The perceived risk of illicit drug use and views on drug policy in the general population

Figures & data

Table 1. Views on punishment for illicit drug use among the Finnish general population, N = 3229, multivariable multinomial logistic regression.

	Yes, fine vs. no punishment			Yes, prison vs. no punishment			Yes, other vs. no punishment
	aOR	95% CI		aOR	95% CI		aOR	95% CI
Risk profile
High-risk	5.7	2.8	11.7***	21.8	6.8	69.6***	6.7	2.6	17.1***
Cannabis OK	2.5	1.2	5.1**	3.6	1.1	11.7*	3.1	1.2	8.1*
Experimenting OK	1.5	0.7	3.1	2.6	0.8	8.7	1.4	0.5	3.6
Low-risk	1			1			1
Gender
Male	0.8	0.6	1.0*	0.9	0.7	1.1	0.6	0.4	0.7***
Female	1			1			1
Age
15–24	1.6	1.1	2.3**	1.3	0.9	1.9	0.6	0.4	0.9**
25–34	0.9	0.7	1.2	1.0	0.7	1.4	0.6	0.4	0.9**
35–44	0.9	0.6	1.2	1.2	0.8	1.6	0.8	0.6	1.2
45–69	1			1			1
Education
Primary	1.0	0.7	1.4	1.3	0.9	1.8	1.0	0.7	1.4
Secondary	1.2	0.9	1.5	1.5	1.1	1.9**	1.1	0.8	1.4
Tertiary	1			1			1
Residential area
Urban	0.6	0.4	0.8**	0.4	0.3	0.6***	0.7	0.4	1.1
Semi-urban	0.6	0.4	1.1	0.7	0.4	1.2	1.1	0.6	1.9
Rural	1			1			1
Drug use in lifetime
Yes	0.4	0.3	0.5***	0.3	0.2	0.4***	0.5	0.4	0.6***
No	1			1			1

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Model adjusted for all the variables shown (aOR).

Table 2. Opinions on drug testing at work among the Finnish general population, N = 3229, multivariable multinomial logistic regression.

	Do not accept vs. accept			Cannot say vs. accept
	aOR	95% CI		aOR	95% CI
Risk profile
High-risk	0.2	0.1	0.4***	0.2	0.1	0.4***
Cannabis OK	0.4	0.2	0.8*	0.3	0.1	0.8*
Experimenting OK	0.6	0.3	1.2	0.2	0.1	0.7*
Low-risk	1			1
Gender
Male	1.5	1.1	2.0*	1.1	0.7	1.7
Female	1			1
Age
15–24	0.8	0.5	1.3	1.5	0.8	2.7
25–34	1.1	0.7	1.6	1.3	0.7	2.3
35–44	1.0	0.7	1.5	0.6	0.2	1.3
45–69	1			1
Education
Primary	1.6	1.0	2.4*	2.3	1.2	4.4*
Secondary	1.3	0.9	1.8	1.3	0.7	2.4
Tertiary	1			1
Residential area
Urban	1.6	0.9	2.8	0.9	0.5	1.6
Semi-urban	0.8	0.4	1.6	0.5	0.2	1.3
Rural	1			1
Drug use in lifetime
Yes	2.2	1.6	3.1***	0.9	0.5	1.5
No	1			1

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Model adjusted for all the variables shown (aOR).

Table 3. Opinions on needle exchange and consumption rooms among the Finnish general population, N = 3229, multivariable multinomial logistic regression.

