Geographic Differences in Public Opinion on Drug Policy: Understanding Patterns of Support and ‘Don't Know’ Responses
Drug Policy Modelling Program, Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia
ABSTRACT
Introduction
Policymakers and advocates often rely on public opinion to support or oppose certain policies, with national surveys providing an important data source. Different geographic areas have socio‐political specificity and are impacted by drug policies in different ways; yet there has been little analysis of public opinion accounting for geographic specificity. This study aimed to understand geographic differences in policy preferences using the case study of Greater Western Sydney (GWS), New South Wales (NSW), Australia.
Methods
Responses to two policy perception questions from Australia's 2022/23 National Drug Strategy Household Survey were analysed: preferred actions in response to possession and use of cannabis, ecstasy, heroin, methamphetamine, and hallucinogens (‘Action’ question), and the preferred criminal offence status of cannabis possession (‘Criminal’ question). Responses in GWS were compared to Rest of Sydney and Rest of NSW. Data were analysed by levels of support and proportions of respondents who did not register an opinion (not answered, ‘don't know’).
Results
Levels of support for different actions and policy settings varied by area, as did the proportions of respondents who do not register an opinion. The inclusion or exclusion of ‘don't know’/not answered responses influences interpretations of levels of public knowledge, engagement, and support.
Discussion and Conclusion
Public opinion as gauged through national surveys should be understood relative to specific geographies. Understanding whether geographic differences exist is important to understanding what drives support and ‘don't know’/not answered responses in relation to drug policy. Differences indicate sites for further analysis and attention in education, engagement and advocacy.
Untitled section
Keywords: geography, Greater Western Sydney, public opinion, ‘don't know’, surveys
Article notes
Untitled section
Revised 2025 Aug 7; Received 2025 Apr 29; Accepted 2025 Aug 8; Issue date 2025 Nov.
Boxed Text
- Depending on context, use of public opinion data that are not differentiated by geography may suggest homogenous levels of policy support and engagement despite much heterogeneity.
- Including or excluding people who ‘did not know’ or did not answer has effects on interpretations of levels of public knowledge, engagement and support for preferred actions and removal of criminal penalties in and between different areas.
- Preferred actions for personal possession and use were no action for cannabis, referral to education for ecstasy, referral to treatment for heroin, methamphetamine and hallucinogens; and the removal of criminal penalties for cannabis in Greater Western Sydney, Rest of Sydney and Rest of New South Wales; however, support for these was lower in Greater Western Sydney.
- There were high proportions of respondents who did not register an opinion when asked which action is preferred regarding personal use and whether personal use of cannabis should be a criminal offence in Greater Western Sydney, Rest of Sydney and Rest of New South Wales; and there were higher proportions of these respondents in Greater Western Sydney.
1.Introduction
Public opinion is an important element impacting policy [1, 2, 3, 4]. The impacts are, however, not a simple one‐to‐one calculation of political responsiveness, and instead shift depending on issue salience and institutional context, as well as a range of other policy inputs such as media and political framing [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. In addition, policy change itself may play a role in shifting public opinion [4, 9, 10]; and how opinion, policy, and the relationship between them are measured [2, 5, 7] all impact what can be said about any kind of causation or association [5, 7]. Furthermore, whose opinion actually influences policy is open to debate, with structural distributions of advantage and disadvantage shaping responsiveness [11]. However, the relationship between public opinion and policy endures and is often tied to questions of democracy and representation [6, 11]. In drug policy, the use of representative datasets, often from national surveys, is a common way in which public attitudes are purportedly captured and represented, and can inform public and policy debate [12, 13, 14, 15]; are analysed by researchers looking to understand how different demographics, social status, or other social characteristics impact perceptions [16, 17, 18, 19]; and how attitudes change over time [19, 20, 21]; and are used by peak and advocacy organisations to support their positions [22, 23, 24].
Just as the opinion‐policy link [5] is not self‐evident, how surveys relate to public opinion depends on what is captured and how those data are framed. Surveys designed to capture public opinion often include the option of ‘don't know’ or for the respondent to not answer. How these responses are analysed may have substantial impacts on how public opinion [25] or level of knowledge [26] are understood and subsequently factor into policy development and change. ‘Don't know’ responses may relate to question design (complexity, length) [27], and may be related to knowledge, understanding, ambivalence and social desirability, among other factors [25]. Purdam et al. [25] note that ‘don't know’ responses to factual questions (where there is a correct answer) relate to knowledge (lack, or not wanting to reveal their knowledge); Purdam et al. [25] also argue that responses to value‐ or attitude‐based questions are likely connected to ‘being uncertain, ambivalent, indifferent or not wanting to answer’. This second category is much more relevant for exploring the role and impact of ‘don't knows’ when it comes to policy attitudes, which have no ‘right answer.’ Differences between country and cross‐national levels of ‘don't know’ responses [25], and in the nature of ‘ambivalence’ [28] suggest that geographic scales are an important analytic frame. Understanding whether subnational and more granular geographic differences exist between public attitudes, and between levels of ‘don't know’ responses is an important first step to exploring the textures of what drives support and ‘don't know’ responses in relation to drug policy. In Australia, publicly released national survey data related to drugs excludes people who select ‘don't know’ or did not answer from the public opinion summary data, which results in the exclusion of this group from public reporting and debate.
This paper aims to answer three research questions: (i) does support for policy responses to drug use and possession for personal use differ between geographic areas?; (ii) are there different proportions of respondents selecting ‘don't know’ or who did not answer in different geographic areas?; and (iii) do proportions of ‘don't know’/not answered influence how levels of support for policy responses are understood? To answer these questions, we use the case study of Greater Western Sydney (GWS), with comparison to responses in the Rest of Sydney and New South Wales (NSW), Australia.
1.1.Case Study
Drug policy covers drug laws, treatment, prevention, harm reduction and supply reduction. This case study focuses on public opinion toward drug laws, and more specifically whether drug use should be a criminal offence and what actions should be taken in response. In Australia, despite a National Drug Strategy, each state/territory determines their policy priorities and drug laws. While all states and territories have what may be understood as decriminalised or diversionary policies with regard to the personal possession and use of illicit drugs [29] there are substantial state differences. In NSW, where our case study is located, there are diversionary schemes for cannabis and other illicit drugs, with both retaining criminal offences and penalties for possession and use. The cannabis scheme (‘Cannabis Cautioning Scheme’, 2001) involves a caution and voluntary referral to education; the illicit scheme (‘Early Drug Diversion Initiative’, 2024) involves a fine ($400) or referral to a health and education session.
While any area might have been chosen to answer our research questions, we have chosen to focus on GWS, which is a large and populous geographic region of Greater Sydney. GWS (and particular subregions, e.g., Western Sydney, South‐west Sydney) is an area in Sydney and NSW generally understood as a place that has historically been the home of working class communities and is now primarily understood as a place of ethnic diversity with large East and Southeast Asian, Middle Eastern, Pasifika and African communities [30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35]. Lessons drawn from other areas of public policy (e.g., same‐sex marriage) indicate that Western Sydney is a politically and culturally charged site imagined as an area seemingly at odds with mainstream cultural attitudes [32] and seen as a political battleground for elections [36]. The political importance of this area is underscored by the high number of voters and strategically significant seats in both state and federal politics [36, 37].
Data related to the drug diversion schemes described above, and studies looking at areas or populations in GWS show that experiences of drugs and drug policy in GWS are shaped by policy implementation, geographic dislocation, and stigma unique to the area. Despite being state‐wide policy, the cannabis scheme has seen different geographic effects due to policing practice [38] and uneven application in areas such as GWS [39]. Additionally, specific groups such as culturally and linguistically diverse and First Nations peoples are disproportionally impacted by uneven and discriminatory policing practices [40] and policy design [41], with large culturally and linguistically diverse and First Nations communities in GWS. The illicit drug diversion scheme also had, in its first 6 months of operation in 2024, different diversion rates for Indigenous people, drug types, and across different areas of the state, with areas in GWS having diversion rates of between 0% and 32% [42].
