The Social Impacts of the Cannabis Expiation Notice Scheme in South Australia. Part 2

Study No. 1: Cannabis Offences Under the Cannabis Expiation Notice Scheme in South Australia

Since the introduction of the Cannabis Expiation Notice (CEN) scheme in South Australia in April 1987, the number of minor cannabis offences for which CENs have been issued has increased, from 6,231 expiable offences in the 1987/88 financial year to a peak of 17,425 offences in 1993/94. In financial years 1994/95 and 1995/96, the numbers of CENs issued have dropped slightly to 17,170 and 16,321 CENs issued respectively. The overall increase in detected minor cannabis offences (or "net-widening") appears unrelated to prevalence of cannabis use, which has changed only slightly over the same period (see Study No. 5, "Effects of the CEN Scheme on Levels and Patterns of Cannabis Use in South Australia"). The net-widening is likely to be related to changes in SA Police procedures relating to detecting minor cannabis offences, such that more operational police are available for this work, and the work involved in issuing a CEN will be much less than that required under a prohibition model, where more formal prosecution procedures must be undertaken. It may also be related partly to a shift from greater use of police discretion in giving cautions for some minor cannabis offences to the formal system of issuing CENs for all minor offences detected.

In the first few years of operation of the CEN scheme, the rate of expiation of issued CENs was at around 55%. However, as the scheme continued, and the numbers of CENs issued increased, the rate of expiation dropped to around 45% in 1991/92, and the rate has remained close to this level since then. This rate is substantially lower than for other types of expiable offences, such as traffic infringements. Of those CENs which were not expiated, the vast majority were forwarded for prosecution. No data were available in the present study to allow assessment of expiation rates after the beginning of 1997, when new procedures for administering all expiable offences in SA (including traffic) came into effect.

A relatively small number of CENs which were not expiated (1% of all CENs issued) were withdrawn before being forwarded for prosecution. Additional CENs would be withdrawn or dismissed at a later stage in processing, up to court prosecution, with the total identified as being around 5%. However, it needs to be highlighted that a further but undetermined proportion of CEN matters may be left unresolved some time after court prosecution, because of difficulty in locating the offenders - some such offenders would have provided false identifying information at the time of apprehension. The present study was unable to obtain a reliable estimate of this proportion lost at later stages of processing; however, it might be assumed that a substantial number of those matters involving false identifying information would have been withdrawn prior to or during the prosecution process ( thus contributing to the %5 identified as having been withdrawn).

The data do not provide clear answers as to why the rate of expiation of CEN offences has been as low as it has. However, it may well be due to financial hardship experienced by cannabis offenders, particularly younger offenders and those who may have received multiple CENs over time. Also, as it is probably more difficult for police to verify proof of identity at the time a CEN is issued to an offender, compared to other types of offence (eg. traffic offences, where registration information can be used for follow-up) there may be more CEN matters lost to follow-up.

The most common offence for which CENs have been issued is possession of equipment for using cannabis, accounting for 38.4% of all CENs issued between 1991/92 and 1995/96. Possession of less than 25 grams of cannabis accounted for a further 36.4% of CENs issued. When possession of up to 100 grams of cannabis and up to 20 grams of cannabis resin are included, all possession offences accounted for 41.4% of all CENs issued. Cultivation of up to 10 plants accounted for 19.9% of CENs issued. For this study, no information was available on number of plants seized in cultivation offences. Rates of expiation for the different offence types ranged from about 33% for possession of equipment offences (where it was the sole offence) to nearly 53% for cultivation offences. Again, this suggests that cultivation offences are taken more seriously by offenders. Alternatively, it could be that those who are detected for cultivation offences are less likely to be experiencing financial hardship. The rates of expiation for the different offence types have not varied substantially over the years.

According to available data, 49% of all CENs issued involved single offences, and a further 40% were issued in a situation involving two simultaneous CEN offences. Most of these would be equipment offences in conjunction with another offence. The numbers of multiple-offence episodes are likely to be under-estimated by the data, because of inability in some cases to match CEN data records from the same occasion for the same person.

The average value of an issued CEN is $70.25, while the average value of CENs expiated is $74.35, and of CENs forwarded for prosecution, $67.77 (CEN fees generally range between $50 and $150, although a possession of implements offence, when in conjunction with another offence, carried a $10 fee). The higher average value for those expiated suggests that there may be greater recognition among offenders detected for expiable offences viewed as potentially more serious (eg. cultivation) that it is in their interests to clear the matter quickly by paying expiation fees, rather than letting them lapse and have the matter go to court.

