Impact of Cannabis Decriminalisation in Australia and The United States

The Impact of Cannabis Decriminalisation in Australia and the United States
Author(s): Eric Single, Paul Christie and Robert Ali

Source: Journal of Public Health Policy, Vol. 21, No. 2 (2000), pp. 157-186
Published by: Palgrave Macmillan Journals
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3343342
Accessed: 18-11-2019 08:36 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Palgrave Macmillan Journals is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Journal of Public Health Policy
This content downloaded from 111.68.97.206 on Mon, 18 Nov 2019 08:36:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Impact of Cannabis Decriminalisation in
Australia and the United States
ERIC SINGLE, PAUL CHRISTIE, and ROBERT ALI
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
ya G NAustralia, the United States and o

there is a continuing interest in reform
control laws in order to reduce the high
costs and adverse individual consequences of the
criminalisation of cannabis possession for personal
use. Each year large numbers of predominantly young
citizens are arrested and prosecuted for cannabis possession, many of
whom would not otherwise have criminal records, with little or no
apparent effect on rates of cannabis use or cannabis-related harm.
Precise estimates of the costs of enforcing cannabis possession laws
are lacking but there is evidence that these costs are significant. Drug
enforcement has been estimated to cost over AUD$ 404.2 million in
Australia in I992 (I3), and more than US$ I7.4 billion in the United
States in the same year (24).1 In addition to the high costs of enforce-
ment, the policy of cannabis prohibition has entailed other social
costs. These include the encroachment on individual rights and free-
doms in order to facilitate drug enforcement, the adverse effects of a
criminal record for the large numbers of convicted offenders, the
impact of the penalties (fines, imprisonment) on convicted offenders,
and other adverse social consequences on users such as negative
impacts on employment and family discord caused by an arrest for
cannabis possession.
The presumed benefit of the criminalisation of cannabis possession
is the deterrence of cannabis use. There is, however, little evidence of
a strong deterrent effect. Substantial increases in marijuana use
occurred in the I96os and I970S despite the application of criminal
penalties for cannabis possession both in the U.S. (7,23,44) and in
Australia (I7). These trends in cannabis use do not constitute con-
clusive evidence regarding the lack of a deterrent effect, as it is not
I57
I58 JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY * VOL. 2I, NO. 2
known whether rates of use might have increased even more if

cannabis possession had not been prohibited. Nonetheless, it is note-
worthy that nonusers rarely cite fear of legal consequences as a rea-
son for their nonuse (34,44). Rather, the simple lack of interest or fear
of adverse health consequences are the most commonly given reasons
for abstention from cannabis use (33,44). There is no discernable
trend in perceived availability of cannabis despite high levels of drug
enforcement in the U.S. (3 0,3 I,5 z). Criminological research on the
deterrence of other forms of deviant behaviour indicates that deter-
rence does not generally occur if the risk of detection and punishment
is low. This is clearly the case with cannabis use (23). In Canada,
which until the late I98os had the highest per capita rates of arrest
for cannabis possession in the world, it was estimated that less than
one per cent of users and one-tenth of one per cent of use incidents
were detected by the police (3 3).2
Thus, in both Australia and the United States, laws prohibiting
cannabis possession entail considerable enforcement and social costs,
yet they appear to have little impact on deterring cannabis use. In the
I970S i i U.S. states enacted "decriminalisation" laws which reduced
the penalties of cannabis possession to a fine only, and, more recently,
several jurisdictions in Australia have enacted similar measures. In
I987, South Australia introduced a "civil penalty" approach to
minor cannabis offences (including personal use and cultivation),
which involves the issuing of expiation notices or "on-the-spot" fines
to detected offenders. In the I99OS, the Australian Capital Territory
and the Northern Territory have followed with the introduction of
similar expiation schemes. More recently, Victoria implemented a
system of cautions for minor cannabis offenders in I998 and Western
Australia has since followed with a similar scheme.
These changes in the law regarding cannabis possession have been
referred to as "decriminalisation" measures, but this is something of
a misnomer, as cannabis possession is still sanctioned by criminal law
in these jurisdictions. With respect to cannabis possession, the term
"decriminalisation" has generally been used to describe laws which
reduce penalties for small amounts for personal use to penalties other
than imprisonment. Even under these so-called decriminalisation
laws, the possession of cannabis is against the law, albeit subject to a
maximum penalty of a fine only. Therefore, in evaluating the impact
of such measures it is important to note that we are only dealing with
SINGLE ET AL. * CANNABIS DECRIMINALISATION I59
the impact of reducing penalties rather than the impact of eliminat-

ing penalties altogether.
The debate about cannabis law, and particularly the decriminalisa-
tion of personal use of cannabis, has revolved around a number of
arguments for and against reform. Some of these arguments are sup-
ported or refuted by empirical evidence to varying degrees, and oth-
ers are arguments which appeal to certain values without the need for
empirical evidence. One of the key arguments for decriminalisation
of personal cannabis use is that the recording of a criminal conviction
for such offences is a penalty that is out of proportion to the nature
of the offence, and that a conviction has significant negative social
impacts upon offenders who are otherwise law abiding. Indeed, it can
be argued that reducing penalties could lead to an increased deterrent
effect, as law enforcement would be less reluctant to charge offend-
ers when the punishment is more suited to the crime (38). Related to
this is the argument that the criminal prosecution approach entails a
greater encroachment upon individual rights and freedoms in the
name of drug law enforcement. It is further argued that decriminali-
sation of cannabis use would serve to separate the cannabis market
from the market for other illicit drugs, and send a message that
cannabis is not regarded by authorities in the same way as illicit drugs
such as heroin and amphetamines. Finally, another common argu-
ment is that a decriminalisation approach to cannabis use would free
up substantial law enforcement and criminal justice resources, and
reduce associated costs to the community (i i).
Those who argue against cannabis decriminalisation believe that
such an approach conveys a message to society, and especially the
young, that cannabis is not viewed as a serious issue, and that it car-
ries little risk, which may in turn lead to increased levels of use in the
community. Also, it is sometimes argued that a more liberal approach
to cannabis use may lead to greater use of other illicit drugs (the
"gateway theory"). It should be noted, however, that most young
people start using licit drugs (alcohol and tobacco) before using any
illicit drug. It is further argued that the principal licit drugs, alcohol
and tobacco, cause a substantial burden of illness and social prob-
lems in our society, and that a more liberal approach to cannabis use
may result in more health problems arising from its use. In the case
of the South Australian expiation approach, opponents of its imple-
mentation argued that it would make it easier for people to deal in
i6o JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY * VOL. ZI, NO. z
small amounts of cannabis, with a reduced risk

tion. Further, police would find it difficult to e
the-spot fines, and they would have their prof
mined (I I).
Regardless of one's position on these issues, it
icy debate, both in the United States and Austra
informed by research, and different legislative
introduced in different locations at different
planning for evaluating the impacts of the cha
them on an ongoing basis. Both sides of the debate have presumed
that certain impacts will result from changes in policy, with little or
no reference to empirical evidence.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this paper is to summarise and compare the impacts

of cannabis decriminalisation measures in Australia and the United
States. In each setting, evidence will be presented regarding the im-
pact on rates and patterns of use and indicators of cannabis-related
harm, as well as the impacts on the criminal justice system and to indi-
vidual users. The paper will also discuss the extent to which the impact
of decriminalisation can be properly gauged in each setting, including
the extent to which data are available and the comprehensiveness of
the evidence. The discussion will conclude with the implications for
drug policy reform in other countries, including recommendations
regarding the development of similar measures in other jurisdictions
based on the experience in Australia and the United States.
CANNABIS POLICY IN AUSTRALIA AND THE UNITED STATES
There are a number of potentially significant sim

ences between Australia and the United States in terms of cannabis
policy, as well as the underlying political and social environment in
which this policy operates. Australia and the United States are rela-
tively large countries, with climatic conditions that are favourable to
cannabis cultivation in large areas. Australia is relatively near to the
opium producing regions of Southeast Asia, while the U.S. is rela-
tively close to the cocaine producing regions of Colombia and other
parts of South America. Both countries have well developed market
economies. Both have federal systems of government in which state
governments have the primary jurisdiction over laws governing the
SINGLE ET AL. * CANNABIS DECRIMINALISATION i6i
use or trafficking in illicit drugs, and the c