Studies looking at areas or populations in GWS and drugs have focused on patterns of drug use and risk [43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52], rates of overdose deaths [53], the politics and accessibility of supervised drug consumption facilities [53, 54], needle syringe programs [55, 56], policing [57, 58, 59, 60, 61], and stigma and discrimination [62, 63]. In these studies, drug use and drug practices data for GWS (or a subset of GWS) are compared to other places (e.g., analysing differences between people receiving opioid agonist treatment in parts of GWS compared to their inner city counterparts and what may drive different injecting practices) [43], included in broader studies and not foregrounded in analysis [44, 50], or are studied precisely because of identified issues with or perceptions of the area (e.g., suburban expansion, overdose death rates, heroin availability, ethnic communities) [45, 46, 47, 48, 49]. In addition, experiences of drugs, laws, and policing in areas of GWS are connected to the specific physical and social resonances of the area. For example, access to services is shaped by physical distances that often necessitate high‐risk practices which may relate to use itself (e.g., injecting further from health services) or the way a service is accessed (e.g., travelling long distances on public transport to access a supervised injecting site while carrying a personal amount of drugs) [53, 55]; policing practices and perceptions of those practices are shaped by the association of specific areas in GWS with certain ethnic groups [58, 60]; and stigma and discrimination relate to geographic marginalisation and the class and ethnic dimensions described above [51, 62, 63] (e.g., including through pejorative place‐based terms such as “westie” [64]). Whether to do with policy implementation, drug use and risk demographics, or specific social and physical dimensions of geography, there are meaningful differences related to drugs and drug policy when it comes to GWS compared to other areas.
There is no consistent way of representing GWS or its subregions, and yet its distinctiveness in relation to politics, culture and drugs makes it a useful area of focus when thinking about geography, public opinion and drug policy in NSW.
2.Method
We analysed the 2022/23 National Drug Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS). Ethics was obtained from UNSW HREC (iRECS7002); unit record data were provided on request through the Australian Data Archive (ADA Dataverse) by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
The NDSHS is an Australian survey conducted every 3 years about drug use and attitudes/perceptions of drugs and drug policy, using a sample of people aged 14 and over [65]. The 2022/2023 wave of the survey contained 21,663 respondents, representing a 43.9% response rate [66]; 72% of respondents completed the survey via paper form, 28% online and 0.1% via telephone [66]. The NDSHS is considered a nationally representative survey but, like most household surveys, excludes people in hospitals, hostels, prisons and other similar institutions, as well as excluding people experiencing homelessness or unstable housing [66]. This means that many people who use drugs, and particularly more marginalised people, are excluded or not adequately represented [67].
Geographic classifications used in the NDSHS are based on the Australian Statistical Geography Standard [68]. Data in the NDSHS are collected by statistical area 1 (SA1), which aggregate into larger SA2s, SA3s and so on [68]. GWS is defined in a variety of ways that do not map neatly onto state or federal electorates, or popular imaginaries. We defined GWS using an aggregation of SA3s that approximate the boundaries of well‐known classifications (the 13 local government areas that make up GWS) and less well‐defined cultural imaginaries (which break down GWS around class and race profiles (35); see Appendix Table A1). We report the results by a total consolidated GWS variable that includes all chosen SA3s. As a result, GWS data below approximates GWS as defined around the 13 local government areas (see Figure 1). We compare GWS to data for the rest of Greater Sydney (‘Rest of Sydney’) and the rest of the state of NSW (‘Rest of NSW’). Sydney in the NDSHS data refers to Greater Sydney as defined by the Australian Statistical Geography Standard Greater Capital City Statistical Areas [68] (see Figure 1). We remove the region identified by our GWS variable from Greater Sydney and the state of NSW to define Rest of Sydney and Rest of NSW.
Survey responses to two questions are analysed; see Figure 2. We refer to A5 as the ‘Action’ question, and to A6 as the ‘Criminal’ question. These two questions were chosen to compare levels of support for specific actions, support for the removal of criminal penalties, and the levels and impact of ‘don't know’ and unanswered responses.
We applied the person‐level weights provided by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (‘absolute person weight’) which takes into account the survey design by scaling the survey sample to reflect population characteristics (from the Australian Bureau of Statistics census data, e.g., age, sex). We scaled these person‐level weights to the effective sample size as calculated by Roy Morgan [69] (for NSW total, not specific to GWS) to account for the overinflation of the sample resulting from the person‐level weights. The new weight (based on the effective sample size) was calculated and applied using SPSS (v27). Table 1 shows the actual survey sample size and the effective sample size for each of our regions as well as Greater Sydney and NSW total. All analyses reported are calculated using the effective sample size weight.
| Region | Survey sample size (n) | Effective sample size (n) |
|---|---|---|
| Greater Western Sydney | 1589 | 1103 |
| Rest of Sydney | 2106 | 1106 |
| Rest of NSW | 3985 | 2309 |
| Greater Sydney total | 3695 | 2210 |
| NSW total | 5574 | 3412 |
Analyses were undertaken using SPSS (v27). Cross‐tabulations (with 95% confidence intervals, calculated in Excel) were used to analyse the level of support for both questions in each region, and Pearson chi‐squared tests of independence were used to compare select responses in GWS to Rest of Sydney and Rest of NSW (statistical significance was evaluated at the 5% level).
We grouped ‘don't know’ responses and those that did not answer as ‘no opinion registered’ to understand differences between areas. We grouped these for two additional reasons: the public release NDSHS data excludes people who select ‘don't know’ or did not answer from their base. The presumption here is that public support is gauged from those who feel informed enough to respond or respond regardless of whether they feel informed. The second is that reasons for answering ‘don't know’ are diverse and do not relate to a single explanation. In survey questions, these kinds of options which fail to register an opinion or attitude have been framed as ‘no opinion’ or ‘non‐attitude’ questions [70]. The NDSHS approach and the broader category of ‘no opinion’ questions suggests that both ‘don't know’ and ‘no answer’ responses should be considered together. Given our third research question, we analysed the data including and excluding these respondents.
3.Results
3.1.Levels of Support for Policy Responses to Personal Use and Possession
Across the regions and drug types, no single action received a ‘majority’ preference among respondents. The actions with the highest level of support across all three regions were consistent (Table 2; see Appendix Table A2 for full table of responses to actions): no action for cannabis (23.1% in GWS to 39.4% in Rest of Sydney); referral to education for ecstasy (18.1% in GWS to 19.5% in Rest of Sydney and Rest of NSW); and referral to treatment for heroin (25.9% in GWS to 35.1% in Rest of Sydney), methamphetamine (24.9% in GWS to 33.3% in Rest of Sydney) and hallucinogens (18.8% in GWS to 19.3% in Rest of NSW).
