Developmental Research for the
National Drugs Campaign 2012-14
Qualitative and Quantitative Research Report
Prepared for:
Jenny Taylor
Christina Heris
Department of Health and Ageing
Prepared by:
Kylie Miller
Claire Duffy
Craig Smith
Patrick Ell
July 2013
Table of Contents
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ 1
1.1
BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2
OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.3
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2
1.4
KEY FINDINGS FROM THE QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ......................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.5
KEY FINDINGS FROM THE QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
1.6
SEGMENTATION ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 5
1.7
CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
1.8
IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................... 7
2
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 9
3
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................... 11
3.1
SPECIFIC RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................................................................... 11
3.2
RESEARCH OUTPUTS .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 12
4
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 13
4.1
METHODOLOGY – STAGE ONE QUALITATIVE RESEARCH .............................................................................................................................................. 13
4.2
METHODOLOGY – STAGE TWO QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH............................................................................................................................................ 15
5
THE QUALITATIVE DRUGS LANDSCAPE ................................................................................................. 19
5.1
OVERVIEW.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 19
5.2
SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE QUALITATIVE SAMPLE .................................................................................................................................................... 19
5.3
THE DRUGS LANDSCAPE IN 2012 ................................................................................................................................................................................. 19
5.4
CHANGES TO THE DRUGS LANDSCAPE ......................................................................................................................................................................... 20
5.5
MAPPING THE DRUGS LANDSCAPE ............................................................................................................................................................................... 21
6
DRUG AWARENESS AND USAGE ......................................................................................................... 23
6.1
UNPROMPTED AWARENESS OF ILLICIT DRUGS .............................................................................................................................................................. 23
6.2
DRUG USAGE .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 26
6.3
INDIVIDUAL DRUGS EVER USED AMONGST ILLICIT DRUG TRIALISTS, OVER TIME .............................................................................................................. 27
7
PERCEPTIONS OF PEER DRUG USE ...................................................................................................... 35
7.1
PERCEIVED DRUG USE NORMS .................................................................................................................................................................................... 35
7.2
PERCEIVED INCREASE OR DECREASE IN PEER DRUG USE ............................................................................................................................................. 38
8
DRUG AVAILABILITY ........................................................................................................................ 41
9
RISK OF DRUG TAKING ..................................................................................................................... 46
10
IMPACT OF KNOWING PEOPLE WITH DRUG PROBLEMS AND AVENUES OF SUPPORT .......................................... 50
11
PERCEPTIONS OF DRUGS.................................................................................................................. 52
11.1
PERCEIVED DANGEROUSNESS OF INDIVIDUAL DRUGS ............................................................................................................................................ 52
11.2
PERCEPTIONS THAT INDIVIDUAL DRUGS ARE FUN .................................................................................................................................................. 56
11.3
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEPTIONS OF DRUG DANGEROUSNESS AND FUN................................................................................................. 59
11.4
RELATIVE PERCEPTIONS OF DRUGS ...................................................................................................................................................................... 61
12
IMAGERY OF DRUG USERS ................................................................................................................ 65
13
INDIVIDUAL DRUGS IN PROFILE ........................................................................................................... 68
Page | i
13.1
TOBACCO ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 68
13.2
ALCOHOL ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 69
13.3
MARIJUANA .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 70
13.4
ECSTASY ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 74
13.5
MUSHROOMS ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 79
13.6
LSD .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 82
13.7
COCAINE ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 85
13.8
SPEED ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 88
13.9
ICE ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 91
13.10
HEROIN ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 94
14
ATTITUDES TO LIFE AND DRUGS ......................................................................................................... 99
14.1
15
ATTITUDES TO LIFE............................................................................................................................................................................................... 99
SEGMENTATION ........................................................................................................................... 104
15.1
THE 2012 QUALITATIVE SEGMENTS..................................................................................................................................................................... 104
15.2
SUMMARY OF THE 2012 QUALITATIVE SEGMENTS ................................................................................................................................................ 106
15.3
THE 2012 QUANTITATIVE SEGMENTATION ........................................................................................................................................................... 108
15.4
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 2012 QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE SEGMENTATIONS .................................................................................... 109
15.5
SUMMARY OF 2012 QUANTITATIVE SEGMENTS .................................................................................................................................................... 110
15.6
ATTITUDES TO DRUGS ACROSS SEGMENTS ......................................................................................................................................................... 119
15.7
DRUG USE PATTERNS ACROSS SEGMENTS .......................................................................................................................................................... 124
15.8
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 2000 AND 2012 QUANTITATIVE SEGMENTS ........................................................................................................ 128
16
POTENTIAL COMMUNICATION APPROACHES......................................................................................... 129
16.1
HARM MINIMISATION ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 129
16.2
CREDIBLE CONSEQUENCES ................................................................................................................................................................................ 129
16.3
PROVIDING TOOLS FOR DRUG REJECTION ........................................................................................................................................................... 130
16.4
STORYTELLING .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 130
16.5
HUMOUR ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 130
16.6
ABSTRACT APPROACHES .................................................................................................................................................................................... 130
16.7
IMPACT ON OTHERS ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 131
16.8
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 131
17
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................. 132
17.1
CURRENT PERCEPTIONS OF DRUGS .................................................................................................................................................................... 132
17.2
CURRENT USAGE ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 132
17.3
POTENTIAL FOR INCREASED FUTURE USE............................................................................................................................................................ 133
17.4
IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE COMMUNICATIONS BY INDIVIDUAL DRUG .................................................................................................................... 133
17.5
IMPLICATIONS: WHICH SEGMENT TO TARGET?..................................................................................................................................................... 134
17.6
IMPLICATIONS: IDEAL SEGMENT RESPONSE TO COMMUNICATIONS ACTIVITIES ....................................................................................................... 135
17.7
EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION APPROACHES ......................................................................................................................................................... 135
APPENDIX A: 2012 QUANTITATIVE SEGMENT CHARACTERISTICS ...................................................................................... 137
APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL DATA ............................................................................................................................. 149
APPENDIX C: QUALITATIVE RECRUITMENT SCREENER .................................................................................................. 175
APPENDIX D: QUALITATIVE DISCUSSION GUIDE ........................................................................................................... 178
APPENDIX E: QUALITATIVE SELF COMPLETE EXERCISES ............................................................................................... 181
Page | ii
APPENDIX F: QUANTITATIVE QUESTIONNAIRE
............................................................................................................ 183
APPENDIX G: USING THIS RESEARCH ....................................................................................................................... 197
Page | iii
List of Figures and Tables
Page
TABLE 1:
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE QUALITATIVE GROUPS ....................................................................................................... 14
TABLE 2:
QUANTITATIVE SAMPLING FRAMEWORK BY AGE AND GENDER ...................................................................................... 15
FIGURE 1:
PERCEPTIONS OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DRUGS ........................................................................................................ 21
FIGURE 2:
PERCEPTIONS OF ILLICIT DRUGS – FUN VS. HARM ........................................................................................................ 22