Overall, between 1991/92 and 1995/96, about 87% of CENs have been issued to males, and the expiation rates for males and females are comparable. With respect to age groups, 51% of CENs were issued to offenders aged 18 to 24 years, 90% of whom were males. With increasing age level, the rate of expiation increased, from around 43% for 18 to 24 year olds, to 65% for offenders aged 45 years and above. According to the legislative requirements of the CEN scheme, CENs can not be issued to persons under 18 years of age. A small number of CENs, accounting for 1% overall, were issued to offenders under 18 years of age. It is unclear whether these were issued in error, or whether age information has been incorrectly recorded (around 68% of these are later withdrawn).

The issuing of CENs showed some geographical variation, with the highest rates of issuing occurring in the inner city area of Adelaide, Port Adelaide, the inner northern suburbs of Blair Athol and Kilburn, and the far southern suburb of Sellicks Beach. In general, the far northern and southern suburbs, as well as the inner western, northern and north western suburbs had the highest CEN issuing rates, as well as the highest absolute numbers of CENs issued.

Cultivation offences account for a larger proportion of CENs issued among older age groups. Only 12% of CENs issued to 18 to 24 year olds are for cultivation, whereas 56% of CENs issued to persons 45 years and older were for cultivation. While the absolute number of cultivation offences is not the greatest for the 45 years and older group, the higher proportions of cultivation offences among older offenders may reflect a group of people who have remained involved with a cannabis subculture, are perhaps more heavy users, and are more serious about growing cannabis for their own use.

There is some variation in the number of CENs issued by day of week, with the greatest numbers being issued on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. When CEN issuing is examined by month, a much greater degree of variability becomes evident. There is a twofold variation annually in numbers of CENs issued, between the period around July to October when it is lowest, to around March in each year, when CEN issuing is highest. This clearly coincides with the period when cannabis in cultivation would be reaching maturity and being harvested. When the monthly pattern of CEN issuing was broken down by offence type, cultivation offences by far showed the greatest variation; for the total period 1991/92 to 1995/96, there were 420 minor cultivation offences detected in the month of July, compared with a peak of 2,886 cultivation offences in the month of March.

Among the CENs withdrawn before being expiated or forwarded for prosecution, the offence of possessing equipment for using cannabis is over-represented, while cultivation offences are under-represented. This suggests that, after issuing CENs for equipment offences, police may find it more difficult to sustain a charge if the matter proceeds to prosecution, perhaps because of doubts about whether the equipment had in fact been used for consuming cannabis. On the other hand, it may be relatively easier for police to ensure that a cultivation offence is brought to completion, perhaps because of a greater perceived level of seriousness attached to this offence.

Most matters involving unpaid CENs which are prosecuted result in a conviction being issued by the court; the proportion has remained fairly constant, and has ranged from 88% in 1995/96 to 94% in 1993/94. Overall, there have been 37,470 convictions issued for unpaid CENs, accounting for 46% of the total number of CENs issued. In contrast, only about 2% of CENs prosecuted (or 1% of the total issued) resulted in no conviction being recorded. It should be pointed out that an unknown proportion of these convictions would be in cases where the offender had given false identifying information, and in such cases, the offender may have thereby avoided legal sanction for non-payment of a CEN. Most of those who receive conviction for failure to expiate CEN fees would receive a court-imposed fine of similar magnitude to the original expiation fee, with the addition of court costs and levies (which would add about $100 to the amount payable).

Of unpaid CENs forwarded for prosecution, about 3% were withdrawn prior to charges being laid. This represents a further 2% of all CENs issued, in addition to the 1% withdrawn or cancelled before being forwarded. Once charges have been laid, some unpaid CEN matters may still be withdrawn, either prior to or as a result of a court hearing. This accounts for a further 2% of all CENs issued. Thus, in total, around 5% of all CENs issued are formally recorded as having been withdrawn, dismissed or cancelled. There are unknown numbers which may have been cancelled at a later stage, through loss to follow-up. The statistics utilised for the present study provided data on court outcomes, but no information was available on the extent to which court-imposed penalties were successfully completed. Thus, of those convicted for failure to pay expiation fees, it could not be determined how many would have paid their court-imposed penalties, or have had warrants issued for failure to pay fines. The loss to follow-up at these later stages could not be ascertained.

In addition, while community service was very rarely imposed by the court as a penalty in CEN fee default cases (less than 1%), there may have been greater numbers who had court-imposed fines converted to community service orders at a later date, but the extent to which this occurred could not be obtained from the data available for this study. This extends to the numbers of CEN offenders who might eventually receive imprisonment for failure to expiate a CEN and then fail to pay subsequent court fines; while this number is likely to be very small, it could not be obtained for this study.

Some analysis of repeat offending under the CEN system was undertaken. The findings must be interpreted cautiously, as difficulties were encountered in matching records from individuals who night have offended on separate occasions; for this study identification of repeat offenders required matching of records based on name and date of birth. If this information varied in any way across time, matching could not be done. Thus, it is likely that the information on extent of repeat offending under-estimates the true amount, but the degree to which this is so could not be determined. The giving of false identifying information by offenders, as well as data entry errors or mis-spellings in recording names, could have contributed to under-estimating the degree of repeat offending.