| Top selected actions | Greater Western Sydney, % (95% CI) | Rest of Sydney, % (95% CI) | Rest of NSW, % (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cannabis | n = 1104 | n = 1107 | n = 2306 |
| 1. | No action 23.1 (20.6, 25.6) | No action 39.4 (36.5, 42.3) | No action 37.6 (35.6, 39.5) |
| 2. | Caution or warning 18.1 (15.8, 20.4) | Caution or warning 19.0 (16.7, 21.3) | Caution or warning 19.9 (18.3, 21.5) |
| 3. | Referral to education | Referral to education | Referral to education |
| 14.8 (12.7, 16.9) | 13.2 (11.2, 15.2) | 14.2 (12.8, 15.6) | |
| 4. | Substantial fine a 8.3 (6.7, 10.0) | Small fine a 5.5 (4.2, 6.9) | Small fine a 5.5 (4.5, 6.4) |
| Total top four actions | 64.3 (61.5, 67.1) | 77.1 (74.6, 79.5) | 77.1 (75.4, 78.8) |
| Ecstasy | n = 1102 | n = 1106 | n = 2309 |
| 1. | Referral to education 18.1 (15.9, 20.4) | Referral to education 19.5 (17.2, 21.9) | Referral to education 19.5 (17.9, 21.1) |
| 2. | Substantial fine 14.6 (12.5, 16.7) | Caution or warning 16.5 (14.3, 18.6) | Caution or warning 15.1 (13.6, 16.5) |
| 3. | Referral to treatment | No action | Referral to treatment |
| 12.3 (10.4, 14.3) | 14.1 (12.1, 16.2) | 12.3 (10.9, 13.6) | |
| 4. | Don't know a 9.5 (7.8, 11.3) | Referral to treatment a 11.0 (9.2, 12.9) | Substantial fine a 11.2 (9.9, 12.5) |
| Total top four actions | 54.6 (51.7, 57.6) | 61.1 (58.2, 64.0) | 58.0 (56.0, 60.0) |
| Heroin | n = 1103 | n = 1106 | n = 2309 |
| 1. | Referral to treatment 25.9 (23.3, 28.5) | Referral to treatment 35.1 (32.3, 37.9) | Referral to treatment 32.9 (31.0, 34.8) |
| 2. | Prison 16.7 (14.5, 18.9) | Referral to education 16.5 (14.4, 18.7) | Referral to education 15.6 (14.1, 17.1) |
| 3. | Substantial fine | Prison | Prison |
| 14.1 (12.0, 16.1) | 12.1 (10.2, 14.0) | 14.2 (12.7, 15.6) | |
| 4. | Referral to education 13.8 (11.7, 15.8) | Substantial fine 9.2 (7.5, 10.9) | Substantial fine 10.6 (9.4, 11.9) |
| Total top four actions | 70.4 (67.8, 73.1) | 73.0 (70.3, 75.6) | 73.2 (71.4, 75.0) |
| Methamphetamine | n = 1103 | n = 1105 | n = 2308 |
| 1. | Referral to treatment 24.9 (22.4, 27.5) | Referral to treatment 33.3 (30.5, 36.1) | Referral to treatment 31.5 (29.6, 33.4) |
| 2. | Prison 16.1 (14.0, 18.3) | Referral to education 15.5 (13.3, 17.6) | Prison 15.0 (13.6, 16.5) |
| 3. | Substantial fine | Prison | Referral to education |
| 13.3 (11.3, 15.3) | 11.4 (9.5, 13.3) | 14.2 (12.8, 15.6) | |
| 4. | Referral to education a 13.1 (11.1, 15.0) | Substantial fine a 8.6 (6.9, 10.3) | Substantial fine 9.4 (8.3, 10.6) |
| Total top four actions | 67.5 (64.7, 70.2) | 68.8 (66.0, 71.5) | 70.2 (68.4, 72.1) |
| Hallucinogens | n = 1103 | n = 1106 | n = 2308 |
| 1. | Referral to treatment 18.8 (16.5, 21.1) | Referral to treatment 18.9 (16.6, 21.2) | Referral to treatment 19.3 (17.7, 20.9) |
| 2. | Referral to education 16.1 (14.0, 18.3) | Referral to education 16.9 (14.7, 19.1) | Referral to education 17.2 (15.7, 18.8) |
| 3. | Don't know | No action | No action |
| 12.8 (10.8, 14.8) | 12.8 (10.9, 14.8) | 9.8 (8.6, 11.1) | |
| 4. | Prison a 11.5 (9.6, 13.4) | Caution or warning a 10.6 (8.8, 12.4) | Prison a 9.0 (7.8, 10.2) |
| Total top four actions | 59.0 (56.1, 61.9) | 59.2 (56.3, 62.1) | 55.4 (53.3, 57.4) |
Despite all three regions returning the same most preferred action for all drug types, the level of support for the preferred actions was lower in GWS compared to the other regions for cannabis (p ≤ 0.001), heroin (p ≤ 0.001) and methamphetamine (p ≤ 0.001). For example, while ‘no action’ was the most preferred response to cannabis in all regions, this was under a quarter (23.1%) in GWS compared to over a third for Rest of Sydney (39.4%, p ≤ 0.001) and Rest of NSW (37.6%, p ≤ 0.001). There was no evidence of a difference for the most preferred action of GWS compared to Rest of Sydney and Rest of NSW for ecstasy (p = 0.395 and p = 0.325, respectively) and hallucinogens (p = 0.938 and p = 0.725, respectively).
Beyond the most preferred action, there are differences in second, third, and so on most selected actions by area and by drug type (see Table 2).
For criminal penalties, the majority of respondents in GWS, Rest of Sydney, and Rest of NSW support the removal of criminal penalties for the personal non‐medical use of cannabis. GWS returned the lowest, though still a majority (52.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 49.8, 55.7]), support for the removal of criminal penalties for cannabis compared to both Rest of Sydney (70.3% [95% CI 67.6, 72.9], p ≤ 0.001) and Rest of NSW (69.4% [95% CI 67.5, 71.3], p ≤ 0.001) (see Appendix Table A3 for full table of responses).
3.2.Proportions of ‘Don't Know’ and Did Not Answer Responses
As shown in Table 3, there are substantial proportions of respondents registering no opinion (‘don't know’ and did not answer) for both the Action and Criminal questions. In response to the Action questions, ‘don't know’ respondents were lowest for cannabis and highest for hallucinogens across all regions. Combining respondents who ‘don't know’ and did not answer (no opinion registered, see Table 3) shows that for the Action question up to a fifth of respondents (13.4%–21.1%) in GWS did not register an opinion, compared to a seventh of respondents in Rest of Sydney (9.2%–14.4%, p values all < 0.005) and NSW (7.8%–14.1%, p values all < 0.001). Similarly, in response to the Criminal question, nearly a quarter of respondents (23.6%) in GWS did not register an opinion compared to a sixth of respondents in Rest of Sydney (16.5%, p ≤ 0.001) and Rest of NSW (15.3%, p ≤ 0.001).
| Greater Western Sydney | Rest of Sydney | Rest of NSW | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | No opinion registered, % (95% CI) | n | No opinion registered, % (95% CI) | p | n | No opinion registered, % (95% CI) | p | |
| ‘Action’: Cannabis | 1104 | 13.3 (11.3, 15.3) | 1107 | 9.2 (7.5, 10.9) | 0.003 | 2306 | 7.8 (6.8, 8.9) | < 0.001 |
| ‘Action’: Ecstasy | 1102 | 17.7 (15.4, 19.9) | 1106 | 11.9 (10.0, 13.8) | < 0.001 | 2309 | 12.0 (10.6, 13.3) | < 0.001 |
| ‘Action’: Heroin | 1103 | 14.8 (12.7, 16.9) | 1106 | 10.4 (8.6, 12.2) | 0.002 | 2309 | 10.4 (9.2, 11.7) | < 0.001 |
| ‘Action’: Methamphetamine | 1103 | 17.6 (15.3, 19.8) | 1105 | 12.9 (11.0, 14.9) | 0.002 | 2308 | 12.3 (11.0, 13.7) | < 0.001 |
| ‘Action’: Hallucinogens | 1103 | 21.2 (18.7, 23.5) | 1106 | 14.4 (12.3, 16.4) | < 0.001 | 2308 | 14.1 (12.7, 15.5) | < 0.001 |
| ‘Criminal’: Cannabis | 1104 | 23.6 (21.0, 26.1) | 1106 | 16.5 (14.3, 18.6) | < 0.001 | 2309 | 15.3 (13.8, 16.8) | < 0.001 |
3.3.Impact of ‘Don't Know’/Did Not Answer Responses on Level of Policy Support
Despite the substantial proportions of respondents registering no opinion, excluding ‘don't knows’ and those that did not answer from the base sample for the Action question does not change the ‘most preferred action’ in any of the regions; however, Table 4 shows the considerable difference in the raw level of support when including and excluding those with no opinion registered (see Appendix Table A2 for full table). As expected, excluding these responses results in an increase in support for all actions (e.g., support for referral to treatment for methamphetamine in GWS jumps from 24.9% to 30.3%). Likewise, for the Criminal question, support for removal of criminal penalties for possession of cannabis for personal use in GWS increases from 52.7% (95% CI 49.8, 55.7) to 69% (95% CI, 65.8, 72.1) when excluding those who don't know or did not answer (see Appendix Table A3 for full table).