	A) Needle exchange						B) Consumption rooms
	Do not accept vs. accept			Cannot say vs. accept			Do not accept vs. accept			Cannot say vs. accept
	aOR	95% CI		aOR	95% CI		aOR	95% CI		aOR	95% CI
Risk profile
High-risk	1.9	0.7	5.3	0.9	0.3	2.6	3.1	1.5	6.4**	1.6	0.7	4.0
Cannabis OK	0.7	0.2	2.0	0.6	0.2	1.8	1.9	0.9	4.0	1.2	0.5	2.8
Experimenting OK	1.4	0.5	4.2	0.6	0.2	1.9	1.3	0.6	2.7	0.6	0.2	1.6
Low-risk	1			1			1			1
Gender
Male	1.6	1.2	1.9***	1.3	1.0	1.8*	1.4	1.2	1.6***	0.9	0.7	1.2
Female	1			1			1			1
Age
15–24	1.3	0.9	1.8	1.5	1.1	2.2*	0.8	0.6	1.0	1.1	0.8	1.6
25–34	1.2	0.9	1.7	0.9	0.6	1.3	0.8	0.6	1.0	0.9	0.7	1.3
35–44	0.8	0.6	1.2	0.7	0.4	1.1	0.9	0.7	1.2	0.8	0.5	1.1
45–69	1			1			1			1
Education
Primary	3.1	2.2	4.4***	2.9	1.9	4.4***	1.6	1.3	2.1***	1.9	1.3	2.7***
Secondary	2.0	1.5	2.7***	1.6	1.1	2.3*	1.3	1.1	1.5*	1.6	1.2	2.1**
Tertiary	1			1			1			1
Residential area
Urban	0.6	0.4	0.7***	0.7	0.5	1.0	0.6	0.5	0.8***	0.5	0.4	0.7***
Semi-urban	0.9	0.6	1.3	0.6	0.3	0.9*	0.8	0.6	1.1	0.6	0.4	1.0*
Rural	1			1			1			1
Drug use in lifetime
Yes	0.3	0.2	0.5***	0.3	0.2	0.5***	0.5	0.4	0.6***	0.6	0.4	0.8***
No	1			1			1			1

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Models adjusted for all the variables shown (aOR).

Figure 1. Item-response probabilities for the four representational profiles.

Table 4. Model fit indices for models with one to five classes.

Model	LL	BIC(LL)	SABIC(LL)	CAIC(LL)	AWE	p-value
1: 1 class	−7610.9	15286.3	15269.9	15294.3	15374.8	<0.001
2: 2 classes	−6004.6	12146.3	12092.2	12163.3	12681.9	<0.001
3: 3 classes	−5719.3	11565.5	11490.7	11674.2	13325.4	<0.001
4: 4 classes	−5629.3	11540.7	11429.5	11575.7	13272.5	1.0
5: 5 classes	−5603.9	11562.3	11422.5	11606.3	13673.0	1.0

LL: Log-likelihood, BIC: Bayesian information criterion, SABIC: Sample-size adjusted Bayesian information criterion, CAIC: Consistent Akaike information criterion, AWE: Approximate weight of evidence.

Table 5. The distribution of relevant variables within the representational profiles.

	High-risk	Cannabis OK	Experimenting OK	Low-risk
	(n = 2228)	(n = 508)	(n = 351)	(n = 71)
Gender
Male	40.2	57.1	60.3	80.0
Female	59.8	42.9	39.7	20.0
Age
15–24	17.0	29.7	27.6	29.6
25–34	21.1	33.9	35.3	49.3
35–44	17.6	17.5	17.1	15.5
45–69	44.3	18.9	19.9	5.6
Education
Primary level	20.1	26.4	28.8	31.0
Secondary level	41.7	43.3	42.5	45.1
Tertiary level	38.2	30.3	28.8	23.9
Residential area
Urban	66.5	79.0	80.8	75.0
Semi-urban	19.1	10.9	10.4	20.3
Rural	14.4	10.0	8.8	4.7
Illicit drug use in lifetime
Yes	15.7	50.4	52.3	73.2
No	84.3	49.6	47.7	26.8
Punishment for illicit drug use
No	11.1	35.0	48.3	69.0
Yes, fine	32.5	32.7	26.6	16.9
Yes, prison	34.7	12.1	12.3	5.6
Yes, other	21.7	20.2	12.9	8.5
Drug testing at work
Accept	93.5	82.8	77.9	63.4
Do not accept	4.2	13.0	18.1	26.8
Cannot say	2.3	4.1	4.0	9.9
Needle exchange
Accept	77.1	87.8	83.4	87.3
Do not accept	14.4	6.1	10.6	5.6
Cannot say	8.5	6.1	6.0	7.0
Consumption rooms
Accept	47.2	61.3	71.2	77.5
Do not accept	38.8	26.6	20.5	12.7
Cannot say	14.0	12.0	8.3	9.9