Around 8-9% of all CENs issued in any given year were to offenders who had received two CENs in that year. When the five year period from 1991/92 to 1995/96 was considered, the number of offenders with two separate CENs issued was 5,304, representing 10,608 offences, or 13% of all CENs issued over the period. Within the same five year span, there were 1,470 offenders identified who had been issued three CENs. The numbers of offenders who had greater than three CENs issued over the five years decreased markedly as the number of repeat offences increased. Very few offenders were identified as having more than ten CEN offences within the five years. Overall, 7,730 repeat offenders accounted for a total of 19,765 offences for which CENs were issued over the five year analysis period, representing 24% of all CENs issued.

While the overall proportions of CENs expiated and forwarded for prosecution due to non-payment have remained roughly equal over time, the repeat offender data show that repeat offenders feature more prominently among those who failed to pay expiation fines. For the five year analysis period, there were 2,256 repeat offenders identified among CENs expiated, accounting for 5,039 offences. The average number of repeat offences per offender was 2.2 for the expiator group. In contrast, among the prosecuted group, there were 4,468 repeat offender accounting for 11,747 offences, with an average of 2.6 offences per offender. Thus, it would appear that a greater load of matters forwarded for prosecution is comprised of a smaller number of offenders who repeatedly fail to expiate CEN fees. While a detailed demographic profile of this group could not be generated from the data available for this study (which was limited to information recorded on CEN forms), one would expect that the repeat offenders who are prosecuted are experiencing a greater degree of financial hardship, and may have other social problems, some of which may be related to greater levels of cannabis use, all of which could reduce the likelihood of them clearing expiation fees and court-imposed fines.

Study No. 2: Cannabis Offenders in The Western Australian Criminal Justice System 1993-1995

This report provides statistical information on the processing of persons charged with cannabis related offences through the criminal justice system in Western Australia (WA) for the period 1994 to 1996. The analyses represent an extension of those conducted for the first phase of the Cannabis Social Impact study, which covered the period 1990 to 1993 (Lenton, 1995; Lenton, Ferrante and Loh, 1996).

Arrest data

From 1994 to 1996 there were 23,898 cannabis related charges in Western Australia, which were brought against 9,240 persons. These comprised 12% of all charges issued and 82% of all drug charges, down from 89% in the period 1990–1993. Just under half (46%) of the cannabis charges were for possession/use, 33% were for possession of implements, 10% were for make/grow offences, and 7% were for trafficking. The proportion of possession and use charges which were cannabis related declined from 90% in 1990 to 71% in 1996. This was likely due to a growth in the use of other drugs over the period. During 1996, for 13% of the apprehensions or arrests for possession/use of cannabis, the person was held in custody prior to their court hearing.

The majority of cannabis possession/use offences from 1994 to 1996 were committed by males (85%), non-Aboriginals (93%), and adults (92%). Juveniles comprised a slightly larger proportion (10%) of those arrested for a possessing a smoking implement than for possession of cannabis itself (8%). Young adults (18 to 21 years of age) comprise 28% of all possession/use cannabis charges.

From 1990 to 1995 there were 12,913 distinct persons charged with cannabis possession and use as their most serious offence, and for 44% of these this was their first arrest. Women comprised 23% of first-time arrestees, Aboriginals 2% and juveniles 13%. From 1990 to 1995, 9% of first time arrestees charged with cannabis possession/use as their most serious offence were held in custody prior to appearing in court, but this decreased from 16% in 1990 to 5% in 1995. Twelve months after initial arrest, 11% of first time arrestees charged with cannabis possession/use as most serious offence had been re-arrested. By 24 months this figure had risen to 28%, and by 36 months was 30%. As at 31 December 1995, 59% of first-time cannabis users arrested in 1990 had not been re-arrested for any offence. Data aggregated for the period 1984 to 1996 suggests that the majority of most serious second offences committed by those first time arrestees charged with possession/use cannabis are relatively minor, 25% being driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs, 18% for another possess/use cannabis offence, 4% for other minor drug offences and 4% for make/grow cannabis. Younger first-time cannabis users were more likely to be re-arrested than older offenders.

Court data

There were 22,247 cannabis related charges finalised in the lower court over the period 1993 to 1995, which comprised 9% of all charges and 84% of all drug charges finalised in the lower court. In 1995, just under half (47%) of the cannabis charges finalised were for possession/use, and 32% were for possession of implements, which respectively comprised 51% and 18% of distinct persons appearing before the lower court on cannabis-related charges. The vast majority (99%) of possession/use charges finalised from 1993 to 1995 resulted in a conviction, and of these, 92% resulted in a fine and 1% resulted in a custodial sentence. Over the period 1993 to 1995 males were responsible for 85% of all possession/use charges finalised in the lower court and Aboriginals only 6%. One in six (16%) of possession/use charges heard in the lower courts were against 18 to 20 year olds, with 75% of adults so charged being under 30 years of age.