| Drug type | Preferred action | Greater Western Sydney, % (95% CI) | Rest of Sydney, % (95% CI) | Rest of NSW, % (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cannabis | ||||
| Incl no opinion reg | No action | 23.1 (20.6, 25.6) | 39.4 (36.5, 42.3) | 37.6 (35.6, 39.5) |
| Excl no opinion reg | No action | 26.6 (23.8, 29.4) | 43.4 (40.3, 46.4) | 40.8 (38.7, 42.8) |
| Ecstasy | ||||
| Incl no opinion reg | Ref to education | 18.1 (15.9, 20.4) | 19.5 (17.2, 21.9) | 19.5 (17.9, 21.1) |
| Excl no opinion reg | Ref to education | 22.1 (19.4, 24.7) | 22.2 (19.6, 24.8) | 22.2 (20.4, 24.0) |
| Heroin | ||||
| Incl no opinion reg | Ref to treatment | 25.9 (23.3, 28.5) | 35.1 (32.3, 37.9) | 32.9 (31.0, 34.8) |
| Excl no opinion reg | Ref to treatment | 30.4 (27.5, 33.4) | 39.2 (36.1, 42.2) | 36.7 (34.6, 38.8) |
| Methamphetamine | ||||
| Incl no opinion reg | Ref to treatment | 24.9 (22.4, 27.5) | 33.3 (30.5, 36.1) | 31.5 (29.6, 33.4) |
| Excl no opinion reg | Ref to treatment | 30.3 (27.3, 33.2) | 38.3 (35.2, 41.3) | 36.0 (33.9, 38.1) |
| Hallucinogens | ||||
| Incl no opinion reg | Ref to treatment | 18.8 (16.5, 21.1) | 18.9 (16.6, 21.2) | 19.3 (17.7, 20.9) |
| Excl no opinion reg | Ref to treatment | 23.8 (21.0, 26.6) | 22.1 (19.4, 24.7) | 22.5 (20.6, 24.3) |
The ‘no opinion registered’ grouping also impacts understandings of most and subsequent (second, third etc.) preferred actions. This is most pronounced in GWS, which has the highest proportions of those respondents. In GWS, this ‘no opinion registered’ group was the most selected response for hallucinogens; and equivalent to the most preferred action for ecstasy and the second most selected action for methamphetamine.
4.Discussion
The findings of this study illustrate that public opinion on drug policy with regard to actions taken or criminal offence status related to illicit drugs is geographically specific. Depending on context, use of public opinion results that are not differentiated by geography may suggest homogenous levels of policy support and engagement despite much heterogeneity. For our case study of Greater Western Sydney, this study has shown that: (i) there are consistent patterns of support for the most preferred action in response to illicit drugs, and the removal of criminal penalties for cannabis across the geographic regions of GWS, Rest of Sydney and Rest of NSW; however, support is lower in GWS than Rest of Sydney and NSW; (ii) there are higher levels of respondents who ‘don't know’ or did not answer which action is preferred regarding personal use and whether personal use of cannabis should be a criminal offence in GWS than in Rest of Sydney and NSW; and (iii) excluding ‘don't knows’/not answered from analysis may inflate or remove important context from understandings of the specific level of public support, and ignore different levels of drug policy knowledge and engagement in different areas. This study illustrates that there are geographic differences in public support for particular policy settings or actions, and that ‘don't know’ respondents are important elements in interpreting drug policy preference data as they relate to different geographies.
In responses to the Action question, there was no single action that received majority support. Most preferred actions are consistent across the geographic areas of focus. Preferred actions for personal possession and use were no action for cannabis, referral to education for ecstasy, referral to treatment for heroin, methamphetamine, and hallucinogens, and the removal of criminal penalties for cannabis in GWS, Rest of Sydney and Rest of NSW. GWS returned lower levels of support for most preferred actions for ecstasy, heroin, and methamphetamine, and for the removal of criminal penalties for cannabis.
There is a consistently high proportion of respondents registering no opinion in our three geographic areas for both the Action and Criminal questions. Up to one in five respondents in GWS and one in seven in Rest of Sydney and NSW did not register an opinion on preferred actions; and up to one in four in GWS and one in six in Rest of Sydney and NSW did not register an opinion on whether cannabis use should remain a criminal offence. There were higher proportions of those not registering an opinion in GWS compared to both Rest of Sydney and NSW for both questions and across all drug types. The high proportion of people who did not register an opinion, particularly in GWS, suggests that people who do not know or do not answer represent an important site of further analysis and attention in education, engagement, and advocacy. More attention to geography and how it relates to substantive opinions on responses to different drugs should be taken into consideration when assessing levels of support for specific actions. Given that ‘knowledge’ may be only one reason why people ‘don't know’ [25], and that policy preferences are attitudinal rather than factual, there is scope for disseminating information around the evidence base for different policies. This is also the case for the higher levels of support for more punitive, criminalised mechanisms, which have evidence of substantial harms [71, 72, 73, 74, 75]. However, given different reasons underpinning ‘don't know’ responses [25], that the media plays a role in shaping public opinion [76], and that factual statements about particular policies do not necessarily alone increase public support [77, 78], there is also scope for engaging those who may not know in different ways to address other barriers such as understanding, ambivalence or perceived social desirability issues.
The high proportions of respondents not registering an opinion factor into understanding levels of policy support in two ways in the current analysis. The first is that excluding those respondents may inflate understandings of the specific level of public support for particular policies, in this case by a factor between 1.1 to 1.2 (actions taken) and 1.2 to 1.3 (criminal penalties) times. The second is that assessing respondents who do not register an opinion as a group tempers understandings of the preferred actions; that group in GWS for hallucinogens, for example, represents a bigger proportion of respondents than any single action and for ecstasy, the same proportion as the more preferred action. While the logic underpinning the exclusion of these respondents in representations of public attitudes is to gauge the strength of substantive attitudes toward an approach or issue, their omission also loses the opportunity to understand other parts of the drug policy picture, including how issue salience or engagement and knowledge of drug policy change in different areas.
Limitations of this study include the data source, geographic scale, and focus of our case study. There may be other ways to gauge public support for policy responses that do not rely on household surveys. The NDSHS has sampling limits discussed in the method section, including exclusion of unhoused people and people in institutions (e.g., prisons). Stigma around drug use may also limit the data when it comes to representing people who use drugs, and may have specific social desirability impacts when answering policy support questions. As noted above, this may also impact respondents returning ‘don't know’ or not answering items. We could have chosen any geographic sub‐unit for this study (as well as different geographic boundaries for GWS given there is no agreed definition for this subregion), and the extent to which ‘no opinion registered’ responses impact levels of support across other geographic areas remains unknown. Likewise, we could have chosen policy topics other than criminal penalties, and it remains to be seen how ‘don't know’ and no answer responses impact opinions on other drug policy topics. Additionally, this study did not aim to examine whether current context, politics, culture, or drug policy implementation drives the opinions or the ‘don't know’ responses discussed; that is a fruitful area for future research.
5.Conclusion
Public support for drug policies is an important part of the picture of policy debate and change. Interpretation of public opinion is dependent on how data are understood to relate to different geographies. The high proportions of respondents who do not know or do not answer, and in particular the way these proportions differ between geographic areas, should be specified to more accurately convey the benefits and limitations of survey data to drug policy debate. There is scope for specific interventions to increase engagement, to explore different participatory processes, and/or political and other public leadership in areas of drug policy that have particularly high proportions of people who do not register an opinion.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgements
Analysis of the SA3s forming the Greater Western Sydney region was made possible by the provision of a geographic variable provided by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Our thanks to Parker Blakey for his help and response to our requests. Thanks also to Bruce Bradbury for his advice on person weighting, statistical analysis and reporting; and Liz Barrett for her work on a literature review. Open access publishing facilitated by University of New South Wales, as part of the Wiley ‐ University of New South Wales agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.