state drug policy is an ongoing contentious issue in both countries.
Perhaps the key similarity between the two countries is the reliance
on criminal law to deter use. Even in those American and Australian
states which have "decriminalised" cannabis, possession is against
the law and subject to penalties. In both countries, the fundamental
response to drug problems is to expend considerable resources in sup-
ply interdiction and the enforcement of laws against the possession of
illicit drugs.
On the other hand, there are also dissimilarities between the two
countries with regard to the social and political environment in which
cannabis policy operates. Australia has a much smaller population
and it is more geographically isolated. Whereas Australia has no land
border with any other country, the U.S. has long borders with Mex-
ico and Canada, rendering the control of drug trafficking more
difficult. The United States has a somewhat greater disparity between
the highest and lowest income levels, and sharper racial and ethnic
divisions. While aboriginal health is certainly a salient and ongoing
issue in Australia, illicit drug use is not viewed as a racial issue, as it
is sometimes portrayed in the U.S. (40). The social welfare system is
more highly developed in Australia, and there is universal health care.
There are also important differences in the basic approach to drug
policy, the manner in which drug policy is developed, and the role
played by different socio-political groups on drug issues. In contrast to
the U.S. "War on Drugs" policies, the Australian National Drug Strat-
egy has been characterised by two distinctive features. First, whereas
American drug policy focuses exclusively on illicit drugs, the National
Drug Strategy is a comprehensive approach, including not only illicit
drugs but licit drugs such as alcohol. Second, the National Drug
Strategy is based on the principle of harm minimisation (I 4). Priority
is placed on reducing the negative consequences of drug use rather
than on necessarily eliminating drug use or ensuring abstinence.3
American drug policy, on the other hand, explicitly rejects harm
minimisation and focuses on the total elimination of drug use. The
basic approach to drug prevention is "zero-tolerance"4 and more
punitive. Senior police officials have publicly advocated capital pun-
ishment for drug offences (5:38), and William Bennett, Director of
the Office of National Drug Control Policy (the so-called "drug
czar") at the time, even suggested on a radio talk show that behead-
i6z JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY * VOL. ZI, NO. 2
ings might be a solution to the drug problem (32).

represents an extreme expression of the War on D
indicative of the context in which cannabis decrim
operate in the U.S. Decriminalisation has not received support from
federal authorities, and it is generally opposed by law enforcement
agencies and non-government organisations concerned with drug
issues. The reduction in penalties for any illicit drug is often seen as
inconsistent with the generally punitive approach to drug prevention.
In Australia, law enforcement has been much more supportive of
harm-minimisation measures such as cannabis decriminalisation (46).
Australian law enforcement officials are more likely than their Amer-
ican counterparts to view harm minimisation in a favourable light as
one means for implementing a new role of law enforcement embod-
ied in the concept of "community policing." Community policing
focuses on working with health professionals and community groups
to deal with underlying problems. In contrast, American law enforce-
ment agencies tend to view their role in drug enforcement more in
terms of the traditional police role of apprehending criminals (39).
Similarly, non-government organisations concerned with drug
issues are more likely to support cannabis decriminalisation and
other harm-minimisation policies in Australia (i). Drug user groups,
which receive government funding from communicable disease pre-
vention programmes, are another source of pressure for drug policy
reform in Australia. Such user groups are virtually non-existent in the
U.S. Indeed, the very same events in the two countries often lead to
exactly the opposite policy conclusions. While the premature death of
a drug-dependent person in the U.S. is generally seen as evidence
favouring even more pronounced efforts to enforce strict prohibition,
the families of Australian drug users who have died as a result of their
drug use often draw the opposite conclusion and see the death of their
family member as evidence of the failure of prohibitionist policies
and a strong indicator that drug policy should be changed.6
Thus, cannabis decriminalisation is more likely to be viewed as
inconsistent with general drug policy in the American context, but
confluent with the general drug strategy in the Australian context.7
There has been a great deal more overt public support for measures
such as cannabis decriminalisation in Australia than in the United
States. Throughout the I98os, a series of Gallup Polls found that ap-
proximately three-quarters of Americans oppose the legalisation of
marijuana (27). In contrast, a I993 Australian survey showed that

