Content uploaded by Sergey Alexeev
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sergey Alexeev on Jan 20, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Changes in and correlates of Australian public attitudes toward illicit
drug use
DON WEATHERBURN
1
, SERGEY ALEXEEV
1
& MICHAEL LIVINGSTON
2
1
National Drug and Alcohol Research Center, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia, and
2
Centre for Alcohol Policy Research,
La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia
Abstract
Introduction. The present study explores Australian public support for more lenient treatment of persons found in possession
of small amounts of illegal drugs for personal use. Methods. Data for the study are drawn from the 2013, 2016 and 2019
National Drug Strategy Household Surveys. Bivariate associations were tested using χ
2
tests corrected for survey design. Mul-
tivariate analyses of public support for legalisation and imprisonment involved logistic regression. Multivariate analyses of
public preferences for various responses to those found in possession of illicit drugs involved the use of multinomial regression.
Results. Support for legalising personal use of three drugs (cannabis, ecstasy and cocaine) has risen significantly since 2013
but remained stable (and low) for two (heroin and methamphetamine). Support for no action, a caution or a warning has
grown for those found in possession of cannabis, ecstasy and heroin for personal use but not for those found in possession of
methamphetamine. There is, however, more support for responding to this group with treatment, education or a small fine
than there is for imprisonment. Discussion and Conclusion. There is strong support for legalising use of cannabis. There
is little support for legalising use of ecstasy and cocaine but growing public support for a less punitive approach to those who
use these drugs. There is little public support for a change in the current approach to heroin and methamphetamine.
[Weatherburn D, Alexeev S, Livingston M. Changes in and correlates of Australian public attitudes toward illicit
drug use. Drug Alcohol Rev 2022;41:1029–1040]
Key words: legalisation, illicit drug use, public opinion, treatment, sanctions.
Introduction
The latest report of the National Drug Strategy House-
hold Survey (NDSHS) [1] revealed that support for
legalisation of cannabis use almost doubled between
2007 and 2019 (from 21% to 42%). The survey also
noted increases in support for legalisation of cocaine
and ecstasy and slight declines in support for tougher
penalties for the sale of cocaine and ecstasy. Precisely
what policies the public would support in relation to
the use of cannabis, ecstasy, heroin, amphetamine-type
substances and hallucinogens is not made clear in the
survey report. Nor does it provide any information on
the demographic correlates of those who support vari-
ous policies.
Williams, van Ours and Grossman [2] employed six
waves of the NDSHS from 1993 to 2007 to examine
the correlates of support for legalisation of cannabis
use. They found that current use and past use of can-
nabis were major determinants of support for
legalisation of cannabis. They also found that support
for legalisation increased the longer a person had been
using cannabis and, among those who had used drugs
in the past, the more recent their own drug-using
experience. Their study revealed significantly stronger
support for legalisation of cannabis use among males,
those who were better educated, those who were
Australian born, those who lived in a capital city and
those who had never been married.
Chiu et al.[
3] used to 2016 NDSHS to examine the
personal correlates of support for medical and recrea-
tional cannabis use in Australia. Overall, they found
that 40% of those surveyed supported the legalisation
of cannabis for recreational use. Significantly higher
levels of support for recreational cannabis legalisation
were found among males, younger respondents, non-
married persons, employed persons, those with tertiary
qualifications, high-income earners, those experiencing
high or very high levels of psychological stress, and
those experiencing chronic pain. Higher levels of
Don Weatherburn PhD, Professor, Sergey Alexeev PhD, Research Fellow, Michael Livingston PhD, Adjunct Senior Research Fellow.
Correspondence to: Professor Donald Weatherburn, 22-32 King Street, Randwick, NSW 2031, Australia. Tel: 0409 021 127;
E-mail: d.weatherburn@unsw.edu.au.
Received 17 August 2021; accepted for publication 1 December 2021.
© 2021 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.
REVIEW
Drug and Alcohol Review (July 2022), 41, 1029–1040
DOI: 10.1111/dar.13426
14653362, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dar.13426 by University Of Sydney, Wiley Online Library on [19/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
support for legalisation were also found among people
who have recently used cannabis as well as those who
have recently used alcohol and/or tobacco [3, p. 1].
Darke and Torok [4] interviewed 300 people who
use drugs intravenously and who injected on at least a
weekly basis over the preceding 12 months. Just under
50% supported the legalisation of heroin but only
34.7% supported legalisation of cocaine, while only
29.3% supported legalisation of methamphetamine.
Others [5,6] have also found considerable heterogene-
ity in levels of support for legalisation and penalties for
sale/supply across different drugs. These findings sug-
gest that support for legalisation varies by type of drug,
even among people who regularly use illicit drugs.
The present study seeks to address four questions:
1. Has the level of support for legalising the use of
marijuana/cannabis, heroin, meth/amphetamine,
cocaine and ecstasy increased?
2. What are the principal demographic correlates of
support legalising the possession of small amounts
of marijuana/cannabis, heroin, meth/amphetamine,
cocaine and ecstasy for personal use?
3. Have there been changes in the preferred response
to those found in possession of a small quantity of
marijuana/cannabis, heroin, meth/amphetamine or
ecstasy for personal use?