There has been a decrease in the number of people jailed as a result of fine defaulting, where the offender's most serious offence was possession and use of cannabis. For example, in 1994 41 of the 43 who were jailed with possession and use of cannabis as their most serious offence were jailed for fine default. In 1996 there were 3 such persons jailed, one of which was for fine default. This change appears to have occurred due to the introduction in WA of the Fines Enforcement System for non-payment of fines, where those who do not pay fines can have goods seized, complete a community penalty or have their motor drivers licence suspended rather than be placed in custody.

Study No. 3: Comparison of the Impact of Civil Penalties for Minor Cannabis Offences With the Impact of Conviction: the Cannabis Offender Interview Study

This study involved interviews with samples of cannabis offenders from South Australia and Western Australia. The findings of this study component are presented in three parts: two separate summaries of the findings from the South Australian and Western Australian samples respectively, and a summary of the comparative analyses that were conducted on the combined SA and WA data.

1. Interviews with South Australian offenders under the CEN scheme

The majority of the 202 respondents recruited for this study were Australian, non-aboriginal males in their twenties. Most were single, had no children, and lived with their partners, family or friends. The majority were heavy users of cannabis, although there was only a small degree of other drug use (excluding alcohol). In this sample it appeared that cannabis use was not indicative of poly-drug use. There were significant differences in rates of use between those who had received a CEN (n=133) and those who did not (n=69). Approximately seventy percent of respondents who had received a CEN used cannabis on a daily basis, compared with fifty percent of respondents who had not received a CEN. Accordingly, heavier use of cannabis may be a risk factor for receiving a CEN.

It appears that the sample used for this study was biased towards heavier users of cannabis, which may be due to the recruitment methods employed. That is, advertisements were not placed in mainstream media, but rather community and street magazines, and university flyers. Furthermore, those who expiated their CENs were the most difficult to recruit, which may in part be due to the recruitment methods employed. It is possible that 'expiators' as a group are less involved in a cannabis-using subculture than 'non-expiators', and less likely to wish to talk about their cannabis offences.

The main source of supply of cannabis for seventy five percent of the sample was a third party, whereas twenty five percent reported their main source was cultivation of their own plants. Twenty percent both grew and purchased cannabis. Of those that grew and had sold cannabis (45% of the total sample), eighty percent said that the profit contributed to between one and twenty five percent of their income, suggesting that most people were growing for personal use, including family and friends, rather than commercially.

Two thirds of respondents were issued their CENs in a public place, the remainder in a private residence. Privately apprehended respondents were most likely to receive their CENs for possession of cannabis and cultivation. Moreover, it appeared police were aware that cannabis was on the property prior to the apprehension. In contrast, apprehension occurring in public places tended to be random and appeared to be opportunistic. These respondents were most likely to receive CENs for possession of cannabis and/or implements for using cannabis.

Of those who had dry cannabis seized, seventy five percent were found with three grams or less (an average J-bag). Of those who were apprehended for cultivation, fifty percent had five or fewer plants, and seventy percent had ten or fewer plants. Once again, this suggests that the majority of these users were not involved in commercial criminal activity, and were more likely to possess or cultivate cannabis for personal use. It is possible that some respondents may have been involved in sale and supply of cannabis from cultivation of an expiable number of plants, thereby exploiting the CEN scheme. A modification to the current penalty scheme for cannabis may be advantageous, incorporating a 'graded' penalty scale for possession of both wet and dry cannabis.

Seventy five percent of respondents who were issued CENs felt that police had been 'reasonable' to some degree when the CEN was issued, however there were some complaints about police behaviour. Overall, eighty percent reported that their attitude towards the police had not changed as a result of the CEN incident. Of those who reported a change in attitude, the net change tended to be in a negative, rather than positive direction.

Respondents who had expiated mostly reported that they did so to avoid court and a criminal record. The majority of respondents who failed to expiate reported that it was because of financial constraint. Similarly, many of the respondents who did not expiate, underestimated the amount they would ultimately have to pay. Their costs were significantly greater than the expiators due to heavier fines and court costs. In addition, three quarters of the non-expiators were not aware that they would get a criminal record if they did not expiate, suggesting that those who expiated may have had a better understanding of the consequences of not expiating.

There was no change in the rate of cannabis or other drug use following respondents' receipt of CENs. This suggests that receiving a CEN does not deter continued cannabis use, although as mentioned earlier, this sample seems to be biased towards heavier users of cannabis who may have been more resistant to change. Most respondents said they continued using cannabis because they enjoyed it, and did not view its illegality or criminal status as important.