Appendix A.Untitled section
| Group name | SA3 name | SA3 code | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Greater Western Sydney | Central Western Sydney | Canterbury | 11,902 |
| Auburn | 12,501 | ||
| Merrylands—Guildford | 12,503 | ||
| Parramatta | 12,504 | ||
| Blacktown | 11,601 | ||
| Bankstown | 11,901 | ||
| Penrith | 12,403 | ||
| Mount Druitt | 11,603 | ||
| St Mary's | 12,405 | ||
| Outer Western Sydney | Blue mountains—south | 12,402 | |
| Blue mountains | 12,401 | ||
| South Western Sydney | Fairfield | 12,702 | |
| Campbelltown | 12,302 | ||
| Liverpool | 12,703 | ||
| Camden | 12,301 | ||
| Wollondilly | 12,303 | ||
| Bringelly—Green Valley | 12,701 | ||
| North Western Sydney | Richmond—Windsor | 12,404 | |
| Hawkesbury | 11,503 | ||
| Dural—Wisemans Ferry | 11,502 | ||
| Baulkham Hills | 11,501 | ||
| Blacktown—North | 11,602 | ||
| Carlingford | 12,502 | ||
| Rouse Hill—McGraths Hills | 11,504 | ||
| Greater Western Sydney (incl. don't know/not answered) (%) | Greater Western Sydney (excl. don't know/not answered) (%) | Rest of Sydney (incl. don't know/not answered) (%) | Rest of Sydney (excl. don't know/not answered) (%) | Rest of NSW (incl. don't know/not answered) (%) | Rest of NSW (excl. don't know/not answered) (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cannabis | ||||||
| n | 1104 | 957 | 1107 | 1005 | 2306 | 2125 |
| No action | 23.1 (20.6, 25.6) | 26.6 (23.8, 29.4) | 39.4 (36.5, 42.3) | 43.4 (40.3, 46.4) | 37.6 (35.6, 39.5) | 40.8 (38.7, 42.8) |
| Caution or warning | 18.1 (15.8, 20.4) | 20.9 (18.3, 23.5) | 19.0 (16.7, 21.3) | 20.9 (18.4, 23.4) | 19.9 (18.3, 21.5) | 21.6 (19.9, 23.3) |
| Referral—education | 14.8 (12.7, 16.9) | 17.0 (14.7, 19.4) | 13.2 (11.2, 15.2) | 14.5 (12.3, 16.7) | 14.2 (12.8, 15.6) | 15.4 (13.9, 16.9) |
| Referral—treatment | 7.2 (5.7, 8.8) | 8.4 (6.6, 10.1) | 5.0 (3.7, 6.2) | 5.5 (4.1, 6.9) | 5.3 (4.4, 6.2) | 5.7 (4.8, 6.7) |
| Fine $200 | 5.7 (4.3, 7.1) | 6.6 (5.0, 8.2) | 5.5 (4.2, 6.9) | 6.1 (4.6, 7.5) | 5.5 (4.5, 6.4) | 5.9 (4.9, 6.9) |
| Fine $1000 | 8.3 (6.7, 10.0) | 9.6 (7.7, 11.5) | 4.1 (2.9, 5.2) | 4.5 (3.2, 5.8) | 4.7 (3.8, 5.5) | 5.1 (4.1, 6.0) |
| Community service order | 3.0 (2.0, 4.0) | 3.4 (2.3, 4.6) | 1.5 (0.8, 2.3) | 1.7 (0.9, 2.5) | 1.8 (1.3, 2.4) | 2.0 (1.4, 2.6) |
| Weekend detention | 0.9 (0.3, 1.5) | 1.0 (0.4, 1.7) | 0.7 (0.2, 1.2) | 0.8 (0.2, 1.3) | 0.7 (0.3, 1.0) | 0.7 (0.3, 1.1) |
| Prison | 4.6 (3.4, 5.9) | 5.3 (3.9, 6.8) | 2.3 (1.4, 3.1) | 2.5 (1.5, 3.5) | 2.3 (1.7, 2.9) | 2.5 (1.8, 3.2) |
| Other | 0.9 (0.3, 1.5) | 1.0 (0.4, 1.7) | 0.2 (−0.1, 0.4) | 0.2 (−0.1, 0.5) | 0.3 (0.1, 0.5) | 0.3 (0.1, 0.6) |
| Don't know | 8.0 (6.4, 9.6) | 5.4 (4.1, 6.8) | 4.6 (3.7, 5.4) | |||
| Not answered | 5.3 (4.0, 6.7) | 3.8 (2.7, 4.9) | 3.3 (2.6, 4.0) | |||
| Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Ecstasy | ||||||
| n | 1102 | 907 | 1106 | 974 | 2309 | 2933 |
| No action | 3.9 (2.8, 5.0) | 4.7 (3.4, 6.1) | 14.1 (12.1, 16.2) | 16.0 (13.7, 18.3) | 10.5 (9.2, 11.7) | 11.9 (10.5, 13.3) |
| Caution or warning | 9.3 (7.6, 11.1) | 11.4 (9.3, 13.4) | 16.5 (14.3, 18.6) | 18.7 (16.2, 21.1) | 15.1 (13.6, 16.5) | 17.1 (15.5, 18.8) |
| Referral—education | 18.1 (15.9, 20.4) | 22.1 (19.4, 24.7) | 19.5 (17.2, 21.9) | 22.2 (19.6, 24.8) | 19.5 (17.9, 21.1) | 22.2 (20.4, 24.0) |
| Referral—treatment | 12.3 (10.4, 14.3) | 15.0 (12.7, 17.3) | 11.0 (9.2, 12.9) | 12.5 (10.4, 14.6) | 12.3 (10.9, 13.6) | 13.9 (12.4, 15.4) |
| Fine $200 | 6.9 (5.4, 8.4) | 8.4 (6.6, 10.2) | 5.8 (4.4, 7.2) | 6.6 (5.0, 8.1) | 5.6 (4.7, 6.6) | 6.4 (5.3, 7.5) |
| Fine $1000 | 14.6 (12.5, 16.7) | 17.8 (15.3, 20.2) | 10.0 (8.3, 11.8) | 11.4 (9.4, 13.4) | 11.2 (9.9, 12.5) | 12.7 (11.2, 14.1) |
| Community service order | 3.0 (2.0, 4.0) | 3.6 (2.4, 4.9) | 3.5 (2.4, 4.6) | 4.0 (2.8, 5.2) | 3.5 (2.7, 4.2) | 3.9 (3.1, 4.8) |
| Weekend detention | 3.5 (2.4, 4.6) | 4.3 (3.0, 5.6) | 1.7 (1.0, 2.5) | 2.0 (1.1, 2.8) | 2.6 (2.0, 3.3) | 3.0 (2.3, 3.7) |
| Prison | 9.4 (7.7, 11.2) | 11.5 (9.4, 13.5) | 5.2 (3.9, 6.6) | 6.0 (4.5, 7.4) | 7.0 (5.9, 8.0) | 7.9 (6.7, 9.1) |
| Other | 1.1 (0.5, 1.7) | 1.3 (0.6, 2.1) | 0.6 (0.2, 1.1) | 0.7 (0.2, 1.2) | 0.8 (0.5, 1.2) | 0.9 (0.5, 1.4) |
| Don't know | 9.5 (7.8, 11.3) | 6.3 (4.9, 7.8) | 6.3 (5.3, 7.3) | |||
| Not answered | 8.2 (6.6, 9.8) | 5.6 (4.3, 7.0) | 5.7 (4.7, 6.6) | |||
| Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Heroin | ||||||
| n | 1103 | 940 | 1106 | 991 | 2309 | 2068 |
| No action | 1.5 (0.7, 2.2) | 1.7 (0.9, 2.5) | 3.8 (2.7, 4.9) | 4.2 (3.0, 5.5) | 2.8 (2.1, 3.4) | 3.1 (2.3, 3.8) |
| Caution or warning | 2.4 (1.5, 3.4) | 2.9 (1.8, 3.9) | 3.3 (2.2, 4.3) | 3.6 (2.5, 4.8) | 2.7 (2.1, 3.4) | 3.0 (2.3, 3.8) |
| Referral—education | 13.8 (11.7, 15.8) | 16.2 (13.8, 18.5) | 16.5 (14.4, 18.7) | 18.5 (16.1, 20.9) | 15.6 (14.1, 17.1) | 17.4 (15.8, 19.0) |
| Referral—treatment | 25.9 (23.3, 28.5) | 30.4 (27.5, 33.4) | 35.1 (32.3, 37.9) | 39.2 (36.1, 42.2) | 32.9 (31.0, 34.8) | 36.7 (34.6, 38.8) |
