminal sanctions, and decriminalization is a useful method for more accurately derermining community attitudes to these complex issues. Those undertaking or using the results of attitudinal research regarding legislative options for dealing with cannabis and other drugs ought to look closely at the wording of questions used and be skeptical of the validity of research that does not make the meaning of concepts such as legalization and decriminalization clear to respondents, This study suggests that surveys that do not explain decriminalization could underestimate support for this option. Further research into community attitudes toward options not considered in the present study, such as partial prohibition and government regulation, should be conducted to thoroughly canvass opinions regarding all the legal options facing the community and the legislature.

It would seem that a good place for advocates of drug law reform to start would be to educate the public as to the difference between legalization and the removal of criminal penalties. Although there may also be other good reasons for not legalizing cannabis, on pragmatic grounds alone reformers should focus on decriminalization as the goal given the lower levels of community support for cannabis legalization. The problem is that this concept is a more complex one than the more radical legalization option. Advocates of drug law reform rarely have budgets to engage in wide-scale public education campaigns and often rely on cheaper ways of getting their point across. These methods typically suit simple messages. Bumper stickers seen on the rear of some Australian cars that consist of a graphic of a cannabis leaf with the text "Legalize it!" are unlikely to be modified to "Like speeding - illegal, not criminal!"

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the statistical advice of Mike Phillips and Leigh Smith. The project was made possible by funding of the National Centre for Research into the Prevention of Drug Abuse by the National Drug Strategy (Australia).

Notes

1. The present study was not commissioned by the MCDS but, nevertheless, canvassed public opinion on some of these issues in Western Australia.

2. Respondents who stated they voted for the Liberal Party, the National Party, or the Call to Australia Party were coded right wing, and those who voted for the Australian Labor Party, the Australian Democrats, or The Greens were coded left wing. Those who couldn't remember (7.3%), refused to say (4.8%), or voted for independents (0.3%) could not be so classified and were excluded from this analysis.

References

Advisory Committee on Illicit Drugs
1993 Cannabis and the law in Queensland. A discussion paper prepared for the Queensland Criminal Justice Commission Brisbane:Goprint

Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia
1993 Cannabis discussion paper 1993: An analysis of responses. Brisbane- Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia.

Australian Bureau of Statistics
1993 June 1987 to June 1992 estimated resident population by sex and age, states and territories of Australia. Canberra- Commonwealth of Australia.

Bowman, J., and R. Sanson-Fisher
1994 Public perceptions of cannabis legislation. National Drug Strategy Monograph Series No. 28. Canberra- Australian Government Printing Service.Inciardi, J.A., and D.C. McBride 1989 Legalization- A high-risk alternative to the war on drugs. American Behavioural Scientist 32(3):259-289.

Lenton, S.
1994 Illicit drug use, harm reduction and the community: Attitudes to cannabis law and needle and syringe provision in WA. Perth -National Center for Research into the Prevention of Drug Abuse, Curtin University of Technology.

Lenton, S.
1995 Cannabis offenders in the Western Australian criminal justice system. In Social impacts of the legislative options for cannabis in Australia (phase I research): A report to the National Drug Strategy Committee, eds. D. McDonald and L. Atkinson. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.

MacCoun, R.J., J.P. Kahan, J. Gillespie, and J. Rhee
1993 A content analysis of the drug legalization debate. Journal of Drug Issu'es 23(4):615-630.

Maguire, K., and A.L. Pastore
1994 Source book on criminal justice statistics 1993. Washington, D.C... U.S. Department of Justice.

Makkai, T., and 1. McAllister
1993 Public opinion and the legal status of marijuana in Australia. Journal of Drug Issues 23(3)-409-428.

McAllister, 1.
1993 Knowledge ~ attitudes and policy preferences concerning illicit drugs in Australian society Canberra- Australian Government Printing Service.

McAllister, I., T. Makkai, and R. Jones
1986 Attitudes towards drugs and drug use in Australia. Canberra- Commonwealth Department of Health.

McDonald, D., R. Moore, J. Norberry, G. Wardlaw, and N. Ballenden
1994 Legislative options for cannabis in Australia. National Drug Strategy MonographNo.26. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service.

Morgan, J.P., D. Riley, and G.B. Chesher
1993 Cannabis- legal reform, medicinal use and harm reduction. In Psychotictive drugs and harm reduction from faith to science, eds. N. Heather, A. Wodak, E Nadelmann, and P. O'Hare. Whurr:London.

Sarre, R., A. Sutton, and T. Pulsford
1989 Cannabis - The expiation notice approach, Report Series C, no. 4, June. Adelaide-South Australian Attorney General's Department.

Shapiro, H.
1994 Only way - or no way? Your crammer on the pros and cons of legalizing prohibited drugs. Druglink Jan/Feb: 12-15.

Single, E.W.
1989 The impact of marijuana decriminalization: An update. Journal of Public Health Policy (Winter) -456-466.

SPSS, Inc.
1990 SPSS (release 4) Reference Guide. Chicago:SPSS, Inc.

Trebach, A.S., and J.A. Inciardi
1993 Legalize it? Debating American drug policy. Washington, D.C.:American University Press.