FIGURE 3:
UNPROMPTED AWARENESS OF ILLICIT DRUGS (12-24 YEAR OLDS) ................................................................................ 23
TABLE 3:
SUMMARY OF UNPROMPTED AWARENESS OF ILLICIT DRUGS, BY GENDER AND AGE ..................................................... 24
TABLE 4:
UNPROMPTED AWARENESS OF ILLICIT DRUGS 2000 – 2012 (15-24 YEAR OLDS) .............................................................. 25
FIGURE 4:
DRUGS EVER USED - 15-24 YEAR OLDS ........................................................................................................................ 26
TABLE 5:
DRUGS ‘EVER USED’ AMONGST THOSE WHO HAVE EVER USED ILLICIT DRUGS .............................................................. 27
TABLE 6:
CROSS USAGE OF DRUGS (EVER USED) ....................................................................................................................... 28
FIGURE 5:
DRUG USE SUMMARY – 15-24 YEAR OLDS ..................................................................................................................... 29
FIGURE 6:
DRUG USE SUMMARY – 12-14 YEAR OLDS ..................................................................................................................... 30
TABLE 7:
CONVERSION FROM TRIAL TO ANNUAL AND LAST FOUR WEEKS’ USAGE........................................................................ 31
FIGURE 7:
NUMBER OF DAYS USED EACH DRUG IN PAST FOUR WEEKS (AMONG RECENT USERS) .................................................. 32
FIGURE 8:
DRUG USAGE ALONE OR WITH OTHERS ....................................................................................................................... 33
TABLE 8:
DRUG USE LOCATION .................................................................................................................................................. 34
FIGURE 9:
ESTIMATE OF PERCENTAGE OF PEERS WHO HAVE TRIED EACH DRUG .......................................................................... 35
TABLE 9:
PERCEPTION OF PEER TRIAL OF DRUGS ...................................................................................................................... 36
FIGURE 10:
ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF PEER DRUG USAGE (‘EVER USED’ VS. ‘NEVER USED’) VS. REPORTED USAGE BY DRUG ..... 37
FIGURE 11:
PERCEIVED INCREASE OR DECREASE IN PEER DRUG USE (15-24 YEAR OLDS) ............................................................... 38
FIGURE 12:
PERCEIVED INCREASE OR DECREASE IN PEER DRUG USE (12-14 YEAR OLDS) ............................................................... 39
TABLE 10:
PERCEPTION THAT MORE PEERS ARE TAKING DRUGS – BY DRUG USE HISTORY ........................................................... 40
FIGURE 13:
OFFERED/HAD OPPORTUNITY TO USE ILLICIT DRUG IN LAST YEAR ................................................................................ 41
FIGURE 14:
OFFERED/HAD OPPORTUNITY TO USE SPECIFIC ILLICIT DRUGS .................................................................................... 42
FIGURE 15:
OFFERED VS. TRIED CONVERSION BY SPECIFIC ILLICIT DRUG....................................................................................... 43
TABLE 11:
ILLICIT DRUGS OFFERED BY DRUG USE EXPERIENCE ................................................................................................... 44
TABLE 12:
ILLICIT DRUGS OFFERED BY AGE AND GENDER ............................................................................................................ 45
FIGURE 16:
LIKELIHOOD OF TAKING DRUG IF OFFERED BY A FRIEND BY DRUG TYPE ....................................................................... 46
TABLE 13:
AT RISK OF DRUG TAKING IF OFFERED BY A FRIEND BY GENDER AND AGE.................................................................... 47
TABLE 14:
RISK OF TAKING DRUG IF OFFERED BY A FRIEND BY RECENCY OF DRUG USE ............................................................... 48
FIGURE 17:
RISK OF DRUG TAKING IF OFFERED BY A FRIEND VS. DRUGS USED IN THE PAST YEAR .................................................. 49
FIGURE 18:
KNOW SOMEONE WHO HAS A PROBLEM WITH ILLICIT DRUG USE .................................................................................. 50
FIGURE 19:
SOURCES OF ADVICE/HELP REGARDING USE OF ILLICIT DRUGS ................................................................................... 51
Page | iv
FIGURE 20:
PERCEIVE DRUG AS ‘VERY DANGEROUS’ BY DRUG TYPE .............................................................................................. 52
TABLE 15:
PERCEIVED DANGEROUSNESS OF DRUGS BY GENDER AND AGE .................................................................................. 53
TABLE 16:
PERCEIVED DANGEROUSNESS OF DRUGS BY ILLICIT DRUG USE ................................................................................... 54
FIGURE 21:
PERCEIVED DANGEROUSNESS OF DRUGS – 2000 VS. 2007 VS. 2012 SURVEYS (% VERY DANGEROUS) ............................ 55
FIGURE 22:
PERCEPTIONS OF HOW ‘FUN’ INDIVIDUAL DRUGS ARE .................................................................................................. 56
TABLE 17:
PERCEPTIONS OF HOW ‘FUN’ INDIVIDUAL DRUGS ARE BY GENDER AND AGE ................................................................. 57
TABLE 18:
PERCEPTIONS OF HOW ‘FUN’ INDIVIDUAL DRUGS ARE BY RECENCY OF ILLICIT DRUG USE ............................................. 58
FIGURE 23:
FUN (LOTS OF FUN/QUITE FUN) VS. VERY DANGEROUS (AMONG ALL 15-24 YEAR OLDS) ................................................. 59
FIGURE 24:
FUN (LOTS OF FUN/QUITE FUN) VS. VERY DANGEROUS (AMONG ‘EVER USED’ ILLICIT DRUGS SAMPLE) ........................... 60
FIGURE 25:
DRUG PERCEPTIONS (ALL 15-24 YEAR OLDS) ................................................................................................................ 62
FIGURE 26:
DRUG PERCEPTIONS (AMONGST THOSE WHO HAVE ‘EVER TRIED’ ILLICIT DRUGS) ......................................................... 63
TABLE 19:
DRUG PERCEPTIONS – 2000 VS. 2007 VS. 2012 SURVEYS ............................................................................................... 64
FIGURE 27:
DRUG USER IMAGERY (ALL 15-24 YEAR OLDS) .............................................................................................................. 66
FIGURE 28:
DRUG USER IMAGERY (AMONGST ILLICIT DRUG TRIALISTS) .......................................................................................... 67
TABLE 20:
PERCEPTIONS OF MARIJUANA ..................................................................................................................................... 72
TABLE 21:
PERCEPTIONS OF ECSTASY......................................................................................................................................... 77
TABLE 22:
PERCEPTIONS OF MUSHROOMS .................................................................................................................................. 80
TABLE 23:
PERCEPTIONS OF LSD/ACID ......................................................................................................................................... 83
TABLE 24:
PERCEPTIONS OF COCAINE ......................................................................................................................................... 86
TABLE 25:
PERCEPTIONS OF SPEED............................................................................................................................................. 89
TABLE 26:
PERCEPTIONS OF ICE .................................................................................................................................................. 92
TABLE 27:
PERCEPTIONS OF HEROIN ........................................................................................................................................... 95
FIGURE 29:
ATTITUDES TO LIFE – SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 99
TABLE 28:
ATTITUDES TO LIFE BY GENDER AND AGE .................................................................................................................. 100
FIGURE 30:
ATTITUDES TO LIFE - 2000 VS. 2007 VS. 2012 SURVEYS (15-24 YEAR OLDS) ................................................................... 101
FIGURE 31:
ATTITUDES TO DRUGS – SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 102
TABLE 29:
ATTITUDES TO ILLICIT DRUGS, BY GENDER AND AGE .................................................................................................. 103
FIGURE 32:
SEGMENTS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2000 QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH................................................................................... 104
FIGURE 33:
POTENTIAL SEGMENTS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2012 QUALITATIVE RESEARCH ................................................................... 105
FIGURE 34:
QUALITATIVE SEGMENTS IDENTIFIED BY FIVE KEY ATTITUDES TOWARDS DRUGS ........................................................ 105
FIGURE 35:
THREE FUN SEEKING SEGMENTS DEFINED BY THEIR DRUG USE ................................................................................. 106
FIGURE 36:
SEGMENTS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2012 QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH................................................................................... 108
FIGURE 37:
SUMMARY OF THE 2012 SEGMENTS - QUALITATIVE VS. QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH ....................................................... 109
FIGURE 38:
SIZE OF 2012 QUANTITATIVE SEGMENTS .................................................................................................................... 110
FIGURE 39:
SEGMENTS BY AGE ................................................................................................................................................... 113
Page | v
FIGURE 40:
SEGMENTS MAPPED ON THE TWO KEY ATTITUDES TO LIFE......................................................................................... 114
FIGURE 41:
I LIKE MY LIFE............................................................................................................................................................ 115
FIGURE 42:
I LIKE TO ESCAPE THE REAL WORLD .......................................................................................................................... 116
FIGURE 43:
I’LL DO WHAT IT TAKES TO MAKE SURE I HAVE A GREAT TIME ..................................................................................... 117
FIGURE 44:
I LIKE TO TAKE RISKS ................................................................................................................................................ 118
FIGURE 45:
MOST OF MY CLOSE FRIENDS HAVE TAKEN ILLEGAL DRUGS ....................................................................................... 119
FIGURE 46:
ALL ILLEGAL DRUGS ARE HARMFUL ........................................................................................................................... 120
FIGURE 47:
ILLEGAL DRUGS CAN BE FUN ..................................................................................................................................... 121
FIGURE 48:
I LIKE TO EXPERIMENT WITH A RANGE OF DIFFERENT ILLEGAL DRUGS........................................................................ 122
FIGURE 49:
I USE ILLEGAL DRUGS TO HELP ME COPE WITH LIFE ................................................................................................... 123
FIGURE 50:
BEEN OFFERED AN ILLEGAL DRUG IN PAST 12 MONTHS .............................................................................................. 124
FIGURE 51:
AT RISK OF USING DRUGS IF OFFERED BY A FRIEND (DEFINITELY/PROBABLY YES/PROBABLY NO) ............................... 125
TABLE 30:
AT RISK OF USING DRUGS IF OFFERED BY A FRIEND (DEFINITELY/PROBABLY YES/PROBABLY NO) ............................... 126
FIGURE 52:
EVER USED AN ILLICIT DRUG ..................................................................................................................................... 126
TABLE 31:
DRUGS EVER USED ................................................................................................................................................... 127
FIGURE 53:
SUMMARY OF THE 2000 VS. 2012 QUANTITATIVE SEGMENTS ....................................................................................... 128
FIGURE 54:
SUMMARY OF CURRENT PERCEPTIONS OF SPECIFIC DRUGS ...................................................................................... 132
