| You
are in Research The
Decriminilisation of Cannabis in the A.C.T. (Australian Capital Territory) - Use
Among University Students By
Jill M McGeorge, 1996
Paper presented at the 1996 International Conference on the Reduction of Drug
Related Harm - Hobart Introduction
While debates over
the legalisation and decriminilisation* of illicit drugs continue to flourish,
few western jurisdictions have made any concrete efforts in reaching the goals
of harm minimisation by way of such policies. The 1970's witnessed over ten US
states decriminilise cannabis by deeming the possession of small quantities a
civil offence, expiable by payment of a fine. Unfortunately, many states have
returned to complete prohibition policies, recriminilising the possession of cannabis
even in light of research evaluations that had shown little to no increased consumption
of cannabis. [Carr (1975); Maloff (1981); Brownell (1988); Budman (1977); Mandel
(1987); Suggs (1981).] In
Australia, the first state to decriminilise cannabis was South Australia in April
1987. In comparing trends in cannabis use as detailed in community and school
studies, no differences were found in the rates of cannabis consumption between
South Australia and other states [Christie (1991)]. Recent research continues
to show no significant changes in cannabis consumption. *
For this research and paper, decriminilisation refers to the lessening of legal
sanctions governing illegal drug use. For example, the possession of an amount
of cannabis that mat have been deemed a 'criminal' offence would be decriminilised
to the status of a 'civil' offence (it is still an offence but punishment is lighter).
The legalisation of the same act however, would result in no punishment, as it
would be deemed a 'legal' act. Definitions can differ as experts develop applications
of decriminilisation theories. Refer to these reviews of the drug debate provided
for further definitions of decriminilisation and legalisation: Fox and Mathews
(1992), Wodack and Owens (1995), Chesher and Wodak (1990), Drew (1991).
In late 1992 the Australian
Capital Territory (A.C.T.) passed the Drugs of Dependence Amendment Act (not enforced
until December 1992 to early 1993). The amended act granted the possession of
small quantities of cannabis (including the personal growing of five or less plants)
to be an offence expiable by a payment of no more than one hundred dollars. Where
the penalty is paid within sixty days, no further action is taken and no conviction
is recorded. Opposition
to the decriminilisation of cannabis in the A.C.T. was based largely on the fear
of increased use. A fear based largely on the assumption that arrests, court appearances
and the possibility of a criminal record were an effective deterrent against the
use of cannabis (Parliamentary Debates, 1992). However, it is believed that the
criminal law is not an effective deterrant against such a victimless crime as
drug use. [Studies investigating deterrants have found little or no connection
between deterrance efforts and actual behaviour: Paternoster, Saltzman, Waldo,
and Chiricos, 1983; Green 1989; Burkett and Ward 1993; Gotestam and Gotestam 1992;
Erickson 1979; Nucci, Lee, and Guerra 1991; Skretting 1993.] This
study investigated the effects of the A.C.T.'s new legislation decriminilising
cannabis by reviewing the patterns of use by university students in the A.C.T.
and Victoria, a state that did not decriminilise cannabis. Methodology
Design A self-report
survey was designed and distributed to students at wo Australian universities.
The questionnaire investigated students patterns of cannabis during 1992 and 1994.
Questionnaire
The questionnaire
consisted of about twenty questions relating to cannabis possesssion and use.
Previous research has found self-reported drug use surveys to be valid, especially
when focusing on what is considered by many to be a relatively 'harmless' drug.
The questionnaire includes a retrospective question asking subjects about their
use of cannabis in 1992, about two years prior to the survey. Research has shown
that certain aspects of memory recall to be accurate, especially when encouraged
with memory aids (see Howes and Katz 1992; Sovell et al., 1988; Loftus and Marburger
1983; Loftus and Fathi 1985). This was done in the questionnaire with a short
statement that read:
In this survey we are trying to get an idea of marijuana use in the past. Please
try to recall the period of your life during 1992, about two years ago, when you
were probably in the first year of university studies, and possibly between the
ages of 17 and 19 years. The
use of landmark references such as the first year of university and being of a
certain age would have helped in facilitating recall. Sample
The sample consisted
of third year students recruited from the faculties of Arts, Science and Economics
at the Australian National University in the A.C.T. and the University of Melbourne
in Victoria. Procedure
Questionnaires were
distributed during the last five minutes of lectures where they were completed
and returned to a container upon the students' exit from class. Eleven lectures
were used to collect 437 questionnaires in the A.C.T. and in Victoria ten lectures
yielded 476 questionnaires. Responses were coded and entered into a spread sheet
and the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for cross-tabulation
and significance testing. Results
Demographics
After exclusion of
incomplete questionnaires, a final sample of 421 was gained in the A.C.T., and
a sample of 470 in Victoria, resulting in a total sample of 891. Among 882 subjects
59.0 percent were women. In the A.C.T. mean age was 22.8 years with a standard
deviation (s.d.) of 5.2 years. The percentage of women was 57.6 with a mean age
of 23 years (s.d. 5.8 years). Mean age of males was 22.6 years (s.d. 4.4 years).