over half of the population indicated that personal use, possession
and cultivation of cannabis should be legal (6). The same study found
that approximately three-quarters of Australians believe that per-
sonal use, possession and cultivation should not be regarded as crim-
inal offences.
Australians are more likely to use cannabis, while Americans use
other illicit drugs more often than Australians. Table i presents the
results of the national household surveys regarding self-reported rates
of cannabis use in the respondents' lifetimes, in the previous iz
months, in the prior month, and in the past week.8 Rates of cannabis
use were approximately the same in both countries until the late
I980S, but in the past decade cannabis use has become more common
among Australians. In the United States, the proportion of respon-
dents reporting that they have ever used marijuana has increased
slowly since the late I970s. Rates of current use (use in the previous
iz months) declined in the U.S. from I4% in I985 to 8% in i99,z
and has remained relatively stable since then. Rates of monthly and
weekly use similarly declined in the U.S. from the mid-ig8os to the
early I99OS. The I996 and I997 U.S. national surveys found small
but statistically significant increases in cannabis use, particularly
among younger persons.
Australia did not experience similar declines in rates of current and
weekly cannabis use. Thus, survey results from I995, the most recent
year in which data are available from both countries, show higher
rates of use in the prior year (I3% in Australia versus 8% in the U.S.).
Furthermore, rates of weekly use are higher among Australians in the
two years in which comparable data are available. Donnelly and Hall
(I7) have noted that Australian cannabis users are more likely than
American users to report using it at least once a week (i I% in Aus-
tralia compared to 8% in the U.S.).
Table z presents selected findings from the young adult age group
(ages zo-zg) in the U.S. Monitoring the Future surveys (30), in com-
parison with a similar age group (ages i9-z8) in the Australian
national surveys. While the age groupings are not exactly the same, it
would appear that young Australians are more likely than their
American counterparts to use cannabis (4z.6% versus z6.5% in
I995). This corroborates the conclusion of Donnelly and Hall (I7)
regarding school-age adolescents in the two countries. They com-
V~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I OININI
ON I IO i"t I I E
fr~~~~ 000
ON > - H o It '01- -| + E
-o~~~~~~~~~~~
. N c - t
ON~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a
tt CN It 0 oc ~ ~ ~ ~ 0
< O .t d. O N~~0 0 .
ON
ON >
V H NONd
Ke<
I '< <t < t
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~V
H .. 0 -
00 Z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
H 1-4
S_ 6 d t H
00 00 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0) H
- Ht ,K 01H Id;
00~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
s ON NH NO IL X :t z S i
_ ON 00 bI I O 0 |4Z
ON D H -c, .0
-4 00 Z~~~~~~~
C0 ~- 0 X rf.
-4J
04~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0
0o IOIOO Io Ii 1 o I I 0 go Zo @ .0,
ON NN H H
~~~~ H ..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~~~~~ ~~~~.
stt r.~~~~ ~ -1
U V 0 .-~~~~r. C t 0 CZ A0 Z0~
S -z~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-
V 0.40) 0.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~c
N V o-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ o C
-o H 5 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0)~~~~~~~~~L .
> cn c
TABLE 2
Recent Trends in Marijuana and Other Illicit Drug Use Among Young
Adults in Australia and the United States
I988 I99I 1993 1995
Use of marijuana in past iz months

-Australia (aged 2o-29) 35.4 37.5 43.3 42.6
-United States (aged i9-28) 3I.8 23.8 25.I 26.5
Use of other illicit drug in past iz months
-Australia (aged 2o-29) 7.8 io.6 9.2 I0.9
-United States (aged i9-28) 2I.3 I4.3 I3.0 I 3.8
SOURCES: Australia: National Drug Strategy household surveys, cited in Tab

38 in Williams, Paul. Progress of the National Drug Strategy: Key National Indicators, Can-
berra: Dept of Health and Family Services, Publication Number 1ii6, I997.
United States: Table 8 in Johnson, L., O'Malley, P., and Bachman, J. Monitoring the Future,
Volume II: College and Young Adults. Washington: National Institutes of Health, I997.
pared the U.S. Monitoring the Future findings on secondary school

students to student surveys in New South Wales and Victoria and
noted higher rates of cannabis use in the Australian samples. On the
other hand, it can also be seen in Table z that young Americans are
more likely than their Australian counterparts to use other illicit drugs
(I3.8% versus IO.9%).
In both countries the socio-demographic portrait of a cannabis
user is that of a young, unattached male. Rates of use are highest
among single men in their late teens or early twenties (i6,5z). Cur-
rent marijuana use is highest among Blacks and lowest among His-
panics in the U.S. (5z). Unemployment is related to higher rates of
cannabis use and there are significant geographic differences in rates
of cannabis use in both countries. In the United States, rates of
cannabis use are relatively high in larger cities and in the Western
states (5z). In Australia, rates of use are highest in the Northern Ter-
ritory (5z% ever used, and zI% used in past Iz months in I995),
Australian Capital Territory (42% and i6%, respectively) and West-
ern Australia (37% and i6%, respectively). Use is least common in
Queensland, where z6% report ever using cannabis and only io%
used it in the past year (i6).
i66 JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY * VOL. 2I, NO. Z
THE IMPACT OF DECRIMINALISATION IN AUSTRALIA
South Australia was the first Australian jurisdict

expiation system for minor cannabis offences. Th
civil penalties" model (38) does not represent a complete decriminal-
isation of personal cannabis use, as the possibility remains for offend-
ers to receive criminal convictions if they do not pay expiation fees on
time.9 While similar expiation systems have since been introduced in
the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, this sec-
tion will focus primarily on the South Australian experience, as it has
been the focus of a number of evaluation studies (3, II,I 8,4z).
The South Australian Cannabis Expiation Notice (CEN) system
began in I987, after a period of intense community and political
debate in South Australia. The government at that time had pushed
strongly for a new approach to cannabis possession, partly on the
strength of the experience of US states which had adopted a less puni-
tive approach. The main arguments for an expiation system were the
potential cost savings and the reduction of negative social impacts
upon convicted minor cannabis offenders. Implicit in this second
view was the belief that the potential harms of using cannabis were
outweighed by the harms arising from criminal conviction.
Impacts on patterns of cannabis use
The potential impact of the introduction of the expiation approach

upon levels and patterns of cannabis use in South Australia has been
assessed in several drug use surveys, with each analysis adding more
recent data to the picture (e.g., I II81I9). None of the studies have
found an increase in cannabis use in the South Australian community
which is attributable to the introduction of the Cannabis Expiation
Notice scheme. Lifetime use of cannabis did increase significantly in
South Australia from z6% in 1985 to 36% in I995, but similar
increases were observed over the same period in jurisdictions with a
total prohibition approach to cannabis, such as Victoria and Tasma-
nia. Similarly, there was an Australia-wide increase in rates of weekly
cannabis use over the ten-year period from I985 to I995, and South
Australia did not differ from the rest of Australia on this indicator
(I9). A comparative study of minor cannabis offenders in South Aus-
tralia and Western Australia concluded that both the CEN scheme
and the more punitive prohibition approach had little deterrent effect
upon cannabis users (3). Offenders from both

that an expiation notice or conviction had little or no impact upon
subsequent cannabis and other drug use, and most subjects reported
that even if they were caught again, they would not stop using the
drug (3).
Impacts on law enforcement and criminal justice systems
The CEN scheme in South Australia had a major unanticipated effect

on rates of minor cannabis offence detection. The number of offences
for which cannabis expiation notices were issued increased from
around 6,ooo in I987/88 to approximately I7,000 in I993/94 and
subsequent years (Iz).10 This "net-widening" is not related to any
change in the pattern of cannabis use, but reflects the greater ease
with which police can process minor cannabis offences, and a shift
away from the use of police discretion in giving offenders informal
cautions, to a process of formally recording all minor offences.
Since the inception of the CEN scheme, the rate of payment of
expiation fees has remained low, at around 50%.11 Substantial num-
bers of minor cannabis offenders received a criminal conviction for a
cannabis offence as a result of their failure to pay expiation fees. The
burden which this placed on the courts was not as severe as one might
expect because significant numbers of those people who were issued
with a summons chose the option of pleading guilty in writing and
did not appear in person. The vast majority of those expiation mat-
ters dealt with by the courts resulted in convictions for the offenders,
with fines imposed similar to the original expiation fees, plus the
addition of court fees.
There has been strong support by law enforcement and criminal
justice personnel for the CEN scheme, and little support for a return
to the former approach among those administering and enforcing the
system (50).12 The CEN scheme has proven to be relatively cost-effec-
tive (8). The unit cost of issuing and processing an expiation notice,
when paid on time, is estimated at approximately $30 per case.13 The
total costs associated with the CEN scheme in I995/96 were esti-
mated to be around $i.z million (not including police time in detect-
ing the offence). Total revenue from fees and fines was estimated to
be around $I.7 million. The cost-effectiveness would obviously be
greater if the rate of expiation could be increased. It was also esti-
mated that, had a prohibition approach been in place in South Aus-
i68 JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY - VOL. 2I, NO. 2
tralia in the same year, the total cost would have been
lion, with revenue from fines of around $I million.
Knowledge, attitudes and other social impacts
In I993 residents of both South Australia and the Australian Capital

Territory, the only two jurisdictions with an expiation approach to
minor cannabis offences at that time, were significantly more misin-
formed than in other jurisdictions about the legal status of activities
relating to personal cannabis use (6). For example, 34% of South
Australian respondents and 43 % of those from the Australian Capi-
tal Territory incorrectly believed that it was legal to possess cannabis
for personal use, compared with less than io% of respondents from
most other jurisdictions.14 The introduction of the CEN scheme
appears to have given rise to misunderstanding in the community
regarding the legal status of personal cannabis use, and of the impli-
cations of not paying.15
Interviews with cannabis offenders who had been issued with expi-