In the time between receiving their CEN and the study interview, respondents appeared to be actively involved in looking for work. This suggests that neither their cannabis use, or their CEN, had a negative effect on seeking employment. The majority of respondents reported that receiving a CEN had no major effect on maintaining their employment, although a small proportion (around five percent) thought they may have lost their job because their employer found out about their CEN. There is some suggestion that some CEN offenders may have incorrectly thought that they had to include CEN offences when providing information about their criminal history to prospective employers. In general, receiving a CEN did not appear to have a negative impact on employment.

Over half of all respondents interviewed said that paying the CEN had caused them financial hardship. Moreover, the majority felt the fine they received was unreasonable, unjust, too harsh and did not match the seriousness of their offence. They also reported that they believed decriminalisation of cannabis had not resulted in an increase of cannabis use, and thought that personal use should be legal. Respondents also believed that strong drug laws do not deter illicit drug use.

Overall, most of these respondents were law-abiding, apart from their cannabis use. They did not view personal cannabis use as criminal or illegal, although over half believed that commercial sale and supply of cannabis should be a criminal offence.

Many of the respondents had erroneous beliefs concerning the law and cannabis. Around one half thought that private use was legal, while one third believed that possession of cannabis (100 grams or less) was also legal. Approximately two thirds knew that paying a CEN would not result in a criminal record, although two thirds were also unaware that they would get a criminal record if the fine were not paid by the due date. Moreover, two thirds were not aware that the result of not expiating would be a court summons and additional court costs.

2. The social impact of a minor cannabis offence under strict prohibition - the case of Western Australia

Sixty-eight Western Australians who received a criminal record not more than 10 years ago as a result of a conviction for a simple (minor) cannabis offence were interviewed for approximately 2 hours to ascertain their experiences of the arrest and court process and its subsequent impact on their lives.

The sample was 72% male, and the average age at interview was 27.4 years. Three quarters of the sample said they were in employment of some kind. On average respondents had been using cannabis for 11.4 years, and 82% had used the drug in the four weeks prior to interview. Most had friends who used cannabis. On average respondents were interviewed about four years after their conviction. The sample was comparable in terms of sex and age at arrest with the population of West Australians convicted of cannabis possession and use as their first and most serious offence.

Average age at arrest was 22.7 years. When arrested 47% were in a private dwelling, 25% were in a vehicle and 18% were in a public place. Most (71%) were charged with possession of cannabis, 53% with possession of a smoking implement and 23% with minor cultivation offences. Half were under the influence of cannabis when arrested.

While 73% said that police were lawful during the arrest and 41% said that they were respectful, 33% said that police were hostile and 57% were intimidated by police during the incident. In most cases attitudes towards the police were not changed by the incident, however, a large minority of respondents said that they developed less favourable attitudes. For example, 49% were less trusting of police and 40% were less respectful of police as a result of the incident

The vast majority (87%) of the sample said the arrest and conviction had not resulted in them reducing their use of cannabis, 18% were more discreet about their use. Only three respondents said that they stopped smoking for fear of another conviction, Four had stopped using for other reasons, and two said that they defiantly smoked more as a consequence of their conviction. Most continued to use despite their conviction because they enjoyed it (62%), didn't see it as a criminal activity (41%), saw it as a victimless (25%), or disagreed with the cannabis laws (22%).

The majority of respondents were law abiding and had respect for the law and police in general, but not for the cannabis laws and their enforcement by police. The vast majority (85%) believed that police deserve respect for maintaining law and order, 88% believed that they were a law abiding person, and 81% believed that most laws are worth obeying. Yet 90% believed that cannabis use should be legal, and 84% did not believe that strong drug laws deter illicit drug use. A minority (21%) continued to see themselves as a criminal as a result of their cannabis conviction.

Most (78%) of the sample regarded cannabis as a safe drug, and 82% did not believe that cannabis decriminalisation would markedly increase the number of people using the drug. Most saw cannabis as less harmful than alcohol (87%) and tobacco (69%).

Most (87%) had made at least one job application since conviction and 76% of these had been asked by a prospective employer whether they had a criminal record. A third (32%) had at least one negative employment consequence related to their cannabis conviction. Nineteen percent were unsuccessful in at least one job application, 16% said that they had lost at least one job, and 9% had stopped applying for some jobs as a result.

One in five (20%) respondents identified at least one negative relationship event which they believed was related to their cannabis conviction. Family disputes (16%) were the most common negative relationship consequence, followed by stress in a primary relationship (6%). Eleven (16%) identified at least one negative impact on their accommodation. Eight (12%) changed their accommodation as a result of the conviction, three losing work-provided accommodation when they lost their jobs as a result of the conviction.

A third (32%) identified at least one negative involvement with the criminal justice system related to their cannabis conviction. In 19% of cases respondents believed their criminal record led to further enquiries from police.