4. What are the principal demographic correlates of
support for imprisoning persons found in posses-
sion of a small quantity of marijuana/cannabis, her-
oin, meth/amphetamine or ecstasy for personal use?
Our study extends our understanding of Australian
public opinion on illicit drug use in two main ways.
First, we examine a wider range of drugs than previous
representative sample studies of Australian attitudes
toward illicit drug use. Second, we examine public
support for a wider range of options than simply
legalisation for personal use.
Methods
Ethics
The research reported here was approved by the Uni-
versity of New South Wales Human Research Ethics
Committee.
Data source
The NDSHS is a large cross-sectional survey of drug
and alcohol use in the Australian population aged
14 and over. The NDSHS excludes those who are in
hospitals, nursing homes, non-permanent addresses
such as motels and hostels, and other environments,
such as Defence Force barracks or prisons. It also
excludes people who do not speak English.
It is conducted every 3 years and normally samples
around 20 000 respondents using stratified, multistage
random sampling. The sample is stratified into 15 differ-
ent regions and weighting is applied to ensure a repre-
sentative sample of English-speaking Australians
residing in private dwellings. Further details about the
survey methodology can be found in the Technical
Report to the NDSHS survey [7]. The prevalence esti-
mates in this article are drawn from the 2013, 2016 and
2019 surveys. The sample sizes in these surveys were:
23855 (2013), 23 749 (2016) and 22 015 (2019).
Analytic strategy
All analyses were carried out in Stata 16.0 using the
svyset command. This command, when run in con-
junction with user-provided information on survey
weights, number of strata and primary sampling unit,
automatically adjusts the standard errors to take into
account the clustered nature of the observations and
multilevel structure of the NDSHS survey.
We address question (1) by examining changes in
the level of support for legalisation of illicit drug use
from 2013 to 2016. Each of the 2013, 2016 and 2019
NDSHS surveys asks respondents: ‘to what extent
would you support or oppose the personal use of the
following drugs [cannabis, heroin, meth/amphetamine,
cocaine, and ecstasy] being made legal?’To measure
changes in public support for legalisation we create a
new variable legalisation coded ‘1’if the respondent
endorses ‘support’or ‘strongly support’and ‘0’if the
respondent endorses ‘neither support nor oppose’,
‘oppose’or ‘strongly oppose’. The test for change in
these bi-variate analyses is a χ
2
test corrected for survey
design using the second-order correction of Rao and
Scott [8].
To address question (2), we regress the dichotomous
measure of support for legalisation against a range of
demographic variables (listed below). To answer ques-
tion (3), we exploit the following NDSHS question:
‘What single action best describes what you think should
happen to anyone found in possession of small quantities
of the following drugs for personal use?’. The response
options provided to respondents are as follows:
1. No action
2. A caution or a warning only
3. Referral to a drug education program
4. Referral to treatment
1030 D. Weatherburn et al.
© 2021 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.
14653362, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dar.13426 by University Of Sydney, Wiley Online Library on [19/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
5. Something similar to a parking fine, up to $200
6. A substantial fine, around $1000
7. A community Service Order
8. Weekend detention
9. A prison sentence
10. Some other arrangement
11. Do not know.’
Rather than examine each of these options individually,
we group them into three categories. The grouping is
based on the idea that there are options where no sub-
stantive action takes place (no action, caution or warn-
ing), options where some action is taken short of
prosecuting an offender (referral to treatment, educa-
tion or a small fine such as might involve an infringe-
ment notice) and options that require criminal
prosecution (high fines, community service orders,
weekend detention or prison). The first (No Sanction)
group consists of those who support either no action, a
caution or a warning being given to those found in pos-
session of an illicit drug; The second (Diversion/Minor
Fine) group includes those who support either referral
to a drug education program, referral to treatment or a
small ($200) fine. The third (Punishment)group
includes those who support a high ($1000) fine, a com-
munity service order, weekend detention or prison.
Respondents who endorsed ‘Don’tknowenoughto
say’or ‘some other arrangement’are treated as missing.
Temporal changes in and the correlates of respon-
dent preferences across these three groups of responses
are examined using multinomial regression, where the
No Sanction and Diversion/Minor Fine groups are the
comparators, and the Punishment group is the reference
group. Note, however, that whereas the NDSHS ques-
tion about legalising drug use considers five drugs, the
NDSHS question concerning the preferred response
to those found in possession of an illicit drug only
involves four drugs (marijuana/cannabis, heroin, meth/
amphetamine and ecstasy).
To address question four, we recode responses to
the question ‘what single action best describes what
you think should happen to anyone found in posses-
sion of small quantities of the following drugs for per-
sonal use?’into two groups, coded ‘1’if the preferred
option is prison and ‘0’otherwise. We then regress this
measure of preference for prison against the same
demographic variables employed in earlier regression
analyses.
