NDRI: Cannabis use down, two-thirds support civil penalties scheme

[Guest niall]

Just noticed this:

 

http://db.ndri.curtin.edu.au/media.asp?mediarelid=87

 

Media Release

Date: 03 December 2007

Cannabis use down, two-thirds support civil penalties scheme

 

Cannabis use in Western Australia has dropped, and support for the WA Cannabis Infringement Notice (CIN) Scheme remains high, according to a National Drug Research Institute (NDRI) study released today (MONDAY).

 

The study compares public knowledge, attitudes and drug use this year with the results of the same survey conducted in 2002, before WA's cannabis laws were changed.

 

Possession, use and cultivation of any amount of cannabis remains illegal under WA's cannabis laws, which were introduced in 2004. But adults in possession of not more than 30 grams of cannabis, up to 2 non-hydroponic cannabis plants or a used smoking implement can avoid a criminal conviction if they pay a fine or attend an approved education session.

 

A review of the cannabis laws was released last week.

 

Key findings of the NDRI report, The Effects of the Western Australian Cannabis Infringement Notice Scheme on Public Attitudes, Knowledge and Use, include:

 

* The proportion of people using cannabis in the past 12 months has decreased from 19% in 2002 to 12% in the 2007 survey;

* Two-thirds (66%) of the general community who responded to the 2007 survey consider the scheme 'a good idea';

* A quarter (25%) of recent cannabis users grew at least some of the cannabis which they had smoked over the past year, up from 11% in 2002;

* 34% of recent users believed users with a problem are more likely to seek help since the law changes;

* 25% of recent users believed that the amount of contact users have with criminals when obtaining cannabis has decreased since the law changes; and

* Almost half (45%) of respondents still believe it is legal for adults to possess a small amount of cannabis for their personal use.

 

NDRI Associate Professor Simon Lenton said the study also found there has been an increase in negative attitudes towards cannabis, with three-quarters of those surveyed considering it as a dangerous drug.

 

"The pre-post comparisons suggest that the WA public see cannabis use as more harmful to health in 2007 than they did in 2002, before the scheme was introduced," Professor Lenton said.

 

"The next step for government is a comprehensive public education campaign to capitalise on the growing negative attitudes towards cannabis, focusing on the laws, health effects of cannabis use and how to get help.

 

"One of the goals of the CIN scheme was to move cannabis supply away from large scale commercial suppliers to that which has been grown by the user, which is why the scheme also applied to two cannabis plants. These data give early indications that this goal may be being achieved."

 

The 2007 survey was largely funded by the Drug and Alcohol Office with contributions from NDRI itself. The 2002 survey was funded by the National Drug Law Enforcement Research Fund.

Further Information:

 

Associate Professor Simon Lenton

Deputy Director, National Drug Research Institute

Curtin University of Technology

Phone: 61 (0)8 9266 1603

Mobile: 0417 957 910

 

Vic Rechichi

Communications Officer, National Drug Research Institute

Curtin University of Technology

Phone: 61 (0)8 9266 1627

Mobile: 0414 682 055

 

Background:

 

Study background The Effects of the Western Australian Cannabis Infringement Notice Scheme on Public Attitudes, Knowledge and Use study is part of a large ongoing pre-post evaluation of the WA Cannabis Infringement Notice (CIN) Scheme. It compared the results of a telephone survey of 809 members of the WA public aged 14 to 70 in 2002, with a similar survey of 814 respondents conducted earlier this year (2007).

WA Cannabis laws

 

The WA Cannabis Infringement Notice (CIN) Scheme came into effect in March 2004. Under the scheme the possession, use and cultivation of even small amounts of cannabis remains illegal. However, adults in possession of not more than 30 grams of cannabis, up to 2 non-hydroponic cannabis plants or a used smoking implement can avoid a criminal conviction if they pay a fine or attend a specified education session within a 28-day period. Those that fail to do so face increased financial penalties and loss of their drivers licence.

Drop in rates of use

 

The change in rate of cannabis use observed from the pre to the post phase samples appears consistent with both state and national trends. As such, it is unlikely to be due to the CIN scheme itself as the declines appear to have occurred nationally and began before the introduction of the scheme. Previous research suggested that as long as cannabis use remains illegal, neither the criminal law nor civil penalties has much impact on rates of cannabis use in the community. Data in this study demonstrate that the predictions of some public commentators - that the introduction of the scheme would increase cannabis use - were without foundation.

Public education

 

Almost every respondent in the 2007 survey supported the proposal that the state government educate the community and young people about the harms associated with cannabis and the laws that apply to it, as recommended by the designers of the CIN scheme in 2002.

 

Community attitudes

 

The 2007 survey has shown:

 

* Growing negative attitudes towards cannabis (see Figure 1);

* That two-thirds of respondents still believe the CIN scheme is a good idea, compared to 79% in 2002 (Figure 2); and

* There is majority support for the scheme on both sides of the political divide (Figure 3).