Only 7% identified at least one negative impact of their cannabis conviction on their capacity to travel overseas. Three had a visa application to Canada or the USA rejected one was interrogated at the Canadian border, and another cancelled their trip. A further 9% were very concerned about future restrictions on travel. It appeared that the time from conviction to interview was too short for travel effects to be evident in a larger number of respondents.

3. Infringement versus Conviction: The Social Impacts of a Minor Cannabis Offence Under a Civil Penalties System and Strict Prohibition in Two Australian States

Sixty-eight South Australians who had received a cannabis expiation notice (CEN) and the same number of West Australians who received a criminal record not more than 10 years ago as a result of a conviction for a simple (minor) cannabis offence were interviewed for approximately 2 hours to compare their experiences of the CEN and/or conviction, and their subsequent impact on their lives.

Despite their transgression of the cannabis laws, the majority of both groups saw themselves as largely law abiding and had respect for the role of police as law enforcers and the rule of law in general. The majority of both groups also shared a lack of support for punitive drug laws, had a high level of support for cannabis use being legal, and slightly more than a third of each group supported commercial supply of cannabis remaining illegal.

The majority of both groups had positive views regarding cannabis. Most thought that it was a safe drug and that the benefits of cannabis outweighed the harms. Most saw it as much less harmful than a range of other substances including alcohol and tobacco.

Seventy-five percent of the WA group and 41% of the SA expiator group stated that the reason for police attention was that they were suspicious that the respondents were in possession of cannabis. Thirty-six percent of the WA group and 8% of the SA expiator group said that police had a search warrant at the time of apprehension, 49% of the WA sample compared to 19% of the SA expiator group said they were in a private dwelling when they were apprehended by police.

Respondents in both groups were equally likely to report that they were friendly, respectful and cooperative toward the police when they were arrested or issued with their CEN. But 49% of the WA group, compared to only 18% of the expiators, said that they had become less trusting of police, and 43% of the WA group, compared to 15% of the SA expiators, were more fearful of police as a result. The greater loss of trust in the WA sample appeared in part due to the greater number of that group who were apprehended in a private residence, but did not appear to be due to other possible confounders.

The WA group were more likely to report negative employment consequences. While 32% of WA respondents identified at least one negative employment consequence related to their cannabis conviction, only one (2%) of the expiators identified one consequence that was related to their CEN. This difference did not appear due to possible confounders. Only one SA expiator believed that they had lost a job because of their CEN. Nineteen percent of the WA group said they had not got at least one job applied for, 16% had been sacked from at least one job, and 9% had stopped applying for jobs when they believed or knew that they were likely to be asked whether they had a criminal record. On average employment consequences for the WA group occurred 8 months after conviction.

There was a significant difference between the groups in terms of negative relationship consequences of conviction or CEN. Only 5% of the SA expiator group identified any negative relationship consequences of their CEN, while 20% of the WA group identified at least one negative relationship event related to their cannabis conviction. This result appeared in part due to the greater number of the WA group who were apprehended in a private residence, but was not due to other possible confounders. Among the expiators 3% described family disputes, and 2% said a friendship ended as a result. Among the WA group 16% identified family disputes, 6% stress in a primary relationship and 3% family estrangement. The first relationship consequence occurred, on average, 8 months after the CEN and 5 months after the arrest.

There was a significant difference between the groups in terms of negative accommodation consequences of conviction or CEN. None of the respondents in the SA expiator group identified any negative accommodation consequences but 16% of the WA sample did so. These included a change of accommodation (12%), loss of work accommodation (4%) associated with loss of job due to the conviction. Once again, accommodation differences appeared related to the impact of arrests which took place in a private residence which occurred in a greater number of cases in the WA sample, but did not appear to be due to other possible confounders. Residential consequences occurred on average 3 months after conviction.

There were no differences between the SA expiator and WA groups regarding the extent to which they, or others who knew them, saw themselves as a criminal as a result of the incident. In both groups, only a minority said they saw themselves as a criminal as a result of the incident.

There were no significant differences between the groups regarding the impact of the CEN or conviction on respondents drug use. Both the CEN and the cannabis conviction appeared to have very little impact on subsequent use. For example, 91% of the SA expiator group and 71% of the WA group said that their cannabis use was not at all affected by their apprehension one month after. The vast majority of each group said that if they were caught again they would not stop using the drug. These data suggest the application of the civil or criminal law did not reduce the cannabis use of the vast majority of this sample.

There was a difference between the groups regarding subsequent criminal justice consequences and this did not appear to be due to possible confounders. Although none of the respondents in the SA expiator group identified any negative episodes of involvement with the criminal justice system which they thought were in some way related to their CEN, 32% of the WA sample identified at least one such consequence related to their conviction. These included further police enquiries or questioning (19%) being found guilty of a non-cannabis related offence (13%) or another minor cannabis offence (9%). On average these consequences occurred 14 months after conviction. It may be that such events are a result of the computer access to offenders records that the WA police have, rather than the conviction per se.