ation notices showed a range of perceived impacts. A substantial pro-
portion indicated that dealing with the CEN caused them financial
hardship, and a majority felt that the fines were unreasonable.
Respondents from Western Australia, a prohibition state at the time
of the study, were found, compared with the South Australian sam-
ple, to be more fearful and less trusting of police after their offence
detection. In addition, Western Australian offenders were more likely
than South Australian offenders to report difficulties in obtaining or
staying in employment following their offence detection, and to
report relationship and accommodation difficulties stemming from
their offence. Offenders from the two jurisdictions did not differ with
respect to their experience of overseas travel difficulties, their percep-
tions of themselves as criminals, or their self-reported drug use after
their offence (34).
Implementation issues and problems
As noted earlier, there have been ongoing implementation problems

regarding the "net-widening" and the low rate of expiation (4z).
Large numbers of expiation notices are being served by the police,
and most offenders who do not pay the expiation fee receive a crim-
inal conviction (i z). Thus, an unintended consequence of the CEN
scheme has been that the number of persons criminalised is as large
or perhaps even greater than before the measur

common reason cited by offenders for the f
fees is financial hardship (z6). Another reason i
cannabis expiation notices are issued in the co
being laid, for which a court appearance is r
unknown and presumably small number of case
or false identifying information provided by o
detection, so that the case cannot be prosecut
Perhaps the most important reason for the lo
the level of misunderstanding of the cannabi
quences of failure to pay expiation fines. Of a g
did not expiate minor cannabis offences, th
that they were not aware that they would have
result of not paying expiation fees (z6). The f
to realise that cannabis possession is not legal
lack of understanding of the legal consequences
ation options, highlight the importance of p
details and impact of legislative changes.
In recognition that large numbers of peopl
criminal convictions for minor cannabis offe
lian government has introduced changes to t
for expiable cannabis offences in order to i
offenders who opt to pay their expiation fees.
for payment of expiation fees by installments
tute community service for the payment of fe
how these new options will affect the outcom
Other implementation issues include the im
efficient data recording and management sy
particularly where expiation-type offence d
from criminal justice data. It is important t
comes, including final disposition and penalt
matters which progress to formal prosecution.
an easy task for many jurisdictions, because
penalty information are often maintained s
repeat offenders, a reliable system of keepi
offences issued to the same person needs to
procedures are also required to help police t
offenders when issuing offence notices, and to
ers if necessary. This may not necessitate ext
I70 JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY - VOL. 2I, NO. I
sures, but only the more rigorous application of existing procedu

for demanding proof of identity from offenders.
A further implementation problem in the South Australia CEN
scheme concerns the ten-plant limit for the expiable cannabis culti-
vation offence. This was initially justified as a reasonable number of
plants for personal cannabis users to have in cultivation, as growers
would probably lose some plants in the course of the growing cycle,
and regular users could supply their own needs by harvesting only
what they required from the growing plants. In reality, whole
cannabis plants are usually harvested when mature. When even one
cannabis plant is harvested, the grower faces the risk of being
detected with a non-expiable amount of perhaps a kilogram or more
of dried cannabis, the limit for personal possession being ioo grams.
With improvements in hydroponic techniques as well as the cloning
and hybridisation of cannabis plants, the loss of plants has been
reduced and yield increased. Therefore, it has been argued that three
plants in cultivation would be a more appropriate limit for expiation.
THE IMPACT OF DECRIMINALISATION IN THE U.S.
In the United States, there was a movement in f

marijuana laws throughout the I970S. Widespread and increasing
use of marijuana despite its criminalisation had led to substantial
enforcement and court costs, and public attitudes were becoming
more accepting of marijuana use. In October I973, Oregon reduced
the offence of possession of less than I oz. of marijuana to a civil vio-
lation, with a maximum penalty of a $ioo fine. From I973 to I978,
io other states enacted legislation which reduced the maximum pen-
alties for cannabis possession to a fine (45).17
Impact on cannabis use
The available data indicate that these decriminalisation measures

substantially reduced enforcement costs, yet had little or no impact
on rates of use. Statewide evaluations of decriminalisation measures
were conducted in Oregon (zo), Maine (36), Ohio (48) and Califor-
nia (io). In Oregon, a series of studies conducted after the change in
law (zo) indicated no major change in rates of use, but given the lack
of data prior to the change (other than retrospective questions of
dubious reliability) no conclusive interpretation of the results is pos-
sible. In Maine, a similar ex post facto study by the Maine Office of
Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Prevention (36) resulted in a very posi-
SINGLE ET AL. * CANNABIS DECRIMINALISATION I7I
tive assessment of a decriminalisation measure, despite the lack of

data from before the change in law. In Ohio and California, surveys
were conducted before and after changes in the law regarding
cannabis possession. In Ohio, a decriminalisation measure went into
effect in November I975. Among those aged i8-z4, use increased
from z7% in I974 to 33% in I978 (48), while among those aged
z5-34 use increased from 6% in I974 to I9% in I978. In California
(io), the proportion of adults reporting that they had ever used
marijuana increased from z8% in February I975 to 35% in Novem-
ber I976, eleven months before and after "decriminalisation." Thus,
all four state-wide evaluations of decriminalisation measures found
modest increases in rates of self-reported use. The authors of all of
these studies chose to interpret the increases as insignificant, deeming
the decriminalisation measures to be successful, although the very same
data might well have been used to support the opposite conclusion.
The major limitation with these early evaluations was the lack of
control groups or comparative data to provide an estimate of what
one might have expected the rates of use to be if there had been no
change in the law. Three studies conducted in the mid-I97os did
include some form of control group. Stuart and his colleagues (49)
concluded that marijuana use was not affected by several changes in
municipal cannabis laws, including a decriminalisation measure pro-
viding for a maximum penalty of a $5 fine, in the community of Ann
Arbor when compared to three neighbouring communities in Michi-
gan.18 A secondary analysis of four national surveys conducted in the
U.S. between I972 and I977 found no changes in marijuana use that
could be attributed to decriminalisation (43,45). States which mod-
erated penalties after I974 (essentially a group of decriminalisation
states) experienced an increase in marijuana use, among both adoles-
cents (age I2-I7) and adults (age I8 or older), but marijuana use
increased even more in states which had the most severe penalties.
The third controlled study involves the Monitoring the Future
national surveys of high school students. Johnston (z8) oversampled
seniors in the decriminalisation states and concluded that "Decrimi-
nalization has had virtually no effect either on the marijuana use or
on related attitudes and beliefs about marijuana use among American
young people in this age group" (29:z7, italics in original).19
The underlying reason why decriminalisation did not lead to
increased cannabis use may well be that the reduction in penalties
under decriminalisation laws did not appear to have any appreciable
impact on availability (5 z). There is no apparent connection betw

the trends in use and the trends in perceived availability. While
cannabis use remained relatively constant in the first half of the
decade and then increased slightly from I995 to I997, there was rel-
atively little change in perceived availability, with approximately
6o% of Americans reporting that it is "fairly easy" or "very easy" to
obtain marijuana throughout the I990s (52).
Changes in rates of use appear to be more strongly connected with
changing perceptions of health risks rather than availability or any
changes in the legal status of the drug. The upward trend in cannabis
use during the I970S in both the decriminalisation and non-decrimi-
nalisation states did not continue into the next decade. In the I980S
and early I990S cannabis use declined throughout the U.S. (5 I). Atti-
tudes became less accepting of cannabis use, particularly among
young persons, in both "decriminalised" and non-decriminalised
states. For example, annual surveys of students in California, a
decriminalisation state, found a trend toward less accepting attitudes
toward marijuana use (48). Nationally, only zz% of college freshmen
supported legalisation of marijuana in I985, compared with 53 % in
I977 (4). In I997, 58% of high school seniors thought that there is
great risk of harming oneself from smoking marijuana regularly,
compared with only 35 % in I978 (30).
As seen in Figure I, there is a clear relationship in the U.S. National
Household Survey on Drug Abuse between perceived health risk and
cannabis use from I985-I997 among those aged I '2-I7. One cannot
be certain of the causal relationship without longitudinal data. None-
theless, it is noteworthy that as perceived health risk increased in the
late I980s, rates of cannabis use declined. As perceived health risk
diminished in the mid-Iggos, rates of cannabis use began to rise again.
Impacts on public use and the health care system
Impressionistic evidence indicates there was no increase in the use of

marijuana in public places. The National Governors' Conference
evaluation of marijuana policy in eight states, five of which had
"decriminalised" marijuana, concluded: "There is also concern that
increased public display and use may occur as a result of decriminal-
isation. Our interviews have indicated that this has not occurred to
any substantial extent" (4I:I). There was little evidence of any
significant impacts on the health care system (45). Given the difficul-
FIGURE I
Trends in Cannabis Use and Perceived Risk of Cannab

U.S. Population Aged I2-I7, I98 5-I997
70
60
Proportion reporting
50 - cannabis use in the past
month
40 0 -N o ; - Proportion perceiving
_0 ~monthly use as "serious"
30 - p health risk
- -- - Proportion perceiving
20 - weekly use as "serious"
health risk
10
0- I I I I I I I I
1985 1988 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997
ties in detecting intoxication from cannabis consumption, ther

also virtually no evidence concerning impact on the incidence of
ving under the influence of cannabis.
Impacts on drug enforcement costs and priorities
The beneficial consequences of decriminalisation consist mainly

savings to law enforcement and the criminal justice system. In
the decriminalisation states, there were reductions in the number