 

Figure 1

Attitudes to Cannabis

 

% Agreeing 2002 2007

People under 18 should not use cannabis 84 93

There is a clear link between cannabis and mental health problems 69 79

Cannabis use may result in dependence 77 85

People usually have a good time when they use cannabis 57 39

Cannabis is a dangerous drug 63 76

I would be concerned if my family or friends were using cannabis 67 79

 

http://db.ndri.curtin.edu.au/images/media/mr87fig2.gifhttp://db.ndri.curtin.edu.au/images/media/mr87fig3.gif

 

Look ever forward

Curtin University of Technology

To report errors on this website please contact: National Drug Research Institute

Copyright and Disclaimer

Content Last Modified: August 2, 2007

Curtin University of Technology, Perth CRICOS Provider Code 00301J

The Sydney Campus of Curtin University of Technology CRICOS Provider Code 02637B

[mullray]

Niall, the Labor Government in WA announced in late 2007 that they were going to roll back the WA laws to zero cultivation and 15grams possession. It was 2 plants grown in soil and 30 grams was subject to a CIN (cannabis infringement notice). They said they'd make changes in the law in early 2008. I think they're making these changes because the laws have proven detrimental to winning the next election and there has been a lot of bad press about cannabis since WA introduced the CIN.

 

http://blogs.thewest.com.au/news/news-blog...s-laws-working/

 

The biggest joke is that the cops have been busting way more cannabis growers since they introduced the CIN so it will be great when they roll back these laws.... Hopefully, then they can go bust meth bakers and leave mj growers alone.

[mullray]

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21...220-948,00.html

 

The latests 'quality' news from WA. Lib leader smoked dope

[Guest niall]

Niall, the Labor Government in WA announced in late 2007 that they were going to roll back the WA laws to zero cultivation and 15grams possession.

 

Shit eh, where was this announced? Is anyone able to Newshawk relevent articles from The West Australian as they come up? I covered the debate leading up to the CIN model on http://www.mapinc.org, is anyone able to keep an eye on this going forwards and maybe put a few articles up to keep us up to date?

[mullray]

Shit eh, where was this announced? Is anyone able to Newshawk relevent articles from The West Australian as they come up? I covered the debate leading up to the CIN model on http://www.mapinc.org, is anyone able to keep an eye on this going forwards and maybe put a few articles up to keep us up to date?

 

They've kept it fairly quiet. There was a bit report in about mid Nov 2007 (West Australian) where Jim McGuinty announced Labor were going to roll back the Laws in early 2008. Labor obviously wants to keep it quiet because they are effectively acknowledging to the WA community that they got it wrong and after 5 years have changed their minds. The fact is all the negative press around cannabis has greatly undermined any notions of legalisation and discriminlisation so Labor are victims of history. Now we know mj causes schitzophrenia, losers, gum disease yadayada things have to change in all the wrong directions

 

The Libs no doubt will attack Labor over their backflip so Labor might also try to race the changes through parliament as quickly and as quietly as they can while knowing the Libs will probably not allow this (catch 22). "The worst newspaper in Australia" (the West Australian) will also slate Labor over the backflip so I don't like their chances of keeping it quiet. Jim McGuinty has just boycotted the West and won't speak to their journalists so he's in for a rough ride in general (the West having long term ties to the WA Liberal Party and an obvious bias against Labor).

 

I'll keep an eye on media and post as it comes up. One thing is sure...... The decrimilisation of cannabis in WA is going....going..... gone with both the Libs and Labor now not supporting it.

[Guest niall]

Ah well, at least NDRI got some decent data: decrim doesn't increase use; and education has a significant, measurable impact on public perception. That is probably the most important outcome we could have hoped for.

 

What we need to focus on now is accurate education - ensuring that cannabis facts are being disseminated, and myths and lies are opposed and debunked publicly and vocally. We need to keep the bastards honest - and I don't mean our Politicians but the Media and the Anti-Regulation Lobby. We need to focus on all research as it is announced, conducted and as results are published. Who is funding each study? How is the study flawed? What is the study's real findings, as opposed to the inaccurate excerpts that the Media leap upon?

[mullray]

NDRI (Lenton) were responsible for pushing the CIN through in WA. It stemmed from his research 'the longterm impact of minor cannabis conviction'. Before that Lenton was responsible for the Cannabis Cautioning System (Mirrabooka Act) which the Libs (Richard Court gov) introduced in the nineties - stemming from the same research.

 

What the WA media are reporting is the Laws are being rolled back and they quote Jim McGuinty who said Labor were rolling the Laws back so we expect to see the Laws changed in the next few months. What is sure is this is a political decision and all the balanced information that often comes from research has been drummed out by the deafening hysteria of reefer madness part 2.

 

It sucks but that's the way things are going in WA. 15 grams and zero permissable plants.