| Fine $200 | 2.1 (1.2, 2.9) | 2.4 (1.5, 3.4) | 1.7 (1.0, 2.5) | 1.9 (1.1, 2.8) | 2.2 (1.6, 2.8) | 2.4 (1.8, 3.1) |
| Fine $1000 | 14.1 (12.0, 16.1) | 16.5 (14.1, 18.9) | 9.2 (7.5, 10.9) | 10.3 (8.4, 12.2) | 10.6 (9.4, 11.9) | 11.8 (10.5, 13.2) |
| Community service order | 4.1 (2.9, 5.2) | 4.8 (3.4, 6.2) | 4.0 (2.8, 5.1) | 4.4 (3.2, 5.7) | 4.3 (3.5, 5.1) | 4.8 (3.9, 5.7) |
| Weekend detention | 3.8 (2.7, 4.9) | 4.5 (3.1, 5.8) | 2.9 (1.9, 3.9) | 3.2 (2.1, 4.3) | 3.0 (2.3, 3.7) | 3.4 (2.6, 4.2) |
| Prison | 16.7 (14.5, 18.9) | 19.6 (17.0, 22.1) | 12.1 (10.2, 14.0) | 13.5 (11.4, 15.7) | 14.2 (12.7, 15.6) | 15.8 (14.2, 17.4) |
| Other | 0.9 (0.3, 1.5) | 1.1 (0.4, 1.7) | 1.0 (0.4, 1.6) | 1.1 (0.5, 1.8) | 1.3 (0.9, 1.8) | 1.5 (1.0, 2.0) |
| Don't know | 7.3 (5.7, 8.8) | 5.2 (3.9, 6.5) | 5.1 (4.2, 6.0) | |||
| Not answered | 7.5 (6.0, 9.1) | 5.2 (3.9, 6.6) | 5.3 (4.4, 6.2) | |||
| Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Methamphetamine | ||||||
| n | 1103 | 909 | 1105 | 962 | 2308 | 2023 |
| No action | 1.5 (0.7, 2.2) | 1.8 (0.9, 2.6) | 4.0 (2.8, 5.1) | 4.6 (3.3, 5.9) | 2.7 (2.1, 3.4) | 3.1 (2.4, 3.9) |
| Caution or warning | 2.8 (1.8, 3.8) | 3.4 (2.2, 4.6) | 3.9 (2.8, 5.0) | 4.5 (3.2, 5.8) | 3.0 (2.3, 3.7) | 3.4 (2.6, 4.2) |
| Referral—education | 13.1 (11.1, 15.0) | 15.8 (13.5, 18.2) | 15.5 (13.3, 17.6) | 17.8 (15.4, 20.2) | 14.2 (12.8, 15.6) | 16.2 (14.6, 17.8) |
| Referral—treatment | 24.9 (22.4, 27.5) | 30.3 (27.3, 33.2) | 33.3 (30.5, 36.1) | 38.3 (35.2, 41.3) | 31.5 (29.6, 33.4) | 36.0 (33.9, 38.1) |
| Fine $200 | 2.2 (1.3, 3.0) | 2.6 (1.6, 3.7) | 2.3 (1.4, 3.1) | 2.6 (1.6, 3.6) | 2.7 (2.0, 3.3) | 3.1 (2.3, 3.8) |
| Fine $1000 | 13.3 (11.3, 15.3) | 16.2 (13.8, 18.6) | 8.6 (6.9, 10.3) | 9.9 (8.0, 11.8) | 9.4 (8.3, 10.6) | 10.8 (9.4, 12.1) |
| Community service order | 3.8 (2.7, 4.9) | 4.6 (3.3, 6.0) | 3.4 (2.4, 4.5) | 4.0 (2.7, 5.2) | 4.0 (3.2, 4.8) | 4.6 (3.7, 5.5) |
| Weekend detention | 3.4 (2.3, 4.4) | 4.1 (2.8, 5.4) | 3.5 (2.4, 4.6) | 4.1 (2.8, 5.3) | 3.6 (2.9, 4.4) | 4.2 (3.3, 5.0) |
| Prison | 16.1 (14.0, 18.3) | 19.6 (17.0, 22.2) | 11.4 (9.5, 13.3) | 13.1 (11.0, 15.2) | 15.0 (13.6, 16.5) | 17.2 (15.5, 18.8) |
| Other | 1.4 (0.7, 2.0) | 1.7 (0.8, 2.5) | 1.2 (0.5, 1.8) | 1.4 (0.6, 2.1) | 1.3 (0.9, 1.8) | 1.5 (1.0, 2.1) |
| Don't know | 9.9 (8.1, 11.6) | 7.3 (5.8, 8.9) | 6.7 (5.7, 7.7) | |||
| Not answered | 7.7 (6.1, 9.3) | 5.6 (4.3, 7.0) | 5.7 (4,7, 6.6) | |||
| Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Hallucinogens | ||||||
| n | 1103 | 870 | 1106 | 947 | 2308 | 1982 |
| No action | 3.4 (2.4, 4.5) | 4.4 (3.0, 5.7) | 12.8 (10.9, 14.8) | 15.0 (12.7, 17.3) | 9.8 (8.6, 11.1) | 11.5 (10.1, 12.9) |
| Caution or warning | 6.2 (4.7, 7.6) | 7.8 (6.0, 9.6) | 10.6 (8.8, 12.4) | 12.4 (10.3, 14.5) | 8.9 (7.7, 10.0) | 10.3 (9.0, 11.7) |
| Referral—education | 16.1 (14.0, 18.3) | 20.5 (17.8, 23.1) | 16.9 (14.7, 19.1) | 19.7 (17.2, 22.3) | 17.2 (15.7, 18.8) | 20.1 (18.3, 21.8) |
| Referral—treatment | 18.8 (16.5, 21.1) | 23.8 (21.0, 26.6) | 18.9 (16.6, 21.2) | 22.1 (19.4, 24.7) | 19.3 (17.7, 20.9) | 22.5 (20.6, 24.3) |
| Fine $200 | 4.1 (2.9, 5.2) | 5.2 (3.7, 6.6) | 4.2 (3.0, 5.3) | 4.9 (3.5, 6.2) | 4.9 (4.0, 5.8) | 5.7 (4.7, 6.7) |
| Fine $1000 | 11.3 (9.5, 13.2) | 14.4 (12.0, 16.7) | 8.8 (7.1, 10.4) | 10.2 (8.3, 12.2) | 8.9 (7.7, 10.0) | 10.3 (9.0, 11.7) |
| Community service order | 2.7 (1.8, 3.7) | 3.4 (2.2, 4.7) | 3.1 (2.1, 4.1) | 3.6 (2.4, 4.8) | 3.8 (3.0, 4.5) | 4.4 (3.5, 5.3) |
| Weekend detention | 3.2 (2.1, 4.2) | 4.0 (2.7, 5.3) | 2.4 (1.5, 3.4) | 2.9 (1.8, 3.9) | 2.8 (2.1, 3.5) | 3.3 (2.5, 4.1) |
| Prison | 11.5 (9.6, 13.4) | 14.6 (12.3, 16.9) | 7.1 (5.5, 8.6) | 8.2 (6.5, 10.0) | 9.0 (7.8, 10.2) | 10.5 (9.1, 11.8) |
| Other | 1.5 (0.8, 2.3) | 2.0 (1.0, 2.9) | 0.9 (0.3, 1.5) | 1.1 (0.4, 1.7) | 1.3 (0.8, 1.7) | 1.5 (0.9, 2.0) |
| Don't know | 12.8 (10.8, 14.8) | 8.4 (6.8, 10.0) | 8.1 (7.0, 9.2) | |||
| Not answered | 8.3 (6.7, 10.0) | 6.0 (4.6, 7.4) | 6.0 (5.1, 7.0) | |||
| Total | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Including ‘unsure/don't know’ | Excluding ‘unsure/don't know’ | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | Retain % | Remove % | Unsure/don't know % | n | Retain % | Remove % | |
| GWS | 1104 | 23.7 (21.2, 26.2) | 52.7 (49.8, 55.7) | 23.6 (21.0, 26.1) | 844 | 31.0 (27.9, 34.2) | 69.0 (65.8, 72.1) |
| Rest of Sydney | 1106 | 13.3 (11.3, 15.3) | 70.3 (67.6, 72.9) | 16.5 (14.3, 18.6) | 924 | 15.9 (13.6, 18.3) | 84.1 (81.7, 86.4) |
| Rest of NSW | 2309 | 15.3 (13.8, 16.8) | 69.4 (67.5, 71.3) | 15.3 (13.8, 16.8) | 1956 | 18.0 (16.3, 19.8) | 82.0 (80.2, 83.7) |
Untitled section
Kelaita P., O'Reilly K., and Ritter A., “Geographic Differences in Public Opinion on Drug Policy: Understanding Patterns of Support and ‘Don't Know’ Responses,” Drug and Alcohol Review 44, no. 7 (2025): 1831–1846, 10.1111/dar.70023.