In the Victorian
sample, mean age was lsightly lower at 21.7 years (s.d. 4.0). The percentage of
women was 60 with a mean age of 21.2 years (s.d. 3.8 years). Mean age of males
was 21.7 years (s.d. 4.0 years). In terms of age and gender, therefore, the samples
from Victoria and the A.C.T. were well matched. The number of subjects ever
having used cannabis was virtually indentical between the two jurisdictions: 53.46
percent in the A.C.T. and 53.40 in Victoria. The gender balances among those who
had ever used was also fairly stable with 50.4 percent in the A.C.T. and 49.3
percent in Victoria being women. Opinion
of decriminilisation policy Subjects
were asked to choose what they thought should be the maximum penalty for a first
offence of possessing small quantities of marijuana. Table one below clearly shows
that the lessesning of criminal sanctions is favoured by the majority of the sample,
including those who have never used cannabis. Table
1. Minimum Penalty for Cannabis Use Supported by Sample
| OPINION | User
(%) | Non-user
(%) | TOTAL
% | User
(%) | Non-user
(%) | TOTAL
(%) | | Should
be legal | 169
(75.4) | 75
(40.8) | 244
(59.8) | 179
(72.8) | 68
(32.7) | 247
(54.4) | | Prison
+ conviction | 0 | 7
(3.8) | 7
(1.7) | 2
(.8) | 17
(8.20 | 19
(4.2) | | Fine
+ conviction | 8
(3.6) | 29
(15.8) | 37
(9.8) | 10
(4.1) | 50
(24.0) | 60
(13.2) | | Adjourned
Bond* | - | - | - | 14
(5.7) | 26
(12.5) | 40
(8.8) | | Prescribed
penalty** | 41
(18.3) | 64
(34.8) | 105
(25.7) | 36
(14.6) | 36
(17.3) | 72
(15.9) | | Other | 6
(2.7) | 9
(4.8) | 15
(3.7) | 5
(2) | 11
(5.3) | 16
(3.5) | | TOTAL | 224
(100) | 184
(100) | 408
(100) | 246
(100) | 208
(100) | 454
(100) | *
Vicorian Questionnaire Only **
'Decriminilisation' Current
Use A review
of current patterns of use reveal no significant differences in rates of use between
the two samples [x(squared)=5.34, df=6. P-value=.050], with cannabis used relatively
infrequently. Table two breakes down current patterns in each state. Table
2. Patterns of Cannabis Use in the Last Year (1994)
| PATTERN | A.C.T.
(%) | VICTORIA
(%) | TOTAL
% | | Every
day | 4
(1.8) | 5
(2) | 9
(2) | | Every
week | 16
(7.3) | 26
(10.7) | 42
(9) | | Every
month | 24
(11) | 35
(14.3) | 59
(12.7) | | Every
two months | 33
(15.1) | 38
(15.6) | 71
(15.3) | | Twice
a year | 57
(26) | 48
(19.7) | 105
(22.8) | | Once
a year | 32
(14.6) | 29
(11.9) | 61
(13.2) | | Not
in last year | 53
(24.2) | 63
(25.8) | 116
(25) | | TOTAL | 219
(100%) | 233
(100%) | 463
(100%) | Past
Use With regard
to the patterns of use within the A.C.T., no significant difference exists between
use before decriminilisation and use almost two years after [x(squared)=6.91,
df=6, P-value=0.50]. In addition, there was no significant difference between
the two samples with regard to use of cannabis in 1992 [x(squared)=6.76, df=6,
P-value=0.34]. Table 3 shows the patterns of use in 1992. Table
3. Patterns of Cannabis Use During 1992
| PATTERN
(1992) | A.C.T.
(%) | VICTORIA
(%) | TOTAL
% | | Every
day | 5
(2.3) | 5
(2) | 10
(2.2) | | Every
week | 16
(7.3) | 25
(10.2) | 41
(8.8) | | Every
month | 25
(11.5) | 32
(13) | 57
(12.3) | | Every
two months | 39
(17.9) | 28
(11.4) | 67
(14.4) | | Twice
a year | 54
(24.8) | 58
(23.6) | 112
(24.1) | | Once
a year | 16
(7.3) | 28
(11.4) | 44
(9.5) | | Not
during 1992 | 63
(28) | 70
(28.4) | 133
(28.7) | | TOTAL | 218
(100%) | 246
(100%) | 464
(100%) | Changes
in Use Students
were also asked to state whether they believed their use of cannabis had changed
over the two years previous to the survey. Over two thirds of the sample reported
their use had either decreased or remained the same. Suprisingly, more Victorian
subjects reported an increase, though this was not statistically significant.
Table 4. Changes
in Cannabis Use Since 1992 (self-reported)
| CHANGE | A.C.T.
