In terms of the CCP’s positive effects on substance abuse, 12 uniform members of the 28 participants saw the program as having no positive effects on substance abuse. This ranged from participants actually stating that there were no positive effects, to participants not providing an answer as to what they believed the positive aspects of the program were. Of those who did not address the positive effects of the CCP on substance abuse, it was assumed that this was because they did not see any positive effects.
Of the participants who did explore the positive effects of the CCP on substance abuse, four uniform and one CIU member saw that the program could be used to steer first-time or minor drug offenders away from drug use. It was perceived that this could be done through educating them on the legal, physical and social consequences that can arise out of substance use. One participant stated:
The caution creates a “shock” to the offender in that they are on the edge of the legal system as being labelled a “drug offender”. In accepting this caution the subject makes a conscious decision about whether or not to continue drug abuse/use rather than accepting that it is a community culture.
(Uniform 6)
Similarly, six uniform and one CIU participant believed the CCP gave otherwise law-abiding citizens a second chance. Through implementing the CCP, offenders are given the chance to see the error of their ways and move towards altering their behaviour.
Participants believed that through the referral system offenders could get help for their drug problem, as the CCP was effective in preventing a gateway effect. That is, through the CCP low-level, first-time users could be educated on the effects of the drug and thus possibly prevent their graduation to stronger, more serious illicit drugs. The CCP was also seen as a tool with which police can gain knowledge about the extent of an offender’s drug use.
Of the four police prosecutors who participated in the study, only two saw the CCP as having a positive effect on substance abuse. They commented that the program gave offenders the opportunity to avoid a court appearance while also making them aware of the consequences of their behaviour. Other positive effects of the CCP were also cited by one prosecutor, however these related to the program’s ability to save time when processing offenders. There was no consideration of the positive effects of the CCP on substance abuse. The remaining prosecutor did not explore the positive effects of the CCP on substance abuse.
Many participants did not identify any apparent negative effects on the courts, but 12 uniform participants perceived the CCP to trivialise cannabis use or give the impression that its use had been decriminalised. Within this group, one uniform participant expressed fears that such trivialisation would result in an increase in the number of young people turning to drug use. They stated:
Negative aspects are that if we give the attitude that possessing cannabis is a small and petty matter then it may not be seen as a deterrent to possess it. May therefore see increase in people
being in possession of cannabis. If people are given a caution they may not think twice about doing it again, they may think that they are getting off lightly.
(Uniform 2)
A uniform participant raised further concerns that by the program treating offenders leniently, police personnel would place less importance on the detection of minor cannabis offences.
Weaknesses of the CCP also included the lack of a follow-up requirement within the program. It was perceived by two uniform participants that the lack of such an element placed no onus on offenders to seek treatment or rehabilitation and therefore did not promote use reduction. This perception suggests that the lack of compulsory drug education or counselling for offenders would result in the matter being further trivialised. This in turn could cause an increase in the number of offenders being processed for cannabis use/possession.
Of those consulted, six uniform and one CIU member saw the CCP as having no negative effects on substance abuse. Although the CCP has a drug treatment referral element, five uniform participants saw the fact that attendance at such programs is not compulsory as a negative because there was no incentive for offenders to stop using cannabis. Similarly, five uniform participants saw the CCP as a soft approach towards drug use and therefore did little to deter offenders from using cannabis.
Another negative effect of the CCP on substance abuse was the perception that heavy cannabis users were getting off lightly with a caution. Of those consulted,
three uniform members saw this as a negative, although two of the participants did not elaborate on their responses, one member stated:
If it’s someone that is a heavy user and they’ve not been caught and they’re getting off lightly. It could work negatively in that it encourages people to continue drug use. They don’t see the police taking it as an important matter so why should they.
(Uniform 2)
In most instances a move towards a social welfare approach could be considered a positive effect, but two uniform participants saw the move towards a social welfare approach as having a negative effect on substance abuse. Both participants believed that as the CCP removed any element of reprimand, then there was no incentive for offenders to alter their behaviour. The two remaining uniform participants saw the CCP as having a negative effect on substance abuse in two ways. First, if investigating members fail to refer an offender, the offender learns nothing from the situation and therefore may continue using cannabis. Second, regardless of the existence of the CCP, if an offender truly does not want to quit using cannabis then no amount of coercion will get them to stop using.
Of the four prosecutors who participated, three saw the CCP as having the potential to further trivialise cannabis use. Of these participants, two believed that cannabis use was considered relatively minor among offenders and the introduction of the CCP further trivialised its use. One participant stated that they were generally sceptical when told by offenders that they will give up cannabis use, however with the introduction of the CCP they were less likely to
attempt to stop using, as the CCP treats cannabis use as a minor matter. It was perceived that when considering regular users, the CCP had little influence on the offender’s behaviour. The remaining prosecutor perceived that the CCP had no negative effects on substance abuse.