Untitled section
Footnote Group
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from Australian Data Archive. Restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for this study. Data are available from https://dataverse.ada.edu.au/dataverse/ada with the permission of Australian Data Archive.
References
Untitled section
References
- 1. Lax J. R. and Phillips J. H., “The Democratic Deficit in the States,” American Journal of Political Science 56, no. 1 (2012): 148–166.
- 2. Burstein P., “Why Estimates of the Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy Are Too High: Empirical and Theoretical Implications,” Social Forces 84, no. 4 (2006): 2273–2289.
- 3. Burstein P., “The Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy: A Review and an Agenda,” Political Research Quarterly 56, no. 1 (2003): 29–40.
- 4. Page B. I. and Shapiro R. Y., “Effects of Public Opinion on Policy,” American Political Science Review 77, no. 1 (1983): 175–190.
- 5. Page B. I., “Democratic Responsiveness? Untangling the Links Between Public Opinion and Policy,” PS: Political Science & Politics 27, no. 1 (1994): 25–29.
- 6. Burstein P., “Public Opinion, Public Policy, and Democracy,” in Handbook of Politics: State and Society in Global Perspective, ed. Leicht K. T. and Jenkins J. C. (Springer New York, 2010), 63–79.
- 7. Wlezien C., “Public Opinion and Policy Representation: On Conceptualization, Measurement, and Interpretation,” Policy Studies Journal 45, no. 4 (2017): 561–582.
- 8. Wlezien C. and Soroka S. N., Public Opinion and Public Policy. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics (Oxford University Press, 2021).
- 9. Soss J. O. E. and Schram S. F., “A Public Transformed? Welfare Reform as Policy Feedback,” American Political Science Review 101, no. 1 (2007): 111–127.
- 10. Hoff‐Elimari E., Bardi A., Matti S., and Östman K., “Collective Action Problems: Disentangling Possible Feedback Loops Between Government Policies and the Public's Value‐Change,” European Journal of Government and Economics 3, no. 1 (2014): 24–46.
- 11. Bartels L. M., Unequal Democracy (Princeton University Press, 2017).
- 12. Bieundurry T. and Murphy H., Outback Leaders Call for Help as Cheap Methylamphetamine Takes Toll on Communities (ABC News, 2024).
- 13. Vidler A., “Drink, Drug Consumption for Young Women on the Rise in Latest Survey,” 9News, February 29, 2024.
- 14. Faehrmann C., Pill Testing Trial Bill 2023: Second Reading Speech (Parliament of New South Wales, 2024).
- 15. Lancaster K., Ritter A., and Stafford J., “Public Opinion and Drug Policy in Australia: Engaging the ‘Affected Community’,” Drug and Alcohol Review 32, no. 1 (2013): 60–66.
- 16. Caluzzi G., Torney A., and Callinan S., “Who Supports Drug‐Checking Services in Australia? An Analysis of 2019 National Drug Strategy Household Survey Data,” Drug and Alcohol Review 42 (2023): 1553–1558.
- 17. Wilkinson C., Room R., and Livingston M., “Mapping Australian Public Opinion on Alcohol Policies in the New Millennium,” Drug and Alcohol Review 28, no. 3 (2009): 263–274.
- 18. Baker J., Masood M., Rahman M. A., and Begg S., “Levels of Support for the Licensing of Tobacco Retailers in Australia: Findings From the National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2004‐2016,” BMC Public Health 20, no. 1 (2020): 773.
- 19. Weatherburn D., Alexeev S., and Livingston M., “Changes in and Correlates of Australian Public Attitudes Toward Illicit Drug Use,” Drug and Alcohol Review 41, no. 5 (2022): 1029–1040.
- 20. Lloyd Z., Colledge‐Frisby S., Taylor N., Livingston M., Jauncey M., and Roxburgh A., “Changes in Australians' Attitudes Towards Supervised Injecting Facilities,” Drug and Alcohol Review 43, no. 7 (2024): 1892–1904.
- 21. Torney A., Room R., Jiang H., Livingston M., and Callinan S., “Shifts in the Australian Public's Opinions Towards Alcohol Policies: 2004–2019,” Drug and Alcohol Review 42, no. 7 (2023): 1785–1795.
- 22. Uniting NSW , “ACT. Possession and Use of Drugs: Options for Changing the Law,” November 25, 2020.
- 23. DPA , “Drug Policy Australia Submission to the Inquiry into the Impact of the Regulatory Framework for Cannabis in New South Wales,” Inquiry Into the Impact of the Regulatory Framework for Cannabis in New South Wales, 2024.
- 24. AADC , “Australian Alcohol & Other Drugs Council Submission to the Joint Law Enforcement Committee Inquiry,” 2023. Inquiry into Australia's illicit Drug Problem: Challenges and Opportunities for Law Enforcement.
- 25. Purdam K., Sakshaug J., Bourne M., and Bayliss D., “Understanding ‘Don't Know’ Answers to Survey Questions—An International Comparative Analysis Using Interview Paradata,” Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 37, no. 2 (2024): 219–241.
- 26. Luskin R. C. and Bullock J. G., ““Don't Know” Means “Don't Know”: DK Responses and the Public's Level of Political Knowledge,” Journal of Politics 73, no. 2 (2011): 547–557.
- 27. Harmon M. D., “Poll Question Readability and ‘Don't Know’ Replies,” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 13, no. 1 (2001): 72–79.
- 28. Johnson A. A., “Ambivalence, Political Engagement and Context,” Political Studies 62, no. 3 (2013): 502–521.
- 29. O'Reilly K. and Ritter A., Non‐Criminal Responses to Drug Use and Personal Possession in Australia (UNSW Social Policy Research Centre, 2024).
- 30. Kelaita P., “Tracks to Gay Elsewheres: Cultural Attachment and Spatial Imaginaries,” Cultural Geographies 29, no. 4 (2022): 531–545.
- 31. Kelaita P., “Suburban Vogue and Other Queer Survival Strategies,” Cultural Studies 38, no. 2 (2022): 273–298.
- 32. Wallace L., Rawlings V., Kelaita P., and Gauja A., “Marriage Equality Blues: Method and Mess Around the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey,” Australian Feminist Studies 36, no. 109 (2021): 260–277.
- 33. Collins J. and Poynting S., The Other Sydney: Communities, Identities and Inequalities in Western Sydney (Common Ground, 2000).
- 34. Poynting S., Noble G., Tabar P., and Collins J., Bin Laden in the Suburbs: Criminalising the Arab Other (Sydney Institute of Criminology, 2004).
- 35. Stratton J. and Ang I., “Multicultural Imagined Communities: Cultural Difference and National Identity in Australia and the USA,” Continuum 8, no. 2 (1994): 124–158.
- 36. Marks A. and Nance T., Western Sydney Votes: How Australia's Most Dynamic Region Is Shaping the 2023 NSW Election (Centre for Western Sydney, 2023).
- 37. Williams F., “How Issues Linked to Growth in Sydney's West Will Influence the Federal Election,” ABC News, 16 April, 2025.
- 38. Baker J. and Goh D., The Cannabis Cautioning Scheme Three Years On: An Implementation and Outcome Evaluation (NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2004).
- 39. Cronshaw D., “NSW Crime Data Shows Cannabis Cautioning Scheme Has Gone to Pot and Become a ‘Class War’,” Newcastle Herald, December 20, 2020.
- 40. McGowan M. and Knaus C., “NSW Police Pursue 80% of Indigenous People Caught With Cannabis Through Courts,” Guardian, June 10, 2020.
- 41. Teperski A. and Rahman S., Why Are Aboriginal Adults Less Likely to Receive Cannabis Cautions? (NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2023).