FIGURE 55:
IMPLICATIONS: WHICH SEGMENT TO TARGET? ........................................................................................................... 134
FIGURE 56:
CONSERVATIVE REJECTORS ATTITUDES TO LIFE ....................................................................................................... 138
FIGURE 57:
CONSERVATIVE REJECTORS ATTITUDES TO DRUGS ................................................................................................... 138
FIGURE 58:
RISKY REJECTORS ATTITUDES TO LIFE ...................................................................................................................... 140
FIGURE 59:
RISKY REJECTORS ATTITUDES TO DRUGS.................................................................................................................. 140
FIGURE 60:
NEUTRALS ATTITUDES TO LIFE .................................................................................................................................. 142
FIGURE 61:
NEUTRALS ATTITUDES TO DRUGS .............................................................................................................................. 142
FIGURE 62:
OCCASIONALS ATTITUDES TO LIFE ............................................................................................................................ 144
FIGURE 63:
OCCASIONALS ATTITUDES TO DRUGS ........................................................................................................................ 144
FIGURE 64:
FUN SEEKERS ATTITUDES TO LIFE ............................................................................................................................. 146
FIGURE 65:
FUN SEEKERS ATTITUDES TO DRUGS ........................................................................................................................ 146
FIGURE 66:
REALITY SWAPPERS ATTITUDES TO LIFE .................................................................................................................... 148
FIGURE 67:
REALITY SWAPPERS ATTITUDES TO DRUGS ............................................................................................................... 148
TABLE 32:
DRUGS PERSONALLY EVER USED, BY RECENCY OF ILLICIT DRUG USE ........................................................................ 149
TABLE 33:
DRUGS PERSONALLY USED BY AGE ........................................................................................................................... 149
TABLE 34:
DRUGS USED IN THE LAST YEAR BY AGE .................................................................................................................... 150
TABLE 35:
MODE OF DRUG INGESTION ....................................................................................................................................... 150
TABLE 36:
PERCEIVED DANGEROUSNESS OF DRUGS – 15-24 YEAR OLDS .................................................................................... 151
Page | vi
TABLE 37:
PERCEIVED DANGEROUSNESS OF DRUGS – 12-14 YEAR OLDS .................................................................................... 151
TABLE 38:
PERCEPTION OF HOW FUN INDIVIDUAL DRUGS ARE (15-24 YEAR OLDS) ....................................................................... 152
TABLE 39:
PERCEPTION OF HOW FUN INDIVIDUAL DRUGS ARE (12-14 YEAR OLDS) ....................................................................... 152
TABLE 40:
DRUG PERCEPTIONS (15-24 YEAR OLDS) .................................................................................................................... 153
TABLE 41:
DRUG PERCEPTIONS (12-14 YEAR OLDS) .................................................................................................................... 154
TABLE 42:
DRUG USER IMAGERY (15-24 YEAR OLDS)................................................................................................................... 155
TABLE 43:
ATTITUDES TO DRUGS, BY RECENCY OF DRUG USE ................................................................................................... 156
TABLE 44:
ATTITUDES TO LIFE BY SEGMENT............................................................................................................................... 157
TABLE 45:
ATTITUDES TO DRUGS BY SEGMENT .......................................................................................................................... 158
TABLE 46:
OFFERED DRUG BY SEGMENT ................................................................................................................................... 159
TABLE 47:
DRUGS USED IN THE PAST YEAR................................................................................................................................ 160
TABLE 48:
DRUGS USED IN THE PAST 4 WEEKS .......................................................................................................................... 160
TABLE 49:
SEGMENTS BY GENDER AND AGE .............................................................................................................................. 161
TABLE 50:
CHILD GENDER.......................................................................................................................................................... 161
TABLE 51:
ARE YOU STILL ATTENDING SCHOOL OR HAVE YOU LEFT SCHOOL? ............................................................................ 161
TABLE 52:
UNPROMPTED AWARENESS OF ILLICIT DRUGS (12-24 YEAR OLDS) .............................................................................. 162
TABLE 53:
DRUG USE SUMMARY – 15-24 YEAR OLDS ................................................................................................................... 163
TABLE 54:
DRUG USE SUMMARY – 12-14 YEAR OLDS ................................................................................................................... 163
TABLE 55:
NUMBER OF DAYS USED EACH DRUG IN PAST FOUR WEEKS (AMONG RECENT USERS) ................................................ 164
TABLE 56:
DRUG USAGE ALONE OR WITH OTHERS ..................................................................................................................... 164
TABLE 57:
ESTIMATE OF PERCENTAGE OF PEERS WHO HAVE TRIED EACH DRUG ........................................................................ 165
TABLE 58:
ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE OF PEER DRUG USAGE (‘EVER USED’ VS. ‘NEVER USED’) VS REPORTED USAGE BY DRUG.... 166
TABLE 59:
PERCEIVED INCREASE OR DECREASE IN PEER DRUG USE (15-24 YEAR OLDS) ............................................................. 167
TABLE 60:
PERCEIVED INCREASE OR DECREASE IN PEER DRUG USE (12-14 YEAR OLDS) ............................................................. 168
TABLE 61:
OFFERED/HAD OPPORTUNITY TO USE ILLICIT DRUGS IN LAST YEAR ............................................................................ 168
TABLE 62:
OFFERED/HAD OPPORTUNITY TO USE SPECIFIC ILLICIT DRUGS .................................................................................. 168
TABLE 63:
OFFERED VS. TRIED CONVERSION BY SPECIFIC ILLICIT DRUG..................................................................................... 169
TABLE 64:
LIKELIHOOD OF TAKING DRUG IF OFFERED BY A FRIEND BY DRUG TYPE ..................................................................... 169
TABLE 65:
RISK OF DRUG TAKING IF OFFERED BY A FRIEND VS. DRUGS USED IN THE PAST YEAR ................................................ 170
TABLE 66:
KNOW ANYONE WHO HAS A PROBLEM WITH ILLICIT DRUG USE ................................................................................... 170
TABLE 67:
SOURCES OF ADVICE/HELP REGARDING USE OF ILLICIT DRUGS ................................................................................. 171
TABLE 68:
SEE DRUG AS ‘VERY DANGEROUS’ BY DRUG TYPE ..................................................................................................... 171
TABLE 69:
PERCEIVED DANGEROUSNESS OF DRUGS – 2000 VS. 2007 VS. 2012 SURVEYS (% VERY DANGEROUS) .......................... 172
TABLE 70:
PERCEPTION OF HOW ‘FUN’ INDIVIDUAL DRUGS ARE .................................................................................................. 173
TABLE 71:
ATTITUDES TO LIFE - 2000 VS 2007 VS 2012 SURVEYS (15-24 YEAR OLDS)..................................................................... 173
Page | vii
TABLE 72:
SEGMENTS BY AGE ................................................................................................................................................... 174
FIGURE 68:
RESPONDENT SELF-COMPLETION DRUG MAP............................................................................................................. 182
Page | viii
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
The Australian Government has a commitment to dealing with the harm to individuals and communities
caused by the misuse of illicit drugs. In achieving this, the Government follows an evidence-based
approach that is informed by the National Drugs Strategy 2010-2015. This strategy contains a package
of measures aimed at reducing the supply of, and demand for, illicit drugs. Supply reduction strategies
include disrupting the production and supply of illicit drugs. Demand reduction strategies focus on the
prevention of harmful drug use and these are complimented by strategies aimed at reducing harm to
individuals and communities caused by drug use.
Previous developmental research conducted by GfK Blue Moon in 1999/2000 identified a number of
psychographic segments among young people relating to their attitudes and motivations towards, and
usage of, illicit drugs. These segments and research then informed the strategy and approach to the
earlier phases of the National Drugs Campaign from 2001 to 2012. The Department commissioned this
qualitative and quantitative research in 2012 to further explore the ever-changing drugs landscape and
context to inform future campaign directions. This research will assist in understanding the current
influences upon young people with regard to contemplation or consumption of illicit drugs.
Objectives
The aim of this research was to further inform the strategic direction of future National Drugs Campaign
activity. One of the aims of the National Drugs Campaign is to ‘reduce young Australians’ motivation to
take up illicit drugs by increasing their knowledge about the potential negative consequences of drug
use’. The research program sought to re-visit the drugs landscape among young people, and explore
how young people now perceive illicit drugs. Specific objectives included exploring both negative and
positive attitudes toward illicit drugs, awareness of different drugs, and triggers and barriers to use.
Further to this, the research sought to identify the extent of concerns about drug taking including: fear of
consequences, potential content of drugs, modes of ingestion, access to drugs or drug paraphernalia,
social/peer concerns, family, and to explore current levels of acceptance of drug taking behaviour. In
addition the research sought to inform the most effective way of segmenting the target audiences,
establish what kinds of messages would be most effective and the likely responses to different
communication activities.
The research profiled and segmented young people with regard to both perception and usage of illicit
drugs. This 2012 research comprised a qualitative stage followed by a quantitative phase. The research
makes comparisons between current 2012 drug perceptions and perceptions of drugs in 2000 and in
2007,1 to identify any changes over time. It also puts the data in context by referring to drug usage data
from the National Drug Strategy Household Survey 2010 (NDSHS)2 and other relevant sources.
1 Note
that the 2007 research was conducted primarily to inform a possible campaign on the link between mental health and illicit drug use.
A segmentation based on attitudes towards mental health and illicit drugs was conducted, and the original illicit drugs segmentation from
2000 was also rerun. While the purpose of the 2007 research was different to the 2000 and 2012 research, where the drug perceptions
measures are the same, comparisons have been reported here.
2 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2011). 2010 National Drug Strategy Household Survey report. Drug statistics series no. 25.
Cat. No. PHE 145. Canberra: AIHW.
Page | 1
Methodology3
The first stage of research comprised a program of qualitative research consisting of four telephone
stakeholder interviews followed by 38 group discussions with the primary target audience of youth aged
12-24 years. This included:

34 standard size group discussions, of six to eight respondents in each, among 12-24 year olds
who do not use any drugs, those who use alcohol and tobacco only, and those who occasionally or
regularly use cannabis or other illicit drugs; and

four small group discussions (four to five respondents) among injectors of illicit drugs/very heavy
users of drugs aged 18-24 years.
Each group lasted up to 1¾ hours and took place in metropolitan and regional areas of New South
Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Queensland.
The quantitative stage of research comprised a total of 1,600 interviews conducted online among 12-24
year olds nationally, including 300 people aged 12-14 years. The questionnaire was pre-tested via 12
face to face cognitive interviews with the target market (particularly the 12-14 year olds to ensure that
the questions were appropriate for that age group). The online survey was an average of 20 minutes in
length.
Key findings from the qualitative research
Some clear differences emerged among those included in the sample. These differences were driven
largely by age, location and experience. There was on the whole a clear distinction between those over
and under 15 with the younger audiences (12-14) much more simplistic in their perceptions of drugs.
Those 15 and over tended to be less extreme in their views. Availability of drugs was also changeable
by location and levels of experience with drugs and drug taking had an effect on perceptions.
Differences between blue and white collar workers were observed in the previous research projects.
While some differences were still observed, these were less pronounced than in the previous research.
In general, respondents felt they were exposed to illicit drugs and that they ‘see’ them everywhere.
Many reported that in addition to drugs being regularly represented in popular culture through movies,
TV shows, music, and in the online environment, they also hear, see and talk about drugs at school,
with their peers and with their parents. All but the youngest in our sample claimed that illicit drugs are to
some extent ‘normal’ or have been normalised in society. Certain key changes appear to have occurred
in recent years as some drugs have become less available, others have become more prominent or
made a resurgence. The illicit drug landscape is a shifting one dependent on attitudes toward, and
perceptions of, different drugs as well as availability and prevalence of different types of illicit drugs.
The research (qualitative and quantitative) also revisited the segmentation from the previous research.
In 1999 six segments were identified according to usage and risk. In 2012 some segments have
remained familiar while others have changed.
The qualitative research found that some key changes to the illicit drugs landscape appear to have
occurred in recent years. In particular, ecstasy is often called ‘pills’ and is no longer felt to exist in its
‘original’ form. ‘Pills’ are perceived to vary significantly in quality and ingredients, and young people
claim that pills with MDMA are very rare. There is a general consensus that the quality of ‘ecstasy’ has
dramatically reduced in recent years and as such, it has become far less desirable generally. MDMA
capsules or ‘caps’ have entered the market as a higher quality expensive replacement for pills. As such,
3 The
technical report contains more detail on the conduct of the qualitative research (the sample, recruitment, parental permission, ethical
considerations, discussion coverage), the quantitative research (sample, cognitive interviews, pilot test, significance testing, response
rates) and creating the segmentation.
Page | 2
a ‘gap’ has been created for affordable ‘party’ drugs. At the same time, the qualitative research found
that there appears to have been a resurgence of hallucinogenic drugs. LSD and mushrooms are more
commonly talked about than in previous years and, in some cases, are being used as replacements for
‘party’ drugs.
Ice and heroin carry among the most strongly held perceptions and are seen as being at the most
extreme end of the drug spectrum. Heroin has very little visibility and none in the sample claimed to
have used it. Ice had some greater visibility with a few respondents claiming to have tried it. Both drugs
have severe negative connotations and are seen to embody the worst aspects of drug taking such as
addiction, severe physical and emotional consequences as well as being likely to ‘ruin your life’. For ice
in particular the Government communications are well remembered and often referenced.
In regards to developing future communications there were a number of approaches which were felt to
be more likely to resonate with young people and have potential for communicating in a credible and
engaging way. Harm minimisation messages are felt to be the most realistic by the majority and are felt
to be more credible than those that focus on a ‘just say no’ message. Communicating about credible
consequences to both individuals and friends or families is likely to engage young people. Reinforcing
the idea that young people can reject drugs has potential in addressing peer influence as a trigger to
first time use. Other approaches such as humour and abstract messages are less likely to be
successful as they are highly reliant on creative and careful execution to have broad appeal and be
easily understood.
Key findings from the quantitative research
The main findings in relation to the illicit drugs ‘landscape’ in 2012 when it comes to young people are
the following:

the illicit drug most likely to be named spontaneously was ‘marijuana’4 or its variants, followed by
cocaine, ecstasy, heroin and ice;

marijuana is by far the most likely illicit drug to have ever been used. One quarter (24%) of this age
group admit to having ever used marijuana. Ecstasy shows the next highest level of reported trial
(9%), followed by medicines ‘when you’re not sick’ (8%), speed (6%), cocaine (4%), LSD (4%) and
mushrooms (4%). There was a very low rate of reporting having ever used ice (2%) or heroin (1%)
amongst this group;

most illicit drugs had a trial to annual use ratio of about half among this age group, with marijuana
showing both the highest trial to annual use ratio (0.55 – i.e. 55% of those who have ever trialled
marijuana have used it in the past year) and the highest trial to four weeks user ratio (0.21)
indicating that it is the most appealing and/or available drug. LSD and mushrooms trial to annual
use ratio was the lowest at about one third, indicating that perhaps the trialists found the
experience less appealing and were uninterested in or unwilling to repeat it;

for those who have used in the past four weeks, frequency of use was highest for marijuana (at 8.6
days out of the last 28) and cocaine (at 5.8 days), even greater than for alcohol (4.8 days);

drugs most likely to be taken on one’s own were heroin, cocaine, ice and marijuana while
mushrooms, ecstasy and LSD are most likely to be taken while in the company of others;

15-24 year olds significantly over-estimated the proportion of their peers who were using drugs
with perceived levels of drug use being much higher than that reported by this cohort;
Cannabis was referred to by respondents variously throughout the research as ‘marijuana’, ‘weed’, ‘hash’, ‘hydro’, ‘pot’, and ‘grass’.
Marijuana was the most commonly understood and familiar across the audiences and as such will be used throughout the report when
discussing the findings.
Page | 3
4

this level of drug ‘normalisation’ was even greater among those who had ‘ever used’ illicit
drugs.
marijuana was the most available drug with almost a third (32%) having had the opportunity to use
it in the past 12 months, followed by ecstasy at 16% and ‘medicines when not sick’ (11%), while
the least available drug was heroin (2%); these ‘opportunity to use’ figures show a similar pattern
to the results of the 2010 National Drug Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS).5
The survey results indicate substantial risk of future drug trial amongst 15-24 year olds. Only three in
five would outright reject at least one of the drugs if offered by a friend who was using it. Even for
mushrooms and ecstasy, only four in five 15-24 year olds would ‘definitely not’ take them if offered by a
friend. Heroin and ice were the drugs that posed the least risk of trial. Even among non-users, there
was substantial risk of future drug use, with the level of risk being highest for marijuana, followed by
mushrooms.
In terms of perceptions, illicit drugs appear to be clustered in four tiers:
1
marijuana is perceived to be harmless on the whole, there are few, if any, reports of its adverse
effects and it is seen as both pure/natural and clean;
2
ecstasy is seen as potentially harmful but only compared to marijuana and is a party/fun drug.
Mushrooms share some of the perceived elements of both marijuana (natural/clean) and ecstasy
(party/fun);
3
next in perceived harm/seriousness are LSD, cocaine and speed - all seen as both more
dangerous and less fun than marijuana, ecstasy and mushrooms; and
4
heroin and ice are seen as the most dangerous and harmful. Consequently, they fit the ‘junkie’
user stereotype and are simply not seen as fun. These are instead in the serious drug user
category.
The noted increase between 2000 and 2007 in perceived dangerousness of tobacco, marijuana,
ecstasy and speed among 15-24 year olds was maintained in 2012 for tobacco, marijuana and speed.
Perceptions of dangerousness of ecstasy, ice and heroin all declined between 2007 and 2012. It is
likely that the elevated perceptions of dangerousness of ecstasy and ice in 2007 were impacted by the
National Drugs Campaign running over that timeframe.
The results of this research may help to explain some of the changes in drug usage reported in the
2010 NDSHS. The 2010 NDSHS indicates that usage of some drugs appears to have declined.6 From
this 2012 research it appears that internal and external factors may have damaged some drug ‘brands’
and are limiting their use and popularity:

the use of ecstasy is declining possibly due to the perception that pills rarely contain MDMA and/or
the National Drugs Campaign ecstasy focused communications;

perceptions of speed have worsened. It is further considered to be a dirty, downmarket drug;

perceptions of ice appear to have worsened and the use and desire to use ice has declined; and

the decline in the use, and desire to use, heroin appears to be continuing, likely to be partially due
to the reduction in supply a decade ago.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2011). 2010 National Drug Strategy Household Survey report. Drug statistics series no. 25.
Cat. No. PHE 145. Canberra: AIHW, p.21.
6 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2011). 2010 National Drug Strategy Household Survey report. Drug statistics series no. 25.
Cat. No. PHE 145. Canberra: AIHW. Noting that usage is not dependent only on demand but also on supply/availability.
Page | 4
5
On the other hand, it appears that usage of other drugs may have increased.7

marijuana use has increased in the short term, in the context of a long term decline. It is likely to be
an alternative to MDMA-free ecstasy. However, if the backlash against tobacco and smoking
continues, then marijuana usage may continue its long term decline;

hallucinogens (LSD and mushrooms) are used by some to obtain the mind-altering experience that
is now missing from pills/ecstasy. However, use is self-limiting and trial is unlikely to progress to
regular use;

amongst users, perceptions of cocaine’s effects are very positive and it is extremely aspirational. It
is possibly also replacing some ecstasy use. However, cost and supply are limiting use; and

some of the increase in using pharmaceuticals for non-medical purposes is possibly due to the
need for an alternative to MDMA-free ecstasy.
Segmentation
Amongst 12-24 year olds, nine segments were found in the 2012 qualitative research based on their
attitudes to life and drugs in the focus group discussions. The quantitative research phase compressed
these to six attitudinal segments. Two segments of non-users of illicit drugs, the Conservative Rejectors
and Risky Rejectors; two segments of low risk illicit drug users, the Neutrals and Occasionals; and two
segments of higher risk illicit drug users, the Fun Seekers and Reality Swappers.
These six segments can be summarised as follows:

the Conservative Rejectors (36% of 12-24 year olds) are conservative in general and do not need
or seek out excitement, are less satisfied with life, hold negative attitudes to drugs and show very
low (or no) levels of drug use;

