Exploring the existence of drug policy ‘ideologies’ in Australia

Abstract

Aims: Knowledge of public opinion towards drug policy is often limited to analyses of individual survey questions. There has been less thought given to the underlying structure of public opinion, and how attitudes towards different facets of drug policy, for example, law enforcement and harm reduction, might align into ideological positions. This paper aims to assess the extent to which distinct ideologies are present among the general public in Australia in relation to drug policy.

Method: The study involved a Latent Class Analysis of data taken from the 2010 National Drug Strategy Household Survey. The analysis categorized individuals into mutually exclusive groups (classes), according to their responses to 15 attitudinal items.

Findings: Six classes of individuals were identified, and were labelled as: uninformed, ambivalent, detached prohibitionists, committed prohibitionists, harm reductionists and legalizers.

Conclusions: The unique analysis presented in this paper demonstrates the existence of six distinct classes of opinions towards drug policy in an Australian sample. Whilst there were a large proportion of respondents in support of both drug legalization and harm reduction, there were also many who opposed drug legalization, yet supported harm reduction. Any assumption that supporting harm reduction automatically equates with support for legalization, is erroneous.

Notes

Notes

1. There may be some confusion over the terms ‘harm minimization’ and ‘harm reduction’. In this context the term harm minimization refers to the overarching approach of the current Australian National Drug Strategy. Harm minimization, according to the strategy, encompasses the three pillars: supply reduction, demand reduction, and harm reduction. Harm reduction here will therefore refer to interventions such as needle and syringe programs, which specifically aim to reduce the harms of illicit drug use, without necessarily reducing use itself.