Independent variables
The correlates of interest in the current study include
age (coded ‘1’if 14–19, ‘2’if 20–39, ‘3’if 40–59 and ‘4’
if 60+), sex (coded ‘1’if male and ‘0’if female), where
the respondent lives (coded ‘1’if a major city, ‘2’if inner
regional and ‘3’if outer regional/remote/very remote),
whether the respondent is Australian born (coded ‘1’if
yes and ‘0’if no), employment status (coded ‘1’if not in
labour force, ‘2’if in labour force but unemployed and
‘3’if in labour force and employed), whether or not the
respondent has a universitydegree(coded‘1’if yes, ‘0’
if no) and income (coded ‘1’if earning more than
$52 000 p.a. and ‘0’if earning $52 000 or less p.a.). We
also include a control for prior drug use (coded ‘1’if the
person has previously used the drug in question’and ‘0’
if not). Finally, we adjust for any trends in public support
by including a control for survey year (coded ‘1’if 2013,
‘2’if 2016 and ‘3’if 2019).
Results
Support for legalisation of drug use
Figure 1shows changes in the estimated percentage of
the population who support the personal use of illicit
drugs being made legal, broken down by drug type
and year. Support for cannabis being made legal to use
is much higher than support for other drugs. In 2019,
41.1% [95% confidence interval (CI) 40.2%, 41.9%]
supported legalising the use of cannabis. Levels of sup-
port in 2019 for legalising the use of other drugs were
much lower—ecstasy 9.5% (95% CI 8.9%, 9.9%);
cocaine 8.1% (95% CI 7.6%, 8.6%); heroin 5.7%
(95% CI 5.3%, 6.1%); and methamphetamine 4.7%
(95% CI 4.3%, 5.0%).
The percentage of supporting the legalisation of canna-
bis for personal use rose significantly between 2013 and
2019; from 25.5% to 41.1% (F=363.89, P< 0.001).
The level of support for legalising use of ecstasy and
cocaine, also rose strongly between 2013 and 2019
(up 34% for ecstasy and up 33% for cocaine (ecstasy:
F=3.59, P< 0.001; cocaine: F=20.10, P< 0.001).
There was no significant change in the level of support
for legalising use of heroin (F=0.044, P=0.957) or
methamphetamine (F=0.155, P=0.855).
Correlates of support for legalising use
Models 1 to 5 in Table 1show the correlates of sup-
port for legalising cannabis (Model 1), cocaine
(Model 2), ecstasy (Model 3), heroin (Model 4) and
methamphetamine (Model 5). The row labelled ‘Expe-
rience using drugs’shows the effect on support for
legalising use of a particular drug of being a person
who has used that drug in the past or recently. The
small sample size associated with current heroin use
Australian Attitudes Toward Illicit Drug Use 1031
© 2021 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.
14653362, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dar.13426 by University Of Sydney, Wiley Online Library on [19/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
made it necessary to collapse the heroin use categories
into two: ‘never used’and ‘has used’. The referent cat-
egory for drug use in all models ‘never used’.
Support for legalising cannabis, cocaine and ecstasy
has increased since 2013, even after controlling sex,
area, age, place of birth, employment status, education,
income and relevant drug use. Support for legalising
cannabis is unaffected by age, except that those aged
50+are significantly less supportive of legalisation than
those who are under 50. Support for legalising cocaine,
ecstasy, heroin and methamphetamine is strong among
the 20–29- or 30–49-year-old age groups but declines
with age. Males are more supportive of legalising drug
use than females, as are university graduates (although
the effect of having a university degree is not statistically
significant for ecstasy).
Whereas those born in Australia are more supportive of
legalising use of cannabis than those born overseas, they
are less supportive of legalising use of cocaine, ecstasy her-
oin and methamphetamine. Employment status is
unrelated to support for any drug other than cannabis,
where the unemployed are more supportive of legalising
cannabis than those who are not in the labour force.
Income has a positive association with support for
legalising cannabis, cocaine and ecstasy but no association
with support for legalising heroin or methamphetamine.
Preferred response to those caught in possession of an
illicit drug
Table 2shows the results of the multinomial analysis
(n.b. detailed preference distributions over sanctions for
possession of cannabis possession, ecstasy, heroin and
methamphetamine are provided in Figures A1–A4).
A relative risk ratio > 1 in Panel A indicates that
respondents are more likely to be in a Group 1 than
Group 3. In the lower half of the table (Panel B), a rel-
ative risk ratio > 1 indicates a general preference for
options in Group 2, rather than Group 3. A relative
risk ratio < 1 in either the top or bottom half of the
table indicates a preference for Group 3.
Support for the options in No Sanction and Diver-
sion/Minor Fine group is significantly higher than sup-
port for the Punishment group options for every drug in
2016 and 2019 compared with 2013. The relative risks
are also higher for every drug in 2019 (compared with
2013) than they were in 2016 (compared with 2013).
There is significantly stronger support for the options
in Punishment group than for the No Sanction and
Diversion/Minor Fine groups among those living outside
the major cities; moreover, the level of support for the
options in No Sanction and Diversion/Minor Fine groups
appears to decline; the more remote a person is from a
major city. Those who are 20 years of age or older (or,
in the case of cannabis, 50 years or older), are signifi-
cantly more likely to be in the No Sanction group than
the Punishment group. Finally, while gender is of lim-
ited significance when it comes to support for the
options in the No Sanction group; regardless of drug
type, males are significantly less likely than females to
support the options in the Diversion/Minor Fine group
than the options in the Punishment group.
The directional effect of being born in Australia
is similar for the No Sanction and Diversion/Minor
Fine groups when compared with the Punishment
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
2013 2016 2019
Percentage support for legalising use
Cannabis
Heroin
Methamphetamine
Cocaine
Ecstasy
Figure 1. Estimated percentage support for legalising personal use of illicit drugs by drug type and year.