- 42. DPMP Team , How Is the Early Drug Diversion Initiative Going? (Social Policy Research Centre, 2024).
- 43. Darke S., Hall W., and Swift W., Geographical Differences in Risk‐Taking Among Sydney Methadone Maintenance Patients: A Comparison of Inner City and Outer South Western Clinics (National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, 1993).
- 44. Kaye S. and Darke S., “Injecting and Non‐Injecting Cocaine Use in Sydney, Australia: Physical and Psychological Morbidity,” Drug and Alcohol Review 23, no. 4 (2004): 391–398.
- 45. Bell J. and Cumming R., “Drinking Habits in Sydney's Western Suburbs,” Australian Drug and Alcohol Review 8, no. 1 (1989): 9–13.
- 46. Darke S. and Ross J., “Heroin‐Related Deaths in South Western Sydney, Australia, 1992‐96,” Drug and Alcohol Review 18, no. 1 (1999): 39–45.
- 47. Munot S., Donato‐Hunt C., Copeland J., et al., Alcohol and Other Drug Use, Attitudes and Knowledge Amongst Six CALD Communities in Sydney; Project Evaluation and Overview (Drug and Alcohol Multicultural Education Centre, 2008).
- 48. Swift W., Maher L., and Sunjic S., “Transitions Between Routes of Heroin Administration: A Study of Caucasian and Indochinese Heroin Users in South‐Western Sydney, Australia,” Addiction 94, no. 1 (1999): 71–82.
- 49. Maher L., Chant K., Jalaludin B., and Sargent P., “Risk Behaviors and Antibody Hepatitis B and C Prevalence Among Injecting Drug Users in South‐Western Sydney, Australia,” Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology 19, no. 10 (2004): 1114–1120.
- 50. McKetin R., McLaren J., and Kelly E., The Sydney Methamphetamine Market: Patterns of Supply, Use, Personal Harms and Social Consequences (National Drug Law Enforcement Research Fund, 2005).
- 51. Ho H. T. and Maher L., “Có Vay có Tra’ (What Goes Around Comes Around): Culture, Risk and Vulnerability to Blood‐Borne Viruses Among Ethnic Vietnamese Injecting Drug Users,” Drug and Alcohol Review 27, no. 4 (2008): 420–428.
- 52. Maneze D., Speizer A., Dalton N., and Dennis S., “A Descriptive Study of Kava Use Among Tongan Men in Macarthur, Sydney South West,” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 32, no. 4 (2008): 314–316.
- 53. Dertadian G. C. and Tomsen S., “The Case for a Second Safe Injecting Facility (SIF) in Sydney,” Current Issues in Criminal Justice 32, no. 2 (2020): 180–192.
- 54. Tomsen S. and Yates K., “Scoping Report: Proposed Drug Consumption Rooms in South‐Western Sydney,” SSRN (2017), 10.2139/ssrn.3222097.
- 55. Yates K., What Do Needle and Syringe Programs Do?: An Assemblic Account of Staff‐Client Relationships at Needle Syringe Programs, 1st ed. (Springer Nature Switzerland, 2023).
- 56. Treloar C., Mao L., Yates K., Hull P., and Wilson H., Western Sydney Needle and Syringe Program Study: A Report to Community. Sydney (Centre for Social Research in Health, 2017).
- 57. Weatherburn D., Lind B., and Forsythe L., Drug Law Enforcement: Its Effect on Treatment Experience and Injecting Practices (NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 1999).
- 58. Maher L. and Dixon D., “The Cost of Crackdowns: Policing Cabramatta's Heroin Market,” Current Issues in Criminal Justice 13, no. 1 (2001): 5–22.
- 59. Weatherburn D. and Lind B., “Street‐Level Drug Law Enforcement and Entry Into Methadone Maintenance Treatment,” Addiction 96, no. 4 (2001): 577–587.
- 60. Dixon D. and Maher L., “Anh Hai: Policing, Culture and Social Exclusion in a Street Heroin Market,” Policing and Society 12, no. 2 (2002): 93–110.
- 61. Dixon D. and Maher L., “Policing, Crime and Public Health: Lessons for Australia From the ‘New York Miracle’,” Criminal Justice 5, no. 2 (2005): 115–143.
- 62. Farrugia A., Fraser S., Edwards M., Madden A., and Hocking S., Lived Experiences of Stigma and Discrimination Among People Accessing South Western Sydney Local Health District Drug Health Services (The Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, 2019).
- 63. Wilson H., Brener L., Mao L., and Treloar C., “Perceived Discrimination and Injecting Risk Among People Who Inject Drugs Attending Needle and Syringe Programmes in Sydney, Australia,” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 144 (2014): 274–278.
- 64. Dertadian G. C., Caruana T., and Maher L., “‘Grew Up With a Silver Spoon in My Mouth, but It Ended up the Nose’: The Stigma and Labelling of Injection Drug Use in an Affluent Beachside Community,” Critical Criminology 31, no. 3 (2023): 811–825.
- 65. AIHW , NDSHS 2022–23 (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2024).
- 66. AIHW , NDSHS 2022–23: Technical Notes (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2024).
- 67. Chalmers J., Lancaster K., and Hughes C., “The Stigmatisation of ‘Ice’ and Under‐Reporting of Meth/Amphetamine Use in General Population Surveys: A Case Study From Australia,” International Journal on Drug Policy 36 (2016): 15–24.
- 68. ABS , Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS) Edition 3 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2021).
- 69. Roy Morgan , National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2022 Technical Report (Roy Morgan, 2023), https://dataverse.ada.edu.au/dataverse.xhtml?alias=ndshs.
- 70. Krosnick J. A., Holbrook A. L., Berent M. K., et al., “The Impact of “No Opinion” Response Options on Data Quality: Non‐Attitude Reduction or an Invitation to Satisfice?,” Public Opinion Quarterly 66, no. 3 (2002): 371–403.
- 71. DeBeck K., Cheng T., Montaner J. S., et al., “HIV and the Criminalisation of Drug Use Among People Who Inject Drugs: A Systematic Review,” Lancet HIV 4, no. 8 (2017): e357–e374.
- 72. Lancaster K., Seear K., and Ritter A., Reducing Stigma and Discrimination for People Experiencing Problematic Alcohol and Other Drug Use (Queensland Mental Health Commission, 2017).
- 73. Lloyd C., “The Stigmatization of Problem Drug Users: A Narrative Literature Review,” Drugs Education, Prevention and Policy 20, no. 2 (2013): 85–95.
- 74. Baker P., Beletsky L., Avalos L., et al., “Policing Practices and Risk of HIV Infection Among People Who Inject Drugs,” Epidemiologic Reviews 42, no. 1 (2020): 27–40.
- 75. Benfer I., Zahnow R., Barratt M. J., Maier L., Winstock A., and Ferris J., “The Impact of Drug Policy Liberalisation on Willingness to Seek Help for Problem Drug Use: A Comparison of 20 Countries,” International Journal on Drug Policy 56 (2018): 162–175.
- 76. Whiteside B. and Dunn M., “Voices Represented and Voices Silenced: Represented Voices in the Media Coverage of the Implementation of a Supervised Injecting Facility,” International Journal on Drug Policy 121 (2023): 104213.
- 77. Sumnall H. R., Atkinson A. M., Trayner K. M. A., Gage S. H., and McAuley A., “Effects of Messaging on Public Support for Drug Consumption Rooms in Scotland, UK,” International Journal of Drug Policy 83 (2020): 102855.
- 78. Ruiz Flores López P., Sánchez Hiza Ó., Zizumbo‐Colunga D., Cruz Lathrop R., and Vásquez Salazar J. C., “What Sways Public Opinion? An Experimental Study on Moral vs. Evidence‐Based Arguments for Drug Harm Reduction,” Drugs Education, Prevention and Policy 32 (2025): 1–368.40206199
- 79. Open Street Map Contributors , Open Street Map Database [Internet] (Open Street Map Foundation, 2025), accessed August 4, 2025, https://www.openstreetmap.org.
- 80. AIHW , National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2022 (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2022).
Associated Data
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from Australian Data Archive. Restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for this study. Data are available from https://dataverse.ada.edu.au/dataverse/ada with the permission of Australian Data Archive.