Examining the opinions of people who use drugs towards drug policy in Australia

Abstract

Aims: This study aimed to investigate whether there is heterogeneity of opinion about drug policies amongst people with different experiences of drug use, so as to stimulate discussion about how the diverse perspectives of people who use drugs can be meaningfully included in policy deliberation. Methods: The views of people who inject drugs were compared with the views of people who regularly use 3,4-methylendioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), using data obtained from two Australian surveys (the Ecstasy and Related Drugs Reporting System and the Illicit Drug Reporting System). Support for drug-related policies (including treatment, harm reduction and drug legalisation) was examined using questions from the National Drug Strategy Household Survey. The extent to which demographic variables and/or drug use experience accounted for differences of opinion amongst the two samples was also explored. Findings: There were significant differences between the views of IDRS and EDRS participants, about legalisation, and a range of harm reduction and treatment interventions. The heterogeneity in support for the legalisation of different drugs could be accounted for by recent experience of use, over and above demographic differences between people who inject drugs and people who regularly use MDMA. Conclusions: These findings speak to the diversity of attitudes and experiences amongst people who use drugs, and reinforce the need to better represent a diversity of opinion in drug policy deliberation and challenge stereotypical perceptions which stigmatise people who use drugs.

Saying no to weed: Public opinion towards cannabis legalisation in Uruguay

“…Finally, our Uruguayan data confirm the findings of several studies regarding the importance of previous history of cannabis use in the support for legalisation (Lancaster, Sutherland, & Ritter, 2014;Trevino & Richard, 2002;Williams et al, 2011). However, our figures suggest that beliefs that cannabis is a gateway to harder drugs and that security will worsen with legalisation trump the effect of knowing that relatives consume marijuana.…”

Overlap in attitudes to policy measures on alcohol, tobacco and illegal drugs

“…(Doucet et al, 2007;Holmberg & Weibull, 2013;Holmila et al, 2009;Reitan, 2003;Saglie & Nordlund, 1993;Wilkinson et al, 2009).Personal substance use is associated with less positive attitudes to intrusive policy measures on that substance (Holmila et al, 2009;Matheson et al, 2013;Osypuk & AcevedoGarcia, 2010;Wilkinson et al, 2009;Østhus, 2005). For instance, support for legalization of different drugs was associated with having used the drug in question (Lancaster, Sutherland, & Ritter, 2013). Similarly, the more people drink, the more they oppose taxation of alcohol (Macdonald, Stockwell, & Luo, 2011).…”

New psychoactive substances and British drug policy: A view from the cyber-psychonauts

“…Furthermore, in at least one piece of research (Measham et al, 2011a, p. 140), NPS users have selfidentified as being ''not only unclear about, but also apparently unconcerned about, the specific chemical identity of the stimulant white powders they consumed'', an identification that some might argue precludes their sensible contribution to drug policy debates. Yet, despite these perceptions, previous research has successfully engaged (often injecting/dependent) drug users in policy evaluation (Darke & Torok, 2013;Lancaster, Ritter, & Stafford, 2013;Lancaster et al, 2014;Morgan, Naranha, Muetzelfeldt, Fielding, & Curran, 2013). This body of research generally emphasises the important role contributions from users can play in enriching drug policy discussions in general and recommends that we ''should not shy away from the challenges involved in seeking and integrating the opinions of this community''.…”

“…This is perhaps unsurprising as drug users are a highly stigmatised group (Corrigan, Kuwabara, & O'Shaughnessy, 2009;Lloyd, 2010;Peretti-Watel, 2003;United Kingdom Drug Policy Commission, 2010) not frequently called upon to enter policy debates (Jürgens, 2008;Lancaster, Sutherland, & Ritter, 2014;Latkin & Friedman, 2012). Furthermore, in at least one piece of research (Measham et al, 2011a, p. 140), NPS users have selfidentified as being ''not only unclear about, but also apparently unconcerned about, the specific chemical identity of the stimulant white powders they consumed'', an identification that some might argue precludes their sensible contribution to drug policy debates.…”