1032 D. Weatherburn et al.
© 2021 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.
14653362, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dar.13426 by University Of Sydney, Wiley Online Library on [19/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Table 1. Logistic regression models of support for legalising illicit drug use
Legalising use Model 1: Cannabis Model 2: Cocaine Model 3: Ecstasy Model 4: Heroin Model 5: Methamphetamine
Variable OR P-value
Lower
95% CI
Upper
95% CI OR P-value
Lower
95% CI
Upper
95% CI OR P-value
Lower
95% CI
Upper
95% CI OR P-value
Lower
95% CI
Upper
95% CI OR P-value
Lower
95% CI
Upper
95% CI
Male 1.133 <0.001 1.075 1.195 1.397 <0.001 1.276 1.529 1.603 <0.001 1.469 1.750 1.406 <0.001 1.278 1.546 1.317 <0.001 1.177 1.473
Area
Major cities ——— — ——— — ——— — ——— — ——— —
Inner regional 0.929 0.030 0.870 0.993 0.780 <0.001 0.688 0.885 0.799 <0.001 0.712 0.897 0.798 <0.001 0.703 0.906 0.813 0.008 0.698 0.947
Outer regional/
remote/very
remote
0.966 0.433 0.887 1.053 0.819 0.012 0.701 0.957 0.715 <0.001 0.612 0.834 0.744 0.001 0.629 0.879 0.778 0.012 0.640 0.946
Age group, years
14–19 (ref.) ——— — ——— — ——— — ——— — ——— —
20–29 1.123 0.108 0.975 1.294 1.397 0.016 1.065 1.832 1.474 0.001 1.162 1.869 1.596 0.002 1.184 2.151 1.503 0.016 1.078 2.095
30–49 0.910 0.160 0.799 1.038 1.481 0.003 1.144 1.918 1.327 0.015 1.056 1.668 1.731 <0.001 1.302 2.302 1.539 0.008 1.118 2.118
50+0.832 0.004 0.734 0.942 1.420 0.005 1.110 1.816 1.266 0.033 1.019 1.572 1.748 <0.001 1.333 2.293 1.609 0.002 1.192 2.172
Australian born 1.130 <0.001 1.065 1.200 0.834 <0.001 0.757 0.920 0.863 0.003 0.783 0.951 0.851 0.002 0.768 0.942 0.663 <0.001 0.589 0.746
Employment status
Not in labour
force (ref.)
——— — ——— — ——— — ——— — ——— —
Employed 1.008 0.803 0.946 1.075 0.959 0.473 0.855 1.075 1.019 0.733 0.913 1.139 0.994 0.919 0.885 1.117 0.921 0.236 0.803 1.056
Unemployed 1.145 0.047 1.002 1.310 1.172 0.154 0.942 1.458 1.115 0.297 0.909 1.369 1.092 0.445 0.871 1.370 1.017 0.900 0.780 1.326
University degree 1.101 <0.001 1.104 1.161 1.269 0.001 1.156 1.393 1.323 0.061 1.210 1.447 1.277 <0.001 1.156 1.410 1.215 0.001 1.076 1.360
Earns > $52 000 p.a. 1.108 0.002 1.040 1.181 1.178 0.002 1.061 1.308 1.148 0.008 1.037 1.271 1.083 0.172 0.966 1.215 1.008 0.911 0.877 1.159
Experience using drugs
Never (ref.) ——— — ——— — ——— — ——— — ——— —
In the past 3.387 <0.001 3.201 3.583 4.014 <0.001 3.563 4.522 4.329 <0.001 3.892 4.816 —— — — 7.517 <0.001 5.642 10.015
Recently 19.687 <0.001 17.769 21.811 9.900 <0.001 8.456 11.591 16.658 <0.001 14.069 19.724 7.322 <0.001 6.022 8.904 14.663 <0.001 10.846 19.823
Survey year
2013 (ref.) ——— — ——— — ——— — ——— — ——— —
2016 1.768 <0.001 1.666 1.877 1.161 0.004 1.049 1.284 1.238 <0.001 1.122 1.367 1.033 0.541 0.931 1.146 1.034 0.600 0.914 1.169
2019 2.259 <0.001 2.109 2.420 1.273 <0.001 1.136 1.426 1.451 <0.001 1.298 1.622 1.066 0.314 0.941 1.207 1.020 0.800 0.878 1.184
CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio.
Australian Attitudes Toward Illicit Drug Use 1033
© 2021 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.