(%) | VICTORIA
(%) | TOTAL
% | | INCREASE | 41
(18.8) | 61
(25) | 102
(22) | | SAME | 79
(36.2) | 81
(33) | 160
(34.6) | | DECREASE | 98
(45) | 103
(42) | 201
(43.4) | | TOTAL | 218
(100%) | 245
(100%) | 463
(100%) | Reasons
for change in use were varied and did not appear to relate directly to the new
law: changing value, maturation, health concerns and changing peer groups were
all factors governing the use of drugs. It is these issues and other social functions
which must be investigated in addressing the use and abuse of drugs. Conclusion
Clear though limited
support has been provided to show that the decriminilisation of cannabis did not
lead to a significant increase in use among university students. More
extensive research embracing larger, more diverse samples, into the effects of
decriminilisation policies must be undertaken. Based
on this work and previous research it is put forward that the decriminilisation
of cannabis does not lead to significant increases in its consumption. It is recommended
that, in support of the Australian national policy of harm minimisation, all states
and territories begin the process of lessening, if not aboloshing, criminal sanctions
against the possession and use of cannabis as a starting point towards
the regulated control of substances currently prohibited. REFERENCESBrownwell,
G.S. 1988
Marijuana and the Law in California: A Historical and Political
Overview. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20(1):71-74. Budman,
K. 1977
Introduction in First Report of the Impact of California's New Marijuana
Law (SB95). California: Office of Narcotics and Drug Abuse, Health and Welfare
Agency Burkett, S.R.
and Ward, D.A. 1993
A note on perceptual deterrance, religiously based moral
condemnation, and social control. Criminology 31(1): 119-133. Carr,
R.R. 1975
Oregon's Marijuana Decriminilzation: One Year Later. Intellect
December: 235-6. Chesher,
G. and Wodak, A. 1990
Evolving a New Policy for Illicit Drugs. The Journal
of Drug Issues 20(4): 555-561. Christie,
P. 1991
The Effects of Canabis Legislation in South Australia on Levels of
Cannabis Use. Adelaide: Drug and Alcohol Services Council. Drew,
L. 1991
The Case for an Alternative Drugs Policy. In : An Unwinnable War
Against Drugs: the Policies of Decriminilisation NSW: Pluto Press. Drugs
of Dependence Amendment Act 1992: Australian Capital Territory. Drugs,
Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981: Victoria. Erickson,
P.G. 1976
Deterrance and deviance: The example of cannabis prohibition. The
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 67(2): 223-232. Fox,
R. and Mathews, I. 1992
Drugs Policy: Fact, Fiction and the Future. NSW: Federation
Press. Gotestam,
K.O. and Gotestam, G.K. 1992
Changes in smoking legislation, attitudes, and
behaviour. Psychological Reports 70: 531-7 Green,
D.E. 1989
Past Behaviour as a Measure of Actual Future Behaviour: An Unresolved
Issue in Perceptual Deterrence Research. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
80(3): 781-804 Howes,
J.L. and Katz, A.N. 1992
Remote Memory: Recalling Autobiographical and Public
Events from Across the Lifespan. Canadian Journal of Psychology 46(1):
92-116. Loftus, E.F.
and Fathi, D.C. 1985
Retrieving Multiple Autobiographical Memories. Social
Cognition 3(3): 280-295. Loftus,
E.F. and Marburger, W. 1983
Since the Eruption of Mt St Helens, has Anyone
Beaten You Up? Improving the Accuracy of Retrospective Reports with Landmark Events.
Memory and Cognition 11(2): 114-120. Maloff,
D. 1981
A Review of the Effects of the Decriminilisation of Marijuana. Contempory
Drug Problems 8:307-322. Mandel,
J, 1987
Are Lower Penalties a Green Light for Drug Users? Journal of Psychoactive
Drugs 19(4):383-385. Nucci,
L., Lee, J., and Guerra, N., 1991
Adolescent Judgements of the Personal, Prudential,
and Normative Aspects of Drug Usage. Developmental Psychology 27(5): 841-848.
Parliamentary Debates:
A.C.T. (1992). August and September. Paternoster,
R., Saltzman, L., Waldo, G., and Chiricos, T., 1983
Perceived risk and social
control: Do sanctions really deter? Law and Society Review 17(3): 457-479.
Skretting, A., 1993
Attitude of the Norwegian population to drug policy and drug offences. Addiction
88: 125-131. Sobell,
L.C., Sobell, M.B., Riley, D.M., Schuller, R., Pavan, D.S., Cancilla, A., Klajner,
F. and Leo, G.I. 1988
The Reliability of Alcohol Abusers' Self-Reports of
Drinking and Life Events that Occurred in the Distant Past. Journal of Studies
on Alcohol 49(3):225-232. Suggs,
D. 1981
A Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of the Impact of Nebraska's
Decriminilisation of Marijuana. Law and Human Behaviour 5(1):45-64. Wodak,
A. and Owens, R. 1996
Drug Prohibition: A Call for Change. Sydney: University
of New South Wales.
| 