There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of negative travel effects of conviction or CEN. None of the expiators and five of the WA sample (7%) identified at least one negative travel consequence and a further 9% of the WA group were very concerned about this possibility in the future. It appeared that the time from apprehension to interview may not have been long enough for travel effects to be evident in a large enough number of the convicted sample to result in a significant result as 41% of the WA sample were interviewed within 38 months of conviction, yet the average duration to the first travel consequence was 39 months.

Study No. 4: Survey of Peak Employer Groups: Comparison of Impacts of Minor Cannabis Offences on Employment in South Australia and Western Australia

Review of the literature on previous research relating to employer groups' attitudes, practices and policies with regard to cannabis use and cannabis offending among existing or prospective employees revealed that very little has been published on this issue. Australian research conducted on cannabis in the workplace has focused solely on determining the prevalence of use (usually outside of work hours).

A telephone survey was conducted of a sample of representative employers who are prominent or leading organisations in their respective industry, to examine whether a minor cannabis conviction is an employment issue for peak employers. Separate samples were drawn from South Australia (an example of a jurisdiction with a "civil penalty" approach to minor cannabis offences) and Western Australia (an example of a total prohibition approach). It was surmised that there may be differences in the extent of employer discrimination against cannabis users and/or offenders between these states, precisely because of the differing legal systems.

Fifty South Australian (SA) employers and forty Western Australian (WA) employers from a diversity of industrial groups participated in the telephone survey. There were differences between the two samples in the types of industries represented, with the Western Australian sample having a higher proportion of mining organisations in the sample. It needs to be highlighted that the samples of employers are likely to over-represent large employers and under-represent smaller employers. Furthermore, a potential for bias exists, in that non-respondents to the survey may have differing attitudes to cannabis use than those employers who were interviewed.

A high proportion of the SA and WA samples had a formal policy on alcohol and other drugs (AOD), were attached to an employee assistance program (EAP), had an occupational health and safety committee or representative, and reported having had a workplace AOD incident in the few years prior to the interview.

Less than half of the SA and WA employers requested job applicants to specify any criminal offences, and even less conducted a formal criminal record check. Not a single organisation that conducted a record check, or requested job applicants to report a criminal record, reported that they ever checked specifically for a minor cannabis conviction.

Employers across both states demonstrated a moderate degree of knowledge of their respective state's minor cannabis laws, and there were no differences between the state samples in this regard. Employers in both states had similar views overall about how severe the laws and penalties for minor cannabis offences in the community should be, with a substantial proportion of all employers stating that the personal use of cannabis should be illegal but not a criminal offence.

Responses to a series of hypothetical situations were consistent with employers' opinions about their state's minor cannabis laws. Employers reported a lesser propensity to discriminate against a job applicant with a minor cannabis conviction compared to a job applicant with a major criminal offence record (eg. involving cannabis dealing, assault, or car theft). There were few state differences in responses to these hypothetical situations. Around half of all employers also suggested that they would not take action if they heard through the grapevine that a member of staff had committed a minor cannabis offence outside of work hours, with the reason frequently given that an employee's private life was of no concern to the organisation when it involved the personal use of cannabis.

In conclusion, important findings arising from this study are:

• employers, on the whole, appeared less likely to discriminate against an employee or job applicant with a minor cannabis offence or conviction compared to a person with a more serious criminal conviction;
• there were no marked differences between an "expiation state" (SA) and a "prohibition state" (WA) in terms of the reported attitudes and practices of employers with regard to minor cannabis use and offending among employees and job applicants;
• there was a substantially greater degree of concern amongst employers interviewed in both states about potential intoxication with cannabis in the workplace, and the associated safety implications;
• overall, respondent employers located in two states with different legislative systems for minor cannabis offences did not perceive such offences among employees as a significant employment issue.

Study No. 5: Effects of the CEN Scheme on Levels and Patterns of Cannabis Use in South Australia

Between 1985 and 1995, the adjusted prevalence rates of ever having used cannabis increased in SA from 26% to 36%. There were also significant increases in Victoria (from 26% to 32%), Tasmania (from 21% to 33%) and New South Wales (from 26% to 33%). The increase in South Australia was significantly greater than the average increase throughout the rest of Australia. The remaining states, however, differed in rates of change, with Victoria and Tasmania having similar rates of increase to South Australia. There was no statistically significant difference between SA and the rest of Australia in the rate of increase in weekly cannabis use. The largest increase in weekly cannabis use occurred in Tasmania between 1991 and 1995, where it increased from 2% to 7%.

South Australia also did not show a greater rate of change than the rest of Australia in lifetime cannabis use among young adults in the 14 to 29 year age group, the age group with the highest rates of initiation of cannabis use.

