LC LSIC Inquiry into Use of Cannabis in Victoria Submission 1325 Inquiry into the use of Cannabis in Victoria Professor Simon Lenton Organisation Name:National Drug Research Institute Your position or role: Director SURVEY QUESTIONS Drag the statements below to reorder them. In order of priority, please rank the themes you believe are most important for this Inquiry into the use of Cannabis in Victoria to consider:: 0 What best describes your interest in our Inquiry? (select all that apply) : Academic and research Decades of research into cannabis policy in Australia and internationally Are there any additional themes we should consider? Select all that apply. Do you think there should be restrictions on the use of cannabis? : Other – please explain. Please see attachment YOUR SUBMISSION Submission: The National Drug Research Institute's submission in contained in the attached document. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions?: FILE ATTACHMENTS File1: 5f49966d82970-NDRI Submission-Inquiry into Cannabis Use in Victoria.pdf File2: File3: Signature: Simon Lenton 1 of 24 LC LSIC Inquiry into Use of Cannabis in Victoria Submission 1325 INQUIRY INTO CANNABIS USE IN VICTORIA Submission from the National Drug Research Institute, Curtin University (NDRI) to Parliament of Victoria Legal and Social Issues Committee August 2020 National Drug Research Institute Curtin University Building 609 (Level 2), 7 Parker Place Technology Park, Bentley WA 6102 2 of 24 LC LSIC Inquiry into Use of Cannabis in Victoria Submission 1325 Submission from the National Drug Research Institute SUBMISSION FOCUS This submission, from the National Drug Research Institute (NDRI), focusses specifically on research related to points c) and e) of the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference: c) implement health education campaigns and programs to ensure children and young people are aware of the dangers of drug use, in particular, cannabis use; e) assess the health, mental health, and social impacts of cannabis use on people who use cannabis, their families and carers; and models of cannabis regulation internationally that might be adapted for the Victorian context. It also makes recommendations specific to each of those areas (see page 18). ABOUT NDRI The National Drug Research Institute’s (NDRI) mission is to conduct and disseminate high quality research that supports evidence informed policy, strategies and practice to prevent and minimise alcohol and other drug-related health, social and economic harms among individuals, families and communities in Australia. Since its inception in 1986, the Institute has grown to employ about 30 research staff, making it one of the largest centres of drug research and public health expertise in Australia. Researchers have completed more than 500 research projects, resulting in a range of positive outcomes for policy, practice and the community. For example, NDRI research has significantly informed and contributed to policy and evidence-based practice such as the National Amphetamine- Type Stimulants (ATS) Strategy, the National Drug Strategy and the National Alcohol Strategy; contributed to Australia’s involvement in international strategies, such as WHO Global and Regional Strategy to Reduce Harmful Use of Alcohol; directly contributed to Australian and State government alcohol and illicit drug policy, including cannabis policy and naloxone availability; significantly contributed to international evidence-based school interventions; influenced NHMRC guidelines to reduce alcohol health risks; and been cited in development of policy documents for Aboriginal Australians. The Institute’s work was described as “research considered truly internationally competitive and making a major contribution to the advancement of knowledge” in the Research Quality Framework. NDRI’S PREVIOUS INVOLVEMENT IN RESEARCH LEADING TO CANNABIS LAW REFORM NDRI, and Lenton in particular, has a long history of conducting research bearing on cannabis policy reform. We have previously documented the adverse impacts of a criminal conviction on individuals apprehended for a minor cannabis offence in Western Australia and compared these with the impacts of a civil penalty in South Australia (Lenton, Humeniuk, Heale, & Christie, 2000). We have provided evidence that less than 1% of cannabis users in one year unlucky enough to be apprehended criminal charge (Lenton, 2000) and a conviction fails to provide a specific deterrent effect doing very little to affect the cannabis use of those who are convicted (Lenton & Heale, 2000). On the basis of such evidence, we recommended the application of civil rather than criminal penalties for minor cannabis offences in Victoria (Lenton, Heale et al., 2000) and Western Australia (Lenton, 2004), which led to the implementation of the