14653362, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dar.13426 by University Of Sydney, Wiley Online Library on [19/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Table 2. Multinomial regression models of support for sanction group 1 vs. sanction group 3
Panel A
Cannabis Ecstasy Methamphetamine Heroin
RRR
P-
value
Lower
95% CI
Upper
95% CI RRR
P-
value
Lower
95% CI
Upper
95% CI RRR
P-
value
Lower
95% CI
Upper
95% CI RRR
P-
value
Lower
95% CI
Upper
95% CI
No action/caution/warning
Male 1.032 0.358 0.965 1.103 1.257 <0.001 1.167 1.353 1.065 0.324 0.939 1.208 1.131 0.045 1.003 1.275
Area
Major cities (ref.) ————————————————
Inner regional 0.869 0.001 0.800 0.945 0.736 <0.001 0.668 0.810 0.680 <0.001 0.572 0.807 0.757 0.001 0.646 0.888
Outer regional/
remote/very
remote
0.689 <0.001 0.619 0.767 0.520 <0.001 0.457 0.593 0.611 <0.001 0.488 0.765 0.698 0.001 0.562 0.866
Age group, years
14–19 (ref.) ————————————————
20–29 1.127 0.149 0.958 1.324 1.606 <0.001 1.308 1.972 1.906 <0.001 1.346 2.700 1.910 <0.001 1.339 2.723
30–49 1.004 0.955 0.868 1.162 1.411 <0.001 1.162 1.713 1.586 <0.001 1.136 2.215 2.016 <0.001 1.439 2.824
50+1.847 <0.001 1.610 2.118 1.613 <0.001 1.339 1.942 1.972 <0.001 1.437 2.707 1.916 <0.001 1.389 2.642
Australian born 1.495 <0.001 1.392 1.605 1.116 <0.001 1.028 1.213 0.797 <0.001 0.694 0.916 1.372 <0.001 1.194 1.577
Employment status
Not in the labour
force (ref.)
————————————————
Employed 0.970 0.445 0.896 1.049 1.062 0.201 0.968 1.165 1.041 0.615 0.890 1.219 1.150 0.080 0.984 1.345
Unemployed 0.860 0.088 0.723 1.022 1.170 0.077 0.983 1.394 1.126 0.433 0.837 1.516 1.352 0.041 1.012 1.806
University degree 1.040 0.248 0.973 1.114 1.321 <0.001 1.225 1.425 1.416 <0.001 1.238 1.619 1.421 <0.001 1.251 1.614
Earns >
$52 000 p.a.
1.097 0.032 1.008 1.193 1.352 <0.001 1.239 1.476 1.086 0.288 0.933 1.263 1.417 <0.001 1.234 1.628
Experience using drugs
Never (ref.) ————————————————
In the past 5.381 <0.001 4.946 5.855 10.733 <0.001 9.613 11.985 16.952 <0.001 12.240 23.477 16.019 <0.001 11.791 21.764
Recently 34.045 <0.001 25.398 45.636 53.218 <0.001 38.760 73.068 42.291 0.000 26.356 67.860
Survey year
2013 (ref.) ————————————————
2016 1.365 <0.001 1.270 1.467 1.411 <0.001 1.300 1.533 1.081 0.279 0.939 1.243 1.417 <0.001 1.239 1.621
2019 1.921 <0.001 1.751 2.106 2.070 <0.001 1.881 2.278 1.375 <0.001 1.172 1.613 2.003 <0.001 1.723 2.328
(Continues)
1034 D. Weatherburn et al.
© 2021 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.
14653362, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dar.13426 by University Of Sydney, Wiley Online Library on [19/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Table 2. (Continued)
Panel B
Cannabis Ecstasy Methamphetamine Heroin
RRR
P-
value
Lower
95% CI
Upper
95% CI RRR
P-
value
Lower
95% CI
Upper
95% CI RRR
P-
value
Lower
95% CI
Upper
95% CI RRR
P-
value
Lower
95% CI
Upper
95% CI
Treatment/education/small fine
Male 0.836 <0.001 0.783 0.893 0.821 <0.001 0.781 0.862 0.748 <0.001 0.713 0.785 0.785 <0.001 0.750 0.822
Area
Major cities (ref.) ————————————————
Inner regional 0.927 0.073 0.854 1.007 0.868 <0.001 0.816 0.922 0.812 <0.001 0.765 0.862 0.859 <0.001 0.811 0.910
Outer regional/
remote/very
remote
0.817 <0.001 0.737 0.905 0.741 <0.001 0.686 0.800 0.669 <0.001 0.620 0.721 0.699 <0.001 0.650 0.751
Age group, years
14–19 (ref.) ————————————————
20–29 1.021 0.792 0.874 1.193 1.104 0.114 0.976 1.249 1.313 <0.001 1.165 1.480 1.339 <0.001 1.191 1.504
30–49 1.034 0.640 0.898 1.191 1.063 0.286 0.950 1.188 1.294 <0.001 1.160 1.443 1.400 <0.001 1.257 1.558
50+1.737 <0.001 1.522 1.982 1.724 <0.001 1.551 1.916 1.989 <0.001 1.794 2.205 2.029 <0.001 1.831 2.247
Australian born 1.390 <0.001 1.296 1.490 1.117 <0.001 1.058 1.180 1.083 0.004 1.026 1.143 1.276 <0.001 1.212 1.343
Employment status
Not in the labour
force (ref.)