Risky Rejectors (32%) are positive about life, open to new experiences, fun and excitement and
influenced by friends but currently not interested in drugs. In fact, their attitudes to life are very
similar to the Fun Seeker segment and, as they age, this attitude may see them trialling drugs and
shifting to this segment (either directly or via the Occasionals segment). This segment should be
the primary target of any future prevention focused campaign;

Neutrals (12%) are primarily neutral for both attitudes to life and drugs. For this segment their
neutrality could be due to either attitudinal or scale ambivalence or both (i.e. they are either truly
attitudinally neutral or they are secretive and may be refusing to disclose attitudes to drugs by
responding with ‘don’t know’, ‘prefer not to answer’ or ‘neither agree nor disagree’);

Occasionals (10%) are occasional users of a limited range of drugs, that is they are selective and
control their risk;

Fun Seekers (6%) are happy and secure, very open to new experiences and have many
motivations to take drugs (e.g. they like to have new experiences, want to enhance their
experiences, like to have a great time, like to party, think that drugs are fun, believe that drugs
keep them going, perceive that drugs improve their reality); and

Reality Swappers (4%) are open to drug use, unhappy and want to escape: they feel that they
need drugs to cope with life.
7 Noting
Page | 5
that usage is not dependent only on demand but also on supply/availability.
Conclusions
One of the aims of the National Drugs Campaign is to ‘reduce young Australians’ motivation to take up
illicit drugs by increasing their knowledge about the potential negative consequences of drug use’. This
research suggests that the segment at greatest risk of illicit drug trial is the Risky Rejector segment and
that they should be the primary target of ongoing communications. Although currently rejecting illicit
drugs, they are not conservative in their attitudes but in fact open to additional fun, excitement and new
experiences. Additionally, they are also more likely to be influenced by friends than other segments. In
a scenario where their friends are experimenting with drugs, they may be likely to follow in meeting both
their need for new experiences and for peer approval. In fact, their attitudes to life are very similar to the
Fun Seeker segment and as they age this attitude may see them trialling drugs and shifting to this
segment (either directly or via the Occasionals segment).
If a secondary target is required or if an intervention strategy is planned, then the Fun Seekers and
Reality Swappers should be considered as these two segments have the greatest risk of future illicit
drug use. While the Occasionals are also drug users, their use is more occasional and generally very
controlled.
When examining the results of this survey along with NDSHS,8 the Ecstasy and Related Drugs
Reporting System (EDRS)9 and the Australian Crime Commission (ACC)10 illicit drugs supply data, it
seems apparent that usage of ecstasy has declined and that usage of other drugs has increased
(between 2007 and 2010). It is our view that the change in composition of ecstasy pills has influenced
this decline in recent usage of ecstasy. And, furthermore, that this has led (at least in part) to the
increase in recent usage of cannabis, cocaine, hallucinogens and pharmaceuticals.
It appears that ecstasy and cocaine have the most potential for increased usage in the near future, if
there are changes to certain market conditions. It is possible that lapsed users may return to ecstasy if
MDMA (or an alternative) was reintroduced to the composition of ecstasy pills, or if MDMA capsules
reduced in price. This could have a dramatic impact on the drug landscape generally, as it may then
reduce the usage of other drugs (in particular, hallucinogens, marijuana and cocaine).
Cocaine use in Australia is restricted by limited supply and a high price. If supply increases, price may
decrease and subsequently increase frequency of use amongst current users and introduce new users
to the drug.11 Furthermore, the key perceptual factor currently suppressing trial of cocaine is that it is
addictive. There is a danger that this perception could be eroded once new users see that they are able
to safely use it occasionally and/or observe safe use by others.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2011). 2010 National Drug Strategy Household Survey report. Drug statistics series no. 25.
Cat. No. PHE 145. Canberra: AIHW, p.21.
9 National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales (2012). Australian Drug Trends 2012: Findings from the
Ecstasy and Related Drugs Reporting System (EDRS).
10 Australian Crime Commission (ACC) 2012, Illicit Drug Data Report 2010–11, ACC, Canberra, p25.
11 Note that it is difficult to ascertain the price elasticity for cocaine in Australia. A National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre study found
that prices of cocaine have increased in the past 10 years in Sydney, from $200 in 2000 to $300 in 2010 (Phillips, B and Burns, L. (2011).
Eleven years of cocaine trends among people who inject drugs in Sydney: price, purity and availability 2000-2010. Drug Trends Bulletin,
April 2011. Sydney: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales), however, price may be impacted by
numerous factors including availability, demand and purity. Some studies from the United States have found that cocaine is price-sensitive
(see for example, Saffer, H and Chaloupka, F, ‘The Demand for Illicit Drugs’, National Bureau of Economic Research; Working Paper No.
5238, Cambridge, Massachusetts, August 1995. This paper links drug price data with usage in a wide range of locations. ‘The results
provide empirical evidence that drug use is more price responsive than previously thought.’)
Page | 6
8
Implications for future communications
Drugs to target
The changes to the illicit drug landscape identified by this research (both qualitative and quantitative
phases), as well as the NDSHS, the EDRS and law enforcement supply data, have implications for
future communications, particularly for ecstasy, cocaine and ice.
For ecstasy we suggest continuing the ‘you don’t know what’s in it’ message in any future
communications as this message is likely to have increased in credibility in recent years with the
perceptions of reduced MDMA content. However, explore shifting (or adding) the focus from non-drug
adulterants to dangerous illicit drug ingredients (such as methamphetamine, ketamine and PMA), with
the inference that most pills don’t contain any MDMA. Any communication should distance itself from
the positive imagery of the ecstasy name (particularly now that it rarely contains MDMA). Many young
people are calling the drug ‘pills’ but this could cause confusion with pharmaceuticals. Consider
renaming to ‘ecstasy pills’ in communications. Furthermore, the drug perceptions map indicates that
amongst the total sample of 15-24 year olds, ecstasy profiles in a similar way to three others - LSD,
mushrooms and speed. Consequently, the negative perceptions of LSD and speed could possibly be
leveraged to reduce ecstasy use.
Cocaine remains a scary drug to non-trialists (particularly regarding addiction). However, once it is
experienced, users may not perceive any negatives to occasional use. Explore communication options
further if supply increases and price declines.
For heroin, ice and speed, there doesn’t seem to be any current need to communicate to young
people specifically about these drugs. However, there are early warning indicators (from the EDRS)12
that use of ice may have rebounded in 2011 and 2012. This needs to be monitored carefully and if
usage continues to increase, the ice campaign could be revisited.
Using marijuana is perceived by young people to be very low risk, with widespread positive personal
experience. Any messages to the contrary are not likely to be credible. A campaign such as the recent
2010 National Drugs Campaign which included the ‘what a waste’ cannabis ad (part of the Phase four
(Stage two) campaign February - June 2010) is likely to primarily impact heavier users.
While trial of hallucinogens (mushrooms and LSD) is increasing, usage appears to be self-limiting and
there is little risk of conversion to regular use.
Channels to use
Regarding channels of communication, the quantitative research showed that the internet is the first
port of call if young people wanted help or advice on illicit drugs. Therefore, the campaign should
incorporate a strong online component. One option, which would cover off many of the points above,
would be to introduce an online information tool to provide a long term source of objective, credible and
detailed information on illicit drugs, their use and effects. Obviously the information would need to be
balanced very carefully, providing enough impartial information to enable the harm minimisation
messages to be accepted, but that drugs don’t appear so appealing that more young people would be
encouraged to experiment.
National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales (2012). Australian Drug Trends 2012: Findings from the
Ecstasy and Related Drugs Reporting System (EDRS).
Page | 7
12
Response by segment
While it is difficult to predict how each segment will respond to particular communication activities
without testing the future materials with them, below is an outline of the ideal response by segment to