The survey data indicate there has been a greater increase in self-reported lifetime cannabis use in South Australia between 1985 and 1995 than in the average of the other Australian states and territories. However, this increase is unlikely to be due to the CEN system because: (1) similar increases occurred in Tasmania and Victoria, where there was no change in the legal status of cannabis use; (2) there was no differential change in weekly cannabis use in South Australia as compared with the rest of Australia, and (3) there was no greater increase in cannabis use among young adults aged 14 to 29 years in South Australia.

Study No. 6: Public Awareness, Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding the CEN Scheme in South Australia

Of a sample of 605 residents of South Australia interviewed via telephone survey, 39% reported ever having used cannabis, and 34% reported having the opportunity to use cannabis in the previous 12 months. These percentages were higher than reported in the earlier 1995 National Drug Household Survey (CDH&FS, 1996). However, more regular consumption of cannabis, defined as use within the previous 12 months, was no greater than found in the 1995 survey, with approximately one third of those who had ever used doing so in the prior 12 months.

The fortnightly use of cannabis was viewed as acceptable by 34% of the sample, compared to less than 5% who thought the monthly use of other illicit drugs was acceptable. Nonetheless, the majority of respondents (77%) believed that cannabis is associated with health problems and with social problems (71%). Twenty two percent believed cannabis was associated with some health benefits and 70% felt that it had some legitimate medical uses. The risks associated with cannabis use were perceived to increase with the frequency of use, with 65% stating that daily use was associated with a "great risk". Furthermore, 57% of respondents believed cannabis to be very or moderately addictive.

Despite these views, 65% of the sample felt that many people use cannabis without experiencing serious problems, and roughly 50% felt that cannabis use did not necessarily lead to the use of other illicit drugs.

Teenage use was disapproved of by 77% of the sample, while 90% agreed that driving ability would be diminished if the driver was affected by cannabis.

Positive attitudes towards the use of cannabis were associated with ever having used cannabis, continuing to use cannabis, being acquainted with cannabis users, and being categorised as having voted left-wing in the last state election. Youth, residence in the metropolitan area, post-secondary education and drinking alcohol at least once a week were less consistently associated with positive attitudes toward cannabis.

Whereas only 17% of respondents knew of the "CEN scheme", 76% expressed a familiarity with the "on-the-spot fine scheme". A reasonable knowledge of the legal status of the non-expiable offences (that is, that they are illegal) contrasted with some confusion about the legal status of expiable offences, with 24% thinking that possession of less than 100 grams of cannabis was legal, and 53% believing that growing 3 plants was legal. A large percentage of respondents said that they did not know the legal status of each of these offences.

This confusion was further highlighted when respondents were asked about the consequences of offences: only 40% knew that the two expiable offences involved some legal consequence. A higher percentage knew that the non-expiable offences involved some legal consequence. Only 3.3% of the sample had received a CEN.

While 80% felt that using cannabis for medical purposes should be legal, the vast majority thought that growing 15 plants, selling 25 grams for profit, possession of less than 100 grams by a juvenile and driving while affected by cannabis should remain illegal. Opinion was evenly divided as to whether the expiable offences of possessing of less than 100 grams of cannabis or growing 3 cannabis plants should be legal.

Those having no religious commitment, having used cannabis or continuing to use cannabis, and using alcohol at least once a week were found to be more liberal in their attitudes towards the legal status of cannabis. However, even among those supporting the continued illegal status of cannabis-related activities, the majority felt that a fine was the appropriate penalty for currently defined expiable minor offences.

On the question of whether respondents would wish to maintain the CEN scheme, render it more lenient or make it more restrictive, 43% were in favour of the status quo, 38% favoured making it stricter and 14% were in favour of making it more lenient. Those who believed either that the law should remain the same or become less strict were more likely than those who felt it should be more strict to have ever used cannabis, to continue to use cannabis at least once a year or to consider religion unimportant to their everyday life.

Of particular interest were the perceptions of the consequences of CEN. Whereas 40% felt that the level of other drug use in the general community had increased, 43% felt that the level of cannabis use in the general community had remained the same, and 32% felt that its use in public places had remained the same. Forty seven percent however felt that the level of cannabis use by teenagers had increased.

Respondents were equally divided as to whether or not they thought that public education might deter cannabis use. However, 69% of the sample disagreed with the idea that public education would promote cannabis use.

Of the respondents surveyed, 78% agreed with a suggestion to reduce the maximum number of plants for which a CEN could be issued from 10 to 3.

As was found to be the case in relation to the use of cannabis, more liberal attitudes toward cannabis-related laws were found to be associated with ever having used cannabis, continuing to use at least once a year, knowing someone who uses, expressing no religious commitment, consuming alcohol at least once a week and voting "left-wing" at the last state election.

While a number of comparisons were made between the results of this survey and those conducted earlier, the different survey methods employed, the time period between the surveys and the possibility that South Australians are more candid in discussing their own drug use preclude any conclusions being drawn as to whether South Australian use and attitudes towards use diverge from the national profile.