————————————————
Employed 0.916 0.027 0.848 0.990 0.892 <0.001 0.842 0.944 0.926 0.007 0.875 0.979 0.967 0.221 0.916 1.021
Unemployed 0.789 0.004 0.672 0.927 0.929 0.246 0.820 1.052 0.908 0.127 0.803 1.028 0.937 0.276 0.834 1.053
University degree 0.988 0.772 0.925 1.056 1.060 0.021 1.009 1.113 1.615 <0.001 1.110 1.223 1.134 <0.001 1.079 1.184
Earns > $52 000 p.a. 1.094 0.036 1.006 1.190 1.066 0.041 1.003 1.134 1.098 0.002 1.034 1.166 1.176 <0.001 1.111 1.245
Experience using drugs
Never (ref.) ————————————————
In the past 1.904 <0.001 1.745 2.077 2.333 <0.001 2.101 2.591 2.602 <0.001 1.978 3.422 3.177 <0.001 2.459 4.103
Recently 2.836 <0.001 2.080 3.866 4.955 <0.001 3.523 6.967 4.663 <0.001 2.972 7.318
Survey year
2013 (ref.) ————————————————
2016 1.148 <0.001 1.071 1.231 1.113 <0.001 1.056 1.174 1.093 0.001 1.037 1.151 1.170 <0.001 1.113 1.229
2019 1.216 <0.001 1.108 1.335 1.248 <0.001 1.168 1.335 1.263 <0.001 1.185 1.347 1.381 <0.001 1.298 1.470
CI, confidence interval; RRR, relative risk ratio.
Australian Attitudes Toward Illicit Drug Use 1035
© 2021 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.
14653362, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dar.13426 by University Of Sydney, Wiley Online Library on [19/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Table 3. Logistic regression models of support for imprisoning persons who illicit drugs
Prison Model 1: Cannabis Model 2: Ecstasy Model 3: Heroin Model 4: Methamphetamine
Variable OR
P-
value
Lower
95% CI
Upper
95% CI OR
P-
value
Lower
95% CI
Upper
95% CI OR
P-
value
Lower
95% CI
Upper
95% CI OR
P-
value
Lower
95% CI
Upper
95% CI
Male 1.287 <0.001 1.150 1.439 1.179 <0.001 1.102 1.261 1.259 <0.001 1.193 1.329 1.270 <0.001 1.201 1.343
Area
Major cities —— — — —— — — —— — — —— — —
Inner regional 1.162 0.043 1.005 1.344 1.317 <0.001 1.212 1.431 1.232 <0.001 1.152 1.318 1.348 <0.001 1.260 1.443
Outer regional/
remote/very remote
1.446 <0.001 1.203 1.736 1.681 <0.001 1.521 1.859 1.485 <0.001 1.369 1.611 1.629 <0.001 1.501 1.768
Age group, years
14–19 (ref.) —— — — —— — — —— — — —— — —
20–29 1.322 0.040 1.013 1.726 0.903 0.254 0.758 1.076 0.936 0.350 0.815 1.075 0.920 0.236 0.801 1.056
30–49 1.489 0.001 1.170 1.896 1.168 0.054 0.998 1.367 1.135 0.051 0.999 1.289 1.123 0.073 0.989 1.274
50+0.904 0.392 0.718 1.139 0.964 0.632 0.830 1.119 0.937 0.298 0.830 1.059 0.852 0.009 0.755 0.961
Australian born 0.558 <0.001 0.498 0.626 0.859 <0.001 0.799 0.924 0.737 <0.001 0.696 0.780 1.029 0.360 0.967 1.095
Employment status
Not in labour force
(ref.)
—— — — —— — — —— — — —— — —
Employed 1.000 0.995 0.877 1.142 1.110 0.009 1.026 1.201 1.048 0.151 0.983 1.116 1.138 <0.001 1.066 1.216
Unemployed 1.538 0.001 1.201 1.971 1.314 0.001 1.122 1.539 1.296 <0.001 1.143 1.470 1.276 <0.001 1.115 1.460
University degree 1.117 0.07 0.991 1.26 0.938 0.069 0.876 1.005 0.908 <0.001 0.861 0.959 0.881 <0.001 0.767 0.857
Earns > $52 000 p.a. 0.709 <0.001 0.609 0.825 0.748 <0.001 0.685 0.818 0.808 <0.001 0.754 0.865 0.925 0.031 0.862 0.993
Experience using drugs
Never (ref.) —— — — —— — — —— — — —— — —
In the past 0.149 <0.001 0.119 0.188 0.140 <0.001 0.110 0.179 0.260 0.000 0.181 0.375 0.262 <0.001 0.175 0.391
Recently 0.069 <0.001 0.028 0.172 0.011 <0.001 0.003 0.038 0.098 <0.001 0.051 0.191
Survey year
2013 (ref.) —— — — —— — — —— — — —— — —
2016 0.858 0.013 0.759 0.969 0.924 0.031 0.859 0.993 0.923 0.006 0.872 0.977 1.212 <0.001 1.141 1.287
2019 0.749 <0.001 0.638 0.879 0.724 <0.001 0.657 0.799 0.696 <0.001 0.644 0.751 0.962 0.330 0.891 1.040
CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio.
1036 D. Weatherburn et al.
© 2021 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.