nature of marijuana cases processed through the law enforcement
system (45 ).20 There is some evidence that law enforcement in the
decriminalisation states redirected efforts toward the detection and
arrest of more serious offences and other illicit drugs. In California,
marijuana possession charges declined by 36% in the first year but
charges other than simple possession (e.g., possession with intent to
sell, trafficking, etc.) did not decline, as indicated by an increase in
felony arrests (z). As the result, there were declines in the processing
of cannabis possession offenders, decreases in incarceration and
increases in revenues from fines, and the total cost of marijuana
enforcement declined substantially. For example, in California the
total cost of marijuana enforcement declined from $I7 million in the
first half of I975 to under $4.4 million in the first half of I976 (IO).21
174 JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY * VOL. 2I, NO. 2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Decriminalisation measures in the U.S. and Austra

radical than their name implies. The new laws inv
penalties whereby cannabis-possession offenders
ject to potential jail terms, which had already been an uncommon
sentence in most jurisdictions, as well as providing the opportunity
for possession offenders to avoid a criminal conviction and the resul-
tant problems. In both countries, these so-called decriminalisation
laws did not appear to have had a major impact on rates of use, as
many feared that it might have.
In Australia, the expiation model of decriminalisation succeeded in
avoiding the imposition of criminal convictions for many offenders.
However, substantial numbers of offenders still received convictions
because of a general "net-widening" in cannabis offence detections,
and the failure of a substantial proportion of offenders to pay expia-
tion fees on time, due in large part to a poor understanding by
cannabis users of the legal consequences of not clearing expiation
offences. Despite these problems, the expiation approach has been
viewed as a success by a majority of law enforcement and criminal
justice personnel, although some implementation and ongoing oper-
ational difficulties have been raised. The expiation approach appears
to be more cost-effective compared to a system of prohibition and
prosecution of minor cannabis offences. In terms of deterrence, both
the expiation and total prohibition approaches to cannabis use seem
to be equally ineffective in lessening cannabis use by offenders and by
the general population. No increase in use could be ascribed to the
decriminalisation measure.
In the United States, decriminalisation resulted in substantial savings
to drug enforcement, due to lower numbers of cannabis-possession
cases and increases in revenues from fines. These enforcement resources
were generally redirected toward the enforcement of trafficking
offences and laws regarding other drugs. It cannot be claimed that de-
criminalisation laws eliminated the social costs and adverse individ-
ual consequences associated with cannabis prohibition, but it would
appear that decriminalisation succeeded in reducing enforcement costs
without increasing the health and safety hazards associated with use.
Despite the weight of evidence, decriminalisation has not been uni-
versally viewed as a success in the United States. This may be in part
due to lack of conclusive data-although these measures received
considerable attention by the public and in the media, no national

study on the impact of decriminalisation has ever been commissioned.
There is also an ongoing fear that cannabis decriminalisation might
lead to the liberalisation of policies regarding other illicit drugs.
In order to assess and compare the impact of cannabis decriminal-
isation measures, it is important to consider the goals of cannabis
policy. In the United States, the express purpose of cannabis policy is
the prevention or cessation of use, while in Australia the focus is
placed on minimising the harms associated with use. While this rep-
resents a significant difference in strategies to achieve the goals of
drug policy, the explicit aim in both countries is essentially the same:
to minimise the health and safety hazards associated with drug use.
But there is implicitly a second goal to drug policy that is not often
expressed: to minimise the social costs and adverse individual conse-
quences that result from attempts to control use. There are always
limits, financial and otherwise, regarding the extent to which efforts
may be placed on reducing the harms associated with drug use. Thus,
policy considerations always entail balancing the benefits of public
policy against the costs involved in carrying out that policy. Decrim-
inalisation measures should therefore be judged not only in terms of
their impacts on cannabis use and associated consequences to public
health and safety, but also in terms of their impacts on reducing
enforcement and other social costs involved in controlling cannabis
use. When this dualistic standard is applied to the impact of decrim-
inalisation measures in Australia and the United States, we arrived at
the following conclusions:
- The reduction of maximum penalties for cannabis possession to ex-

clude the possibility of receiving a jail sentence has had no dis-
cernible impact on rates of cannabis use or problems associated with
cannabis use. This was true in all of the jurisdictions in Australia
and the United States that enacted decriminalisation measures.
- Decriminalisation has led to substantial savings in drug enforcement
and other social costs. The extent to which these savings are
realised, however, is strongly moderated by the manner in which
these measures are implemented. In the case of the Cannabis Ex-
piation Notice system of South Australia, cost savings have also been
realised, despite "net-widening" and an unexpectedly low rate of
payment of expiation fines. Clearly, even greater savings would be
realised if the rate of expiation payments had been greater.
176 JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY * VOL. Z1, NO. z
- The conceptualisation of cannabis-related problems and associated

policy responses is more important than empirical evidence in both
the public and policy-maker perceptions of the impact of decrimi-
nalisation. Although the empirical evidence indicates that decrim-
ialisation in the U.S. has been a model of successful legal reform,
reducing costs without affecting rates of use, decriminalisation is
more often viewed as a success in Australia where implementation
problems rendered similar measures to be somewhat less success-
ful. One cannot help but wonder if public opinion on decriminal-
isation in both countries is based more on preconceived notions of
appropriate drug policy rather than empirical evidence.
- Part of the reason why ideology plays a key role in the perceived
impact of cannabis decriminalisation is that the empirical evidence
is generally inadequate. Decriminalisation measures have been typi-
cally enacted without concern for evaluation or monitoring of
impact. In the U.S., no study of the impact of cannabis decrimi-
nalisation at the national level has ever been commissioned. Those
evaluations which have been commissioned at the state level tend
to be restricted to data collected after the change in policy and
without the development of a consensus concerning appropriate
success indicators.
- The manner in which decriminalisation measures are implemented
by law enforcement and criminal justice officials can influence the
health and social impacts of these measures. In South Australia,
the apparent lack of education for the public, and for cannabis
offenders in particular, about the status of cannabis use offences
under the expiation model, seems to have led to a general under-
estimation of the seriousness of personal use offences, and conse-
quently an unexpectedly high proportion of unpaid expiation fees
and resultant convictions for fee defaulting.
In light of these conclusions, the following recommendations are

offered for those jurisdictions considering the enactment of decrimi-
nalisation measures:
- Decriminalisation and similar law reform measures should be sub-

ject to systematic evaluation of impact. These could include fac-
tors such as: collection of baseline data before new legislative mea-
sures are implemented; establishment of ongoing data collection
and monitoring systems for offence statistics; regular updates
regarding the impact on patterns of use, as measured by popula-
tion surveys of drug use; establishment of system

costs of enforcement; and surveys of offenders a
to gauge unintended consequences.
- Issues and potential problems of implementation should be fully
considered and, in so far as possible, dealt with. Consideration
should be given to alternative procedures that might avoid imple-
mentation problems, e.g., the provision of delayed payment
or payment in instalments in an expiation system. The South
Australian experience with the expiation approach has high-
lighted the importance of being prepared to "fine tune" the oper-
ational parameters of the system to achieve greater efficiency, and
the need for public awareness to be enhanced regarding any
changes to legislative approach for such a widespread activity as
cannabis use.
- The relevant impacts to be considered and the specific success
indicators should be developed in close consultation with all rele-
vant parties, including public health agencies, law enforcement
agencies, social welfare agencies, users, and non-government
organisations. Impacts should include not only rates of use but
also patterns of use likely to lead to harm, harm indicators,
impacts on law enforcement practices and priorities, impacts on
the courts and penal system, economic impacts, and the extent to
which users are marginalised by a particular policy.
- The enactment of decriminalisation and similar legal reforms
should be timed such that relevant data can be collected prior to
as well as after the change in policy.
- The evaluation of impact and monitoring of success indicators
should not only consider impacts over a relatively short period of
time such as one or two years, but also longer term impacts.
The reduction of penalties for cannabis possession to exclude

incarceration as a possible sentence is in many ways a model of suc-
cessful drug law reform, with clear benefits and little, if any, adverse
consequences. The key aspect of cannabis decriminalisation is that it
does not appear to lead to increases in availability, use, or problems
associated with cannabis use. There are several reasons for this. Con-
trols over cannabis availability probably have had less impact on
cannabis use and cannabis problems than they do with regard to
other illicit drugs. Cannabis is a drug with limited addictive potential.
Its effects are often described as pleasant, but it is not as strongly rein-
forcing as other illicit drugs such as hero

which is more likely to lead to compulsive or dependent use.
Cannabis use is very popular, being by far the most widely used
illicit drug in both countries. The cannabis market has been described
in the U.S. as being "near-saturation" (23), and this would probably
also apply to Australia as well. Most people know someone who
could either obtain cannabis for them or put them in touch with
someone who could. While thousands of young persons have been
arrested and criminally processed for cannabis possession, the risk of
arrest is probably much smaller than it is for cocaine, heroin or other