Cannabis Infringement Notice scheme in Western Australia in 2004 under the Gallop government (Lenton & Allsop, 2010) (the scheme was repealed by the Barnett government in 2011). Beyond this, NDRI has recently been involved in August 2020 2 3 of 24 LC LSIC Inquiry into Use of Cannabis in Victoria Submission 1325 Submission from the National Drug Research Institute research on the implementation of the legal cannabis regime in Colorado (Subritzky, Lenton, & Pettigrew, 2016, 2019, 2020; Subritzky, Pettigrew, & Lenton, 2016, 2017) and in a large international study of small-scale cannabis growers in 15 countries (Hakkarainen et al., 2015; Lenton, Frank, Barratt, Potter, & Decorte, 2018; Lenton, Frank, Barratt, Dahl, & Potter, 2015; Potter et al., 2015; Sznitman et al., 2019), the most recent survey of which is about to be launched in 19 countries in 11 languages from September 2020. With the developments in legal medical and ‘recreational’ cannabis markets internationally, consideration of cannabis policy options for which we have evidence of implementation and effects has moved beyond the comparison of strict criminal penalties schemes versus civil penalty schemes to consider both commercial and non-commercial models of cannabis regulation post prohibition (Kilmer & Pacula, 2017). Lenton and colleagues have recently published an edited book (Decorte, Lenton, & Wilkins, 2020) that brings together the best available evidence and expertise to investigate the lessons that can be learned from the regulation of cannabis and other psychoactive substances (such as alcohol, tobacco, pharmaceuticals and “legal highs”) and that can be translated to the effective regulation of cannabis markets. AUSTRALIA AS A VENUE FOR CANNABIS POLICY EXPERIMENTS The fact that drug possession and supply law has effectively been state and territory law has meant Australia has provided an opportunity for natural policy experiments, such as those studies referred to above. Consistent with that, a number of Australian states and territories have implemented various civil and cautioning schemes for cannabis, while maintaining prohibition. Prohibition with civil penalties schemes were introduced for minor cannabis offences in South Australia in 1987, the Australian Capital Territory in 1992, the Northern Territory in 1996 and in Western Australia from 2004 to 2011. Furthermore, prohibition with cautioning and diversion schemes were introduced for cannabis in the non-civil penalty jurisdictions and for all other illegal drugs (heroin, amphetamine- type stimulants, cocaine, LSD, ecstasy, etc.) for all Australian states and territories under the Illicit Drug Diversion Initiative (IDDI) introduced under the Howard Government in 1999. However, the federal prohibition on cannabis has provided a legislative impediment on non-prohibition policy reforms at a state and territory level, even if to date, none have been actively proposed or implemented. PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR LEGALISATION OF CANNABIS IN AUSTRALIA There has not been a recent comprehensive public debate in Australia about the pros and cons of legalising cannabis for non-medical or ‘recreational use’. Support for the legalisation of cannabis (for recreational purposes) among the general Australian population has increased from 26% in 2013 to 41% in 2019 (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2020). Given that this may be an underestimate, it is possible that support for the legalisation of cannabis for recreational purposes is approaching 50% of the Australian population aged 14 years and over. According to the AIHW, use of cannabis in the last 12 months has increased from 10.4% in 2016 to 11.6% in 2019, the latter figure including those who have been prescribed the drug for medical treatment under provisions, which came into effect in Australia in February 2016. Support for legalisation of cannabis was highest (91%) among people who had used the drug recreationally, but support was almost as high (89%) among those who used it for medical but not recreational reasons. August 2020 3 4 of 24 LC LSIC Inquiry into Use of Cannabis in Victoria Submission 1325 Submission from the National Drug Research Institute C) IMPLEMENT HEALTH EDUCATION CAMPAIGNS AND PROGRAMS TO ENSURE CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE ARE AWARE OF THE DANGERS OF DRUG USE, IN PARTICULAR, CANNABIS USE Section author: Associate Professor Nyanda McBride Response focus: School-based illicit/cannabis education 1. Recent illicit and cannabis use of secondary school aged youth 14-17 years of age 2. School-based Drug Education Programs: 2.1 Level of evidence 2.2 The evidence status of drug/cannabis school-based education programs 2.3 Possible ways to increase impact 2.3.1 Developmental period 2.3.2 Alternative programs in primary