14653362, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dar.13426 by University Of Sydney, Wiley Online Library on [19/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
group, except that those born in Australia are more
likely to support the options in the Diversion/Minor Fine
group, than the options in the Punishment group when
the drug in question is methamphetamine. Being youn-
ger favours support for the options in the Diversion/
Minor Fine group compared with the options in the
Punishment group. It also favours support for the
options in the No Sanction group compared with the
options in the Punishment group (though the effect is
not always significant). Having a university degree,
while having no effect on support for the options in the
No Sanction group compared with those in the Punish-
ment group in the case of cannabis, has a significant
positive effect on support for the No Sanction group
where the drug in question is ecstasy, methamphet-
amine, or heroin. Having a university degree also has a
positive effect on support the options in the Diversion/
Minor Fine group for these same drugs. Employment
status only affected support for the No Sanction group
in the case of methamphetamine, but it had significant
negative effects on support for the Diversion/Minor Fine
group where the drug was cannabis, ecstasy, or meth-
amphetamine. In each of these cases those who are
employed expressed less support for the options in the
No Sanction and Diversion/Minor Fine group than for
the options in the Punishment group.
Correlates of support for prison
Table 3shows the characteristics of those who support
imprisoning persons found in possession of an
illegal drug.
It is evident that support for prison in relation to
cannabis, ecstasy and heroin is lower in 2016 than in
2013 and lower again in 2019. In the case of metham-
phetamine, support for prison is significantly higher in
2016 than it was in 2013, but lower in 2019 than in
2016. There is clearly greater support for prison
amongst those living outside major cities, those who
are unemployed, those who do not have a university
education and those who are earning less than
$52 000. Age appears to have only limited effect on
support for prison except in the case of cannabis,
where support for prison is significantly stronger
among those aged between 20 and 49 than it is for
those aged 14–19 or those aged 50+.
Discussion
Support among Australians for legalising personal use
of three drugs (cannabis, ecstasy and cocaine) has risen
significantly since 2013, as has support for taking no
action against those caught with a small quantity of
cannabis for personal use. A clear majority of
Australians now support this policy. Although not evi-
dent from the results presented above, more than a
quarter (28.9%) of those who do not support legalising
use of cannabis, nevertheless want either no action
taken against those caught in possession of a small
quantity of cannabis for personal use or no more oner-
ous sanction imposed upon them than a warning or
caution. Support for legalising the use of ecstasy and
cocaine has also risen since 2013 although the level of
support for legalising use of these drugs remains low.
There has been no significant change since 2013 in the
level of support for legalising use of heroin or
methamphetamine.
These findings are reflected in the results of the
multinomial analysis, which revealed a strong prefer-
ence in 2016 and 2019 (compared with 2013) for
either no action, a caution, or a warning or, alterna-
tively, treatment, education or a small fine. Because
the year effects are larger in the 2013/2019 contrast
than in the 2013/2016 survey contrast, it appears that
support for alternatives to a high fine, a community
service order, weekend detention or prison is growing.
Those living outside major cities, however, are much
less in favour of the ‘no action/caution/warning’group
than those living in major cities. They are also less
likely to support treatment, education or a small fine.
Support for imprisoning those found in possession of
small amounts of cannabis, ecstasy and heroin for per-
sonal use is declining, but not for imprisoning those
found in possession of methamphetamine. In fact, sup-
port for imprisonment in this case was significantly
higher in 2016 than it was 2013 (it has since fallen
back to the 2013 level).
Regardless of drug type, those who report having
consumed a prohibited drug are more strongly sup-
portive of legalising drug use or treating prohibited
drug use more leniently, than those who have not con-
sumed an illicit drug. This fact and the growth in illicit
drug use may be one reason why support for a more
lenient approach to illicit drug use is growing. The
prevalence of recent (last 12 months) cannabis use rose
by 10.4% between 2016 and 2019, particularly among
older (50+) age groups. For these groups, recent use
is now at its highest level since 2001. Recent use of
cocaine has also increased. The overall increase is
modest (2.5%) but the proportion of males in their 20s
who have used cocaine in the last 12 months almost
doubled between 2016 and 2019 (from 7.3% to
14.4%). After a long decline in use between 2004 and
2016, recent use of ecstasy also grew; rising by 2.2%
between 2016 and 2019. The increase in ecstasy use
has been particularly marked among people in their
40s since 2004.
Australian Attitudes Toward Illicit Drug Use 1037
© 2021 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.
14653362, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dar.13426 by University Of Sydney, Wiley Online Library on [19/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
The absence of any growth in public support for
legalising the use of heroin and methamphetamine
may be because these drugs are viewed as much riskier
and more harmful drug than cannabis, cocaine and
ecstasy. Evidence supporting this hypothesis can be
found in the NDSHS. That survey asks respondents
‘when people talk about “a drug problem,”which is
the first drug you think of?’In 2019, almost half (49%)
of those surveyed nominated methamphetamine, up
from 46% in 2016. More than one in 10 respondents
also nominated heroin [1]. The concern about these
drugs doubtless owes much to the extensive adverse
publicity both have received. Heroin use and associ-
ated problems (overdose, crime) were major issues in
Australia during the 1980s and 1990s. As those
problems diminished in magnitude, Australia began
experiencing a rapid growth in the use of methamphet-
amine, a drug widely depicted in the media as render-
ing those who use it prone to aggression and violence.