illicit drugs. The major constraint on cannabis use is concern about
adverse health effects rather than fear of legal consequences.
Under these circumstances, it should not be surprising that the
reduction of penalties for cannabis possession to a fine only, did not
lead to significant changes in rates of cannabis use. The success of
decriminalisation should not be taken to indicate that the use of
cannabis is without risk or that legalisation would also have little or
no impact. Cannabis use can become compulsive, problems may
result even from casual use, and a sudden expansion of availability
under a legalisation system could well lead to significant increases in
rates of use and consequently on the number of persons who experi-
ence problems as a result of their use. But decriminalisation has not
changed the availability or use of cannabis in a significant manner.
Thus, decriminalisation succeeded in reducing social costs without
increasing the problems associated with use in the U.S. and Australia,
but this success should not be interpreted to indicate that the same
impacts would necessarily apply either to the legalisation of cannabis
or to the decriminalisation of other illicit drugs.
Acknowledgments: The authors wish to acknowledge the constructive sug-

gestions of David Duncan, James Mosher, and Thomas Nicholson in pre-
paring this paper.
REFERENCES
i. Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia (ADCA). Discussion

Paper on Cannabis. Canberra: Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Aus-
tralia, I993.
z. Aldrich, M., and Mikuriya, T. "Savings in California Marijuana Law

Enforcement Costs Attributable to the Moscone Act of I976-a Sum-
mary," J. Psychoactive Drugs zo (I988): 75-8I.
3. Ali, R., Christie, P., Lenton, S., Hawks, D., Sutton, A., Hall, W., & All-
sop, S. The Social Impacts of the Cannabis Expiation Notice Scheme in
South Australia. Canberra: Department of Health and Aged Care, I999.
4. Astin, A., Green, K., and Korn, W. The American Freshman: Twenty-
year Trends, 1966-1985. Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA,
Los Angeles, I987.
5. Beers, D. "Just Say Whoa!" Mother Jones July/August I99I: 36-43 &
52-56.
6. Bowman, J., and Sanson-Fisher, R. Public Perceptions of Cannabis Leg-
islation. National Drug Strategy Monograph Series, No. 28. Canberra:
Department of Human Services and Health, I994.
7. Brecher, E. M., and the editors of Consumer Reports. "Marijuana: The
Health Questions/ The Legal Question," Contemporary Drug Problems
4 (I975): II5.
8. Brooks, A., Stothard, C., Moss, J., Christie, P., and Ali, R. Cost
ated with the Operation of the Cannabis Expiation Notice Scheme in
South Australia. National Drug Strategy Monograph Series. Canberra:
Department of Health and Aged Care, I999.
9. Brownell, G. "Marijuana and the Law in California: A Historical and
Political Overview," J. Psychoactive Drugs 2o (I988): 7I-74.
io. Budman, K. A First Report of the Impact of California's New Marijuana
Law (SB95). State Office of Narcotics and Drug Abuse, Sacramento,
California, I977.
ii. Christie, P. The Effects of Cannabis Legislation in South Australia on
Levels of Cannabis Use. Adelaide: Drug and Alcohol Services Council,
I99I.
iz. Christie, P. Cannabis Offences Under the Cannabis Expiation Notice

Scheme in South Australia. National Drug Strategy Monograph Series,
No. 3 5. Canberra: Department of Health and Aged Care, I999.
i 3. Collins, D., and Lapsley, H. The Social Costs of Drug Abuse in Australia
in 1988 and 1922. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Human
Services and Health, National Drug Strategy Monograph No. 30, I996.
I4. Commonwealth Department of Health, Housing, Local Government
and Community Services. National Strategic Drug Plan 1993-97. Can-
berra: Australian Government Publishing Service, I993.
i 5. Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services. Statistics on
Drug Abuse in Australia I994. Canberra: Department of Health and
Family Services, I994.
i6. Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services. National
i8o JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY * VOL. ZI, NO. 2
Drug Strategy Household Survey: Survey Report I1995. Canberra:

Department of Health and Family Services, i996.
I7. Donnelly, N., and Hall, W. Patterns of Cannabis Use in Australia. NDS
Monograph No. 27, Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service,
I994.
I8. Donnelly, N., Hall, W., & Christie, P. "The Effects of Decriminalisation
on Cannabis Use in South Australia I98 5-I993," Australian Journal of
Public Health I9 (I995): 28I-87.
I9. Donnelly, N., Hall, W., & Christie, P. Effects of the Cannabis Expiation
Notice Scheme on Levels and Patterns of Cannabis Use in South Aus-
tralia: Evidence from the National Drug Strategy Household Surveys
I985-1995. Canberra: Department of Health and Aged Care, I999.
20. Drug Abuse Council. Marijuana Survey-State of Oregon, News
Releases. Washington, D.C., I974-I977.
2I. Dupont, R. "Two Prongs in a Winnable Assault on Drugs," The New
York Times, September 26, I984: A22.
22. Fulton, M., Clark, R., and Robinson, T. The Decriminalization of Mar-
ijuana and the Maine Criminal Justice System: A Time/Cost Analysis,
November. Maine Office of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Prevention,
Augusta, Me., I979.
23. Goode, E. Drugs in American Society, Fourth Edition. New York:
McGraw-Hill, I993.
24. Harwood, H., Fountain, D., and Livermore, G. The Economic Costs of
Alcohol and Drug Abuse in the United States 1992. Rockville, Mary-
land: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, I998.
25. Heale, P., Hawks, D., and Lenton, S. Public Awareness, Knowledge and
Attitudes Regarding the CEN System in South Australia. Perth: National
Centre for Research into the Prevention of Drug Abuse, 1999.
26. Humeniuk, R., Brooks, A., Christie, P., Ali, R., & Lenton, S. Social
Impacts and Characterisation of Offenders under the Cannabis Expia-
tion Notice Scheme in South Australia. Adelaide: Drug and Alcohol Ser-
vices Council, i999.
27. Inciardi, J., and McBride, D. "The Case Against Legalization," pp.
45-79 in Inciardi, J., ed. The Drug Legalization Debate. Newbury Park,
California, I99I.
z8. Johnston, L., "Marijuana Use and the Effects of Marijuana Decriminal-
ization," Testimony Presented at Hearings on the Effects of Marijuana
Held by Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, U.S. Senate Judiciary Com-
mittee, January I6, I980; available from Institute for Social Research,
University of Michigan.
29. Johnston, L., O'Mally, P., and Bachman, J. "Marijuana Decriminaliza-
tion: the Impact on Youth I975-I980," Monitoring the Future Occa-
SINGLE ET AL. * CANNABIS DECRIMINALISATION i8i
sional Paper Series, paper 13, Institute for Soc

Michigan, I98I.
30. Johnson, L., O'Malley, P., and Bachman, J. National Survey Results on
Drug Use from the Monitoringthe Future Study, 1975-1977, Volume I: Sec-
ondary School Students. Washington: National Institutes of Health, I998.
3 I. Johnson, L., O'Malley, P., and Bachman, J. National Survey Results on
Drug Use from the Monitoring the Future Study, 1975-1977, Volume II:
College Students and Young Adults, Washington: National Institutes of
Health, I998.
32. Lazare, D. "The Drug War Is Killing Us," The Village Voice, January 23,
I990: 22-29.
33. LeDain, G. Final Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Non-
medical Use of Drugs. Ottawa: Canadian Government Publishing Ser-
vice, I972.
34. Lenton, S., Christie, P., Humeniuk, R., Brooks, A., Bennett, M., and
Heale, P. Infringement Versus Conviction: The Social Impact of a Minor
Cannabis Offence Under a Civil Penalties System and Strict Prohibition
in Two Australian States. Canberra: Department of Health and Aged
Care, I999.
35. Lenton, S., and Single, E. "The Definition of Harm Reduction," Drug
and Alcohol Review I 7 (i 99 8): 2 I 3-20.
3 6. Maine Office of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Prevention. An Evaluation
of the Decriminalization of Marijuana in Maine. Office of Alcoholism
and Drug Abuse Prevention, Augusta, Me., I979.
3 7. Makkai, T., and McAllister, I. Marijuana in Australia: Patterns and Atti-
tudes, NDS Monograph No. 3I. Canberra: Australian Government
Printing Service, I997.
3 8. McDonald, D., Moore, R., Norberry, J., Wardlaw, G., & Ballenden, N.
Legislative Options for Cannabis in Australia. National Drug Strategy
Monograph Series, No. 26. Canberra: Department of Human Services
and Health, I994.
39. McDowell, D. "Law Enforcement," pp. 94-IO9 in: Australian Institute
of Criminology, Comparative Analysis of Illicit Drug Strategy, National
Campaign Against Drug Abuse Monograph No. I8. Canberra: Aus-
tralian Government Printing Service, I99z.
40. Musto, D. The American Disease: Origins of Narcotic Control, znd ed.,
New Haven: Yale University Press, I987.
4I. National Governors' Conference. Marijuana: A Study of State Policies
and Penalties, 3 vols., Center for Policy Research and Analysis, Wash-
ington, D.C., I977.
42. Sarre, R., Sutton, A., & Pulsford, T. Cannabis-The Expiation Ap-
proach. Adelaide: South Australian Attorney-General's Department, I989.
i8z JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY * VOL. 2I, NO. Z
43. Saveland, W., and Bray, D. American Trends in Cannabis Use Among
States with Different and Changing Legal Regimes. Bureau of Tobacco
Control and Biometrics, Health and Welfare, Canada, Ottawa, I980.
44. Shafer Commission. Marijuana: Signal of Misunderstanding, First
Report of the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., I972.
45. Single, E. "The Impact of Marijuana Decriminalization: An Update,"
Journal of Public Health Policy io (I989), 456-66.
46. Single, E., and Rohl, T. The National Drug Strategy: Mapping the
Future, Report Commissioned by the Ministerial Council of Drug Strat-
egy. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Serivce, Publication
No. 20I4, I997.
47. Sommer, R. "Two Decades of Marijuana Attitudes: the More it Changes
the More it Is the Same," J. of Psychoactive Drugs zo (I980): 67-70.
48. Spitzner, J., Drug Use in Ohio: 1978. Ohio Bureau of Drug Abuse,
Columbus, Ohio, I979.
49. Stuart, R., Guire, K., and Krell, M., "Penalty for the Possession of Mar-
ijuana: An Analysis of Some of its Concomitants," Contemporary Drug
Problems 5 (I976): 553.
50. Sutton, A., and McMillan, E. A Review of Law Enforcement and Other
Criminal Justice Attitudes, Policies and Practices Regarding Cannabis
Laws in South Australia. National Drug Strategy Monograph Series.
Canberra: Department of Health and Aged Care, I999.
5 I. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Household
Survey on Drug Abuse: Main Findings 1996, Washington: Department
of Health and Human Services, I998.
5z. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preliminary Results
from the 1997 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Washington:
Department of Health and Human Services, I998.
5 3. Williams, P. Progress of the National Drug Strategy: Key National Indi-
cators. Canberra: Dept. of Health and Human Services, Publication
Number ZII6, I997.
ENDNOTES
i. The U.S. figure is taken from Table 6.z in Harwood et al.

not include private expenditures such as legal counsel fees. Wh
estimates from both the U.S. and Australian studies include th
enforcing laws against drug trafficking and against the possession of
illicit drugs other than cannabis, it is likely that a substantial proportion
of these total drug enforcement costs are due to cannabis possession
SINGLE ET AL. * CANNABIS DECRIMINALISATION 183
because such cases constitute a high proportion of all drug charges in

both countries.
z. To be effective in deterring a particular behaviour, punishment should
also be perceived as swift. Evidence is lacking regarding the average
length of time that it takes from detection to punishment for cannabis
offences, but this requirement for effective deterrence may also be lacking.
3. Harm minimisation is not in conflict with abstinence-oriented interven-
tions, as harm reduction programmaes are often the first step towards
abstinence (35). Nor does it necessarily imply support for drug legalisa-
tion, as there are clearly ways of implementing harm minimisation pro-
grammes while maintaining drug prohibition in the general population.
4. In the words of the president of the American Council for Drug Education:
"That means no drug use in the schools, none in the workplace, none on
the highways and none in the families. Sanctions need to be swift, effec-
tive, and broadly supported by all segments of our society" (zi).
5. Mr. Bennett was quoted as saying: "Legally, it might be difficult. But ...
somebody selling drugs to a kid? Morally, I don't have any problem with
that at all" (3z).
6. One of the authors of this article evaluated the National Drug Strategy on
behalf of the Commonwealth government in i996-97 (46). After com-
pleting their report, the evaluators received several letters from dis-
traught parents whose children had died from drug overdose. A com-
mon reaction was to question the wisdom of marginalising drug users,
driving them away from help that might have saved their children's lives.
As one parent put it: "Something's wrong with our current system-
whatever it is that we are doing isn't working. We've got to find a better
way of dealing with drugs in our community."
7. The greater underlying support for drug law reform in Australia should
not be overstated. There are some non-government organisations and
law enforcement officials in Australia opposed to any changes in prohi-
bitionist policy, and there are significant groups in the United States who
are devoted to drug policy reform.
8. It is difficult to compare rates of cannabis use in Australia and in the
United States. National surveys in each country have been conducted at
different times and using differently worded questions on drug use.
There are two series of national surveys in the United States: a national
household survey conducted by the National Institute of Drug Abuse
since I977z (5 I,5z), and ongoing surveys of youth and young adults enti-
tled Monitoring the Future (30,3I). In Australia, the National Drug
Strategy conducted national household surveys in I985, I988, I99I,
I993 and I995 (I55i6).
9. Under the South Australian Cannabis Expiation Notice (CEN) Scheme,
I84 JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY * VOL. ZI, NO. Z
persons detected for a minor cannabis offence by police can be issued

with an expiation notice, or "on-the-spot" fine. The CEN can be cleared
by payment of the prescribed expiation fee within 30 to 6o days,
depending on the amount of fines. Failure to pay the fees within the pay-
ment period typically results in the recording of a criminal conviction for
a cannabis offence. The exceptions are when a case is dismissed or the
defendant is found not guilty, but this occurs in only a minority of cases.
The expiation fees range from $50 to $I5o, and apply to offences
involving possession of up to ioo grams of cannabis or zo grams of
cannabis resin, possession of equipment for consuming cannabis, or cul-
tivating up to io cannabis plants.
io. This phenomenon had been anticipated by Sarre et al. (4z) in their eval-
uation of the first nine months of operation of the CEN scheme. While
not apparent at that time, they highlighted this "net-widening" as a
likely emerging issue, referring to an expected increase in the numbers of
minor cannabis offences formally dealt with under the expiation model.
i i. The reasons for the low rate of expiation are discussed later.
i z. Common reasons cited in support of the scheme were its perceived cost-
efficiency, its convenience for law enforcement officers, and its capacity
to lessen negative social impacts associated with conviction. The main
concern expressed by the law enforcement sector related to the work of
the Drug Task Force. Specialist drug law enforcement personnel felt that
the limit of up to ten cannabis plants in cultivation that could be dealt
with via expiation was too high, and had led to criminal groups exploit-
ing the expiation scheme by spreading commercial cultivation enter-
prises in separate plots of ten plants. These law enforcement personnel
argued strongly for a reduction in the expiable number of plants to three
or four.
I 3. The unit costs increased significantly if the matter progressed to court or
if alternative payments options were used.
I4. A more recent evaluation of the expiation scheme in South Australia
showed that little change in awareness has occurred: z4% of a I997
sample thought that possession of less than ioo grams of cannabis was
legal, and 5 3 % believed it was legal to grow up to three cannabis plants
for personal use. Furthermore, only 40% of this sample knew that
there was some legal consequence associated with expiable cannabis
offences (z5).
I 5. It is difficult to gauge whether the CEN scheme has had any impact upon
the attitudes of the general population towards cannabis use. Given the
poor understanding of the scheme, it would seem unlikely that the
scheme has brought about significant change in community attitudes.
The South Australian community seems to be fairly tolerant of personal
SINGLE ET AL. * CANNABIS DECRIMINALISATION 185
cannabis use, but not of activities relating to comme

cannabis (z5). Comparable trend data are not available
tralia does not appear to be different from other ju
respect.
I6. An important aspect of the most recent research loo
(i z), was that the available data for cannabis expiation
be readily linked with subsequent court or other outc
where offenders failed to pay expiation fees. Expiati
South Australia since I987 have been kept separately f
tice data, partly because payment of an expiation fee
constitute an admission of guilt. There has also never be
identify repeat offenders in South Australia, irrespectiv
recidivists pay expiation fees on time or not. This co
more recently implemented system of formal caution
offences in Victoria, where the identification of repeat
feature of the scheme.
I7. In some cases, the maximum penalty of a fine is applied
ers only. Oregon later rescinded its decriminalisation
referendum in I998. Another state enacted a decrimin
in this time period and later repealed it. South Dakota r
imum penalty for possession of less than i oz. of mariju
in April of I997, but this law was subsequently rep
prohibition of marijuana possession in the privacy of
held by the state's highest court to be unconstitutio
cannabis possession was recriminalized in I990 (23).
time, there have been between 9 and i i states with
laws which reduced the penalty for cannabis possessio
I8. The original purpose of the study was not to assess the impact of
changes in cannabis law. However, over the brief course of the study,
Ann Arbor unexpectedly went through four major changes in cannabis
policy: a reduction of penalties (but still involving possible imprison-
ment), decriminalisation (maximum penalty of a $5 fine), reinstatement
of severe penalties, and finally, a return to "decriminalisation." Data
were collected at four points in time in Ann Arbor and the control com-
munities (which underwent no changes in penalties for marijuana use).
I9. While not strictly involving decriminalisation of possession for personal
use, it may also be noted that the I997 U.S. National Household Survey
on Drug Abuse oversampled California respondents in order to assess
the impact of a voter referendum legalising marijuana for medical pur-
poses (5z). It was found that there was no upward trend in marijuana
use in California either among adults or among youth aged Iz-I7.
zo. In California, marijuana possession arrests declined by 36% in the first
i86 JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY * VOL. 2 I, NO. 2
half of I976 when decriminalisation was in effect c

half of I975. These comparatively low rates of arrest continued in the
I98os (z). Similar decreases in marijuana possession arrests occurred in
other decriminalisation jurisdictions following the change in law: pos-
session arrests declined by 43 % in Minnesota; 3 6% in Columbus, Ohio;
and 4 I % in Denver, Colorado (4 I).
z i. It should be noted, however, that decriminalisation did not eliminate all
of the social costs associated with cannabis policy. Although cannabis
possession is no longer subject to incarceration in the decriminalisation
states, it remains against the law. The costs of processing possession
cases has decreased, but police powers of search and seizure still apply
and must necessarily be broadly applied as long as possession remains
an offence. Further, depending on the institutional arrangements for
criminal record keeping in a particular jurisdiction, as long as cannabis
possession is an offence, certain adverse individual consequences are
inevitable, particularly those negative consequences that flow from the
creation of a criminal record.
ABSTRACT
This paper summarises and compares the impacts of cannabis decriminali-

sation measures in two countries. In Australia, an expiation model of
decriminalisation succeeded in avoiding the imposition of criminal convic-
tions for many offenders, but substantial numbers of offenders received
criminal convictions because of a general "net-widening" in cannabis
offence detections, and the failure of many offenders to pay expiation fees
and thus avoid criminal prosecution. Despite these problems, the expiation
approach has been cost-effective, reducing enforcement costs without lead-
ing to increased cannabis use. In the United States, cannabis decriminalisa-
tion similarly reduced enforcement costs, with enforcement resources gener-
ally redirected toward trafficking and other illicit drugs. There were no
increases in cannabis use or substantial problems that could be ascribed to
decriminalisation. The implications for other countries are discussed, with
particular attention to the importance of implementation issues, monitoring,
and evaluation. Although decriminalisation has succeeded in reducing
enforcement and other costs without increasing the problems associated
with cannabis use, the same impacts would not necessarily result from the
legalisation of cannabis or the decriminalisation of other illicit drugs.

Impact of Cannabis Decriminalisation in Australia and The United States

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impact of Cannabis Decriminalisation in Australia and The United States

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Impact of Cannabis Decriminalisation in Australia and the United States

Author(s): Eric Single, Paul Christie and Robert Ali

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

ya G NAustralia, the United States and o

known whether rates of use might have increased even more if

the impact of reducing penalties rather than the impact of eliminat-

small amounts of cannabis, with a reduced risk

The purpose of this paper is to summarise and compare the impacts

CANNABIS POLICY IN AUSTRALIA AND THE UNITED STATES

There are a number of potentially significant sim

use or trafficking in illicit drugs, and the c

ings might be a solution to the drug problem (32).

marijuana (27). In contrast, a I993 Australian survey showed that