The lack of support in rural and regional Australia
for legalising drug use may be just one aspect of a gen-
erally more conservative constellation of attitudes on
social issues [9]. The lack of support among those not
born in Australia may be because a significant percent-
age of those not born in Australia were born in India,
China or Southeast Asia [10], countries that have
much stricter drug laws than Australia. The fact that
low income and unemployment are associated with
stronger support for imprisoning those who use illicit
drugs may appear surprising; but admits of at least two
possible explanations. One is that these groups are less
able to afford illegal drugs this translates into lower
levels of support for drug law reform. The other is that
income is acting as a proxy for some other,
unmeasured variable (e.g. income inequality). Kelly
and Enns [11], for example, have found evidence that
conservatism increases among both rich and poor as
income inequality rises.
There are, of course, several caveats surrounding
our findings. Despite assurances of confidentiality, all
self-report surveys are vulnerable to bias from respon-
dents who give false or misleading answers to survey
questions. Shame or fear may prompt some people to
understate their support for controversial policies.
Anonymity may encourage others to overstate their
support for such policies. The NDSHS, however, is
the only regularly conducted, detailed and methodo-
logically robust source of information on drug use and
public attitudes to drug policy in Australia. As such, it
is a valuable source of information for legislators inter-
ested in the level of public support for changes in drug
policy and the characteristics of those who would sup-
port or oppose such changes. The key point to emerge
from our study is that public attitudes to illicit drug
use are quite nuanced. There is strong support for
legalising use of cannabis. There is little support for
legalising use of ecstasy and cocaine but growing pub-
lic support for a less punitive approach to those who
use these drugs. There is little public support for a
change in the current approach to heroin and
methamphetamine.
Acknowledgements
This research received no specific grant from any
funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-
profit sectors.
Conflict of Interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest.
References
[1] AIHW. National drug strategy household survey 2019. Drug statistics
series no. 32. PHE 270. Canberra: AIHW, 2020.
[2] Williams J, van Ours J, Grossman M. Why do some people want to legal-
ise cannabis use? Health Econ 2016;25:1201–16.
[3] Chiu V, Chan G, Hall W, Hides L, Lim C, Leung J. Personal correlates
of support for medical and recreational cannabis legalisation in Australia.
Front Psych 2021;12:551661.
[4] Darke S, Torok M. Attitudes of regular injecting drug users towards the
legal status of major illicit drugs. Drug Alcohol Rev 2013;32:483–8.
[5] Lancaster K, Ritter A, Stafford J. Public opinion and drug policy in
Australia: engaging the ‘affected community’. Drug Alcohol Rev 2013;
32:60–6.
[6] Matthew-Simmons F, Sunderland M, Ritter A. Exploring the existence
of drug policy ‘ideologies’in Australia. Drugs Educ Prev Policy 2013;20:
258–67.
[7] AIHW (2020). 2019 NDSHS technical information. Available at: https://
www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/559a7cd3-4c73-4f7d-98d6-d155554c7b03/
aihw-phe-270-Technical_information.pdf.aspx. (accessed May 2021).
[8] Rao JNK, Scott AJ. On chi-squared tests for multiway contingency tables
with cell proportions estimated from survey data. Ann Stat 1984;12:
46–60.
[9] Pew Research Centre (2018). Urban, suburban, and rural residents’
views on key social and political issues. Available at: https://www.
pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/05/22/urban-suburban-and-rural-
residents-views-on-key-social-and-political-issues/. (accessed July 2021).
[10] Australian Bureau of Statistics (2020). Australia’s population: over 7.5
million born overseas. Available at: https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/
australias-population-over-75-million-born-overseas. (accessed July
2021).
[11] Kelly N, Enns P. Inequality and the dynamics of public opinion: the self-
reinforcing link between economic inequality and mass preferences.
Am J Pol Sci 2010;54:855–70.
1038 D. Weatherburn et al.
© 2021 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.
14653362, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dar.13426 by University Of Sydney, Wiley Online Library on [19/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
APPENDIX
41.9 46.4
54.7
28.2
27.3
24.0
18.6 16.5
13.9
6.0 5.1 3.8
5.3 4.8 3.7
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
2013 2016 2019
No action
Education/treatment
Fine
Community service/weekend detention
Prison
Figure A1. Preferred responses (%) to cannabis possession.
12.5 14.8 18.6
37.6 39.3
40.2
25.3 23.6
22.6
10.6 9.0 8.1
14.0 13.4 10.6
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
2013 2016 2019
No action
Education/treatment
Fine
Community service/weekend detention
Prison
Figure A2. Preferred responses to ecstasy possession.
3.1 3.8 4.2
44.7 47.9 51.8
17.6 16.3
16.2
10.4 8.8
8.7
24.2 23.2 19.1
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
2013 2016 2019
No action
Education/treatment
Fine
Community service/weekend detention
Prison
Figure A3. Preferred responses to heroin possession.
Australian Attitudes Toward Illicit Drug Use 1039
© 2021 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.
14653362, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dar.13426 by University Of Sydney, Wiley Online Library on [19/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
4.5 4.2 4.4
43.6 46.3 49.6
19.4 15.8 15.5
11.6 9.3 9.7
20.8 24.3 20.8
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
2013 2016 2019
No action
Education/treatment
Fine
Community service/weekend detention
Prison
Figure A4. Preferred responses to methamphetamine possession.
1040 D. Weatherburn et al.
© 2021 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.
14653362, 2022, 5, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dar.13426 by University Of Sydney, Wiley Online Library on [19/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