~~~~ H ..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~~~~~ ~~~~.

I988 I99I 1993 1995

Use of marijuana in past iz months

SOURCES: Australia: National Drug Strategy household surveys, cited in Tab

pared the U.S. Monitoring the Future findings on secondary school

THE IMPACT OF DECRIMINALISATION IN AUSTRALIA

South Australia was the first Australian jurisdict

Impacts on patterns of cannabis use

The potential impact of the introduction of the expiation approach

upon cannabis users (3). Offenders from both

Impacts on law enforcement and criminal justice systems

The CEN scheme in South Australia had a major unanticipated effect

Knowledge, attitudes and other social impacts

In I993 residents of both South Australia and the Australian Capital

Implementation issues and problems

As noted earlier, there have been ongoing implementation problems

or perhaps even greater than before the measur

sures, but only the more rigorous application of existing procedu

THE IMPACT OF DECRIMINALISATION IN THE U.S.

In the United States, there was a movement in f

Impact on cannabis use

The available data indicate that these decriminalisation measures

tive assessment of a decriminalisation measure, despite the lack of

impact on availability (5 z). There is no apparent connection betw

Impacts on public use and the health care system

Impressionistic evidence indicates there was no increase in the use of

Trends in Cannabis Use and Perceived Risk of Cannab

ties in detecting intoxication from cannabis consumption, ther

Impacts on drug enforcement costs and priorities

The beneficial consequences of decriminalisation consist mainly

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Decriminalisation measures in the U.S. and Austra

considerable attention by the public and in the media, no national

- The reduction of maximum penalties for cannabis possession to ex-

- The conceptualisation of cannabis-related problems and associated

In light of these conclusions, the following recommendations are

- Decriminalisation and similar law reform measures should be sub-

tion surveys of drug use; establishment of system

The reduction of penalties for cannabis possession to exclude

forcing as other illicit drugs such as hero

Acknowledgments: The authors wish to acknowledge the constructive sug-

i. Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia (ADCA). Discussion

z. Aldrich, M., and Mikuriya, T. "Savings in California Marijuana Law

iz. Christie, P. Cannabis Offences Under the Cannabis Expiation Notice

Drug Strategy Household Survey: Survey Report I1995. Canberra:

sional Paper Series, paper 13, Institute for Soc

i. The U.S. figure is taken from Table 6.z in Harwood et al.

because such cases constitute a high proportion of all drug charges in

persons detected for a minor cannabis offence by police can be issued

cannabis use, but not of activities relating to comme

H ..~~~~~~~ - .