communications activities.
Conservative Rejectors – This group doesn’t need to be targeted directly (apart from continued school
based programs) as they are unlikely to trial drugs or take risks in the short to medium term (although
long term, a minority may eventually move to the Occasionals and/or Reality Swappers segments).
Risky Rejectors – Ideally, any communications to this segment (on top of continuing school based
programs) would prevent them from trialling illicit drugs. If successful, the majority of this segment will
stay where they are or transition to the Neutrals segment (they are unlikely to ever become
Conservative Rejectors as their outlook on life is adventurous).
Neutrals – This segment need not be targeted directly. They are either ambivalent toward drugs or they
belong to one of the other drug using segments (but didn’t want to admit it).
Occasionals – The majority of this segment is likely to remain as Occasionals (with some moving to the
Neutrals segment), but with harm minimisation messages and tools, ideally they won’t experiment with
more harmful drugs or increase their frequency of use.
Fun Seekers – A successful campaign would see a substantial minority of this segment moving to the
Occasionals segment (with a few even transitioning back down to the Risky Rejectors or Neutrals
segments). With harm minimisation messages and tools, ideally those who remain in the Fun Seekers
segment won’t move onto regular use of more harmful drugs or increase their frequency of drug use.
Reality Swappers – This segment is likely to ignore any mainstream campaign activity. The Reality
Swappers will need to be reached via community based intervention/treatment.
Page | 8
BACKGROUND
The Australian Government has a commitment to dealing with the harm to individuals and communities
caused by the use of illicit drugs. In achieving this, the Government follows an evidence-based
approach informed by the National Drugs Strategy 2010-2015. This strategy contains a package of
measures aimed at reducing the supply of, and demand for, illicit drugs. Supply reduction strategies
include disrupting the production and supply of illicit drugs. Demand reduction strategies focus on the
prevention of harmful drug use and these are complemented by strategies aimed at reducing harm to
individuals and communities caused by drug use.
The National Drugs Campaign is a key element of the strategy as it is designed to educate and inform
young people about the negative consequences of drug use. The campaign first launched in
March 2001 and was predominantly aimed at educating and supporting parents to discuss drugs with
their children. The next campaign launched in 2005 focusing on ecstasy, cannabis and speed. The
2007 campaign continued targeting the use of cannabis, ecstasy and speed, with the addition of
advertising specifically aimed at addressing the use of the more potent form of methamphetamine
known as ‘crystal meth’ or ‘ice’. The 2010 campaign ran from February to June 2010 and continued with
the ice ads, introduced the ‘what a waste’ cannabis ads, and the first time ecstasy lab/ecstasy girl ads.
Research informing these campaign phases showed that each drug could be treated differently in
communications, as they are seen by young people to be very different from each other, and are
generally taken by different people, for different effects and reasons. It was recommended that targeting
each drug specifically with a different tone, look and feel was a more credible and potentially effective
approach, rather than losing impact by communicating about ‘drugs’ in general to young people. By
having a focused approach and different look and feel, it was considered that the audience would be
more likely to notice the differentiation, rather than assuming it was ‘just another one of those drug ads’
or something they had heard or seen before.
While the 2007 campaign initially had methamphetamines as its primary focus, the Department
reviewed the prevalence of use of this group of drugs and determined that it would be more appropriate
for this campaign to focus on ecstasy. In 2007 over 600,000 (3.5%) Australians aged 14 or over had
used ecstasy in the previous 12 months. More than one in 10 (11.2%) people aged 20-29 years and 1
in 20 (5.0%) teenagers had recently used ecstasy. Of major concern was the frequency at which
younger people were taking ecstasy. Among 14-19 year old regular ecstasy users who had used
ecstasy in the past 12 months, 17% had used ecstasy weekly or more often.13 As a result, in September
2009, the Department shifted the campaign’s focus from methamphetamines to ecstasy (reflecting the
illicit drugs landscape), while still addressing cannabis and ice. In 2011 the campaign focused solely on
ecstasy use, and this has continued to date.
Blue Moon Research and Planning (then becoming GfK Blue Moon and now GfK Australia) conducted
the initial segmentation work for the first National Drugs Campaign 1999/2000.14 This research
identified a number of psychographic segments among young people relating to their attitudes and
motivations towards, and usage of, illicit drugs. These were ‘Cocooned Rejectors’, ‘Considered
Rejectors’, ‘Ambivalent Neutrals’, ‘Risk Controllers’, ‘Thrill Seekers’ and ‘Reality Swappers’. The
‘Cocooned Rejectors’ and ‘Considered Rejectors’ were both at low risk of drug use. ‘Ambivalent
Neutrals’ and ‘Risk Controllers’ had a more temperate risk of harm and illicit drug use, while the ‘Thrill
Seekers’ and ‘Reality Swappers’ were at most risk of drug use and potential harm.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2008. 2007 National Drug Strategy Household Survey: detailed findings. Drug statistics series
no. 22. Cat. No. PHE 107. Canberra: AIHW.
14 Clark G, Scott N and Cook S (2003). Blue Moon Research and Planning. Formative research with young Australians to assist in the
development of the National Illicit Drugs Campaign (2000). Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing, Canberra.
Page | 9
13
In 2007, Blue Moon Research and Planning conducted developmental qualitative and quantitative
research for a proposed campaign to ‘Alert the Community to the Links Between Illicit Drugs and Mental
Illness’. This research replicated the 2000 illicit drugs segmentation and perceptions of drugs and also
created a separate illicit drugs/mental health attitudinal segmentation.15 While the 2007 research was
conducted for a different purpose, a few comparisons over time have been included in this report where
important. In particular, there were some questions on perceptions of specific drugs that were
consistent across the 2000, 2007 and 2012 research. Changes in these perceptions over time helps to
place some of the other 2012 results into context.
The research to inform the 2007 campaign indicated that ‘Thrill Seekers’ were becoming a more
significant segment, due to a claimed increase among young people in the availability and consumption
of ecstasy. In addition, with a claimed increase among young people in the availability and consumption
of speed and ice and the use of amphetamines, be it on the job or simply to stay awake, more
‘functional’ users began to appear. Equally, cannabis appeared to have become a somewhat polarised
drug, spanning the more occasional, experimental drug user (likely to fall into the ‘Ambivalent Neutral’
and ‘Risk Controller’ segments), as well as the more frequent dependent users, who were more often
‘Reality Swappers’.
The Australian Government decided to revisit the drugs landscape in 2012 via both qualitative and
quantitative research with young people. The overall objective was to explore how today’s young people
perceive illicit drugs, making comparisons between the 2012 situation and that identified in 1999/2000,
to thereby understand what has changed and to help inform the next campaign approach and focus.
Cook S, Miller K and Parr V. Blue Moon Research and Planning. Alerting the community to the link between illicit drugs and mental
illness (2007) (http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/C862DDEBF9060078CA25735D0005F92B/$File/link-illicitmental-health.pdf).
Page | 10
15
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
The overall aim of the research was to inform the strategic direction of future campaign activity.
Developmental research informed the strategy and approach to the earlier phases of the National Drugs
Campaign, and the Department required further exploration of the ever-changing drugs landscape and
context to inform upcoming campaigns. The research will assist in understanding the influences upon
young people with regard to contemplation or consumption of illicit drugs. The campaign will aim to
contribute to a reduction in the uptake of illicit drugs among young Australians by raising awareness of
the harms associated with drug use, and encouraging and supporting decisions not to use.
The research program developed by GfK Blue Moon involved revisiting the drugs landscape among
young people, and exploring how young people now perceive illicit drugs, examining issues relating to
all drugs, both those seen as ‘older’ drugs and ‘newer’ drugs becoming available. In so doing, the
research reported here will inform the next phase of the campaign, identifying the need for any
additional or altered communications strategies.
Specific research objectives
Specific research objectives were as follows:

to explore attitudes towards, and perceptions of, illicit drug use in general and towards different
drugs;

to explore awareness and attitudes towards the problems associated with drug use among young
people;

to explore awareness and attitudes to different modes of ingestion;

to explore positive perceptions of drug use and identify various reasons as to why young people
use illicit drugs;

to explore negative perceptions of drug use, drug users and of individual drugs;

to identify motivators and barriers to trial different drugs and illicit drugs overall;

to identify extent of concerns about drug taking including fear of consequences, potential content
of drugs, mode of ingestion, access to drugs or drug paraphernalia, social/peer concerns and
family history; and

to explore current levels of acceptance of drug taking behaviour.
In terms of the segmentation, one of the aims of the qualitative research (Stage one) was to identify
different archetypes in terms of usage and attitudes towards illicit drugs. The quantitative research
(Stage two), has been designed to statistically segment the target audience and size the segments
based on the qualitative findings. Further it will profile the segments to understand barriers and
motivators to attitudinal and behavioural change. The outcome of this will be to help identify the key
target audiences for future phases of the National Drugs Campaign and assist the Department to
develop targeted strategies for the campaign.
Page | 11
Research outputs
Within the remit of the wider communication strategy, the research was designed to inform the following
elements:

the most effective way of segmenting the target audiences;

the type of messages that would be most effective with each segment;

the need (or otherwise) for any additional strategies over and above communications to reach
different segments;

the most appropriate level and type of channels to deliver key messages to each segment; and

likely responses to communication activities from each segment.
Page | 12
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Methodology – Stage one Qualitative Research
The overall research program was comprised of a two-staged approach including both qualitative
(Stage One) and quantitative (Stage Two) methodologies. For Stage One, a program of qualitative
research was undertaken in July 2012 consisting of four telephone stakeholder interviews followed by
38 group discussions with the primary target audience of youth aged 12-24 years. The stakeholder
interviews included stakeholders from Gorman House, St Vincent’s Hospital, the National Drug
Research Institute and the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre. The group discussions
included:

34 standard size group discussions with six to eight respondents in each, among 12-24 years olds
who do not use any drugs, those who use alcohol and/or tobacco only, and those who occasionally
or regularly use cannabis and/or other illicit drugs; and

four small group discussions (four to five respondents) among injectors of illicit drugs/very heavy
users of drugs aged 18-24 years.
Within the group discussions a number of specialised qualitative research techniques were employed
including self-complete exercises, mapping exercises and projective techniques. Respondents were
asked to map different drugs on a scale of perceived harm (from ‘safe’/‘soft’ to ‘dangerous’/‘hard’) and
perceived level of ‘fun’ (from ‘fun’ to ‘not fun’). This gave some insight into how respondents viewed
different types of drugs individually and in comparison to each other. Projective techniques were used
as a means of getting respondents to describe the ‘world’ of each drug. This involved discussions
around what type of person they associated with the drug, as well as the reasons the drug was used,
where, how, when, as well as the immediate effects and consequences.
These techniques were used to stimulate discussion while self-completes allowed respondents to
provide individual responses free of group influence and to explore in greater detail specific behaviours.
Given the potentially sensitive nature of the discussion these techniques were particularly useful in
allowing young people to talk about their attitudes, opinions and behaviours without being put on the
spot or being forced to reveal any personal information they did not feel comfortable sharing.
Each group lasted up to 1¾ hours and took place in metropolitan and regional areas of New South
Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Queensland. The next tables detail the characteristics of each
group.
The appendices to this report contain the screening questionnaire and discussion guide. The separate
technical report contains more detail on the sample, recruitment, parental permission, ethical
considerations and discussion coverage.
Page | 13
Table 1: Characteristics of the qualitative groups
Group
School
Year/Age
Drug Experience
Gender
SEG
Location
State
1
Year 7 and 8
None
Male
Mix
Regional
NSW
2
Year 7 and 8
None
Female
Blue
Metro
VIC
3
Year 7 and 8
Alcohol or tobacco
Male
White
Metro
SA
4
Year 7 and 8
Alcohol or tobacco
Female
Blue
Metro
QLD
5
Year 9 and 10
None
Male
Blue
Regional
VIC
6
Year 9 and 10
None
Female
Blue
Metro
SA
7
Year 9 and 10
Alcohol or tobacco
Male
Blue
Metro
QLD
8
Year 9 and 10
Alcohol or tobacco
Female
Mix
Regional
NSW
9
Year 9 and 10
‘Some’ cannabis/other drugs
Male
Blue
Metro
SA
10
Year 9 and 10
‘Some’ cannabis/other drugs
Female
Mix
Regional
QLD
11
Year 11 and 12
None
Male
Blue
Metro
NSW
12
Year 11 and 12
None
Female
White
Regional
VIC
13
Year 11 and 12
Alcohol or tobacco
Male
Blue
Metro
QLD
14
Year 11 and 12
Alcohol or tobacco
Female
Mix
Regional
NSW
15
Year 11 and 12
Occasional cannabis/other drugs
Male
Mix
Metro
VIC
16
Year 11 and 12
Occasional cannabis/other drugs
Female
Mix
Regional
SA
17
Year 11 and 12
Regular cannabis/other drugs
Male
White
Metro
NSW
18
Year 11 and 12
Regular cannabis/other drugs
Female
Blue
Metro
VIC
19
18-20 Years
Alcohol or tobacco/none
Male
White
Metro
SA
20
18-20 Years
Alcohol or tobacco/none
Female
Mix
Regional
QLD
21
18-20 Years
Occasional cannabis/other drugs
Male
White
Metro
VIC
22
18-20 Years
Occasional cannabis/other drugs
Female
White
Metro
SA
23
18-20 Years
Regular cannabis use/some other
drugs
Male
Blue
Metro
QLD
24
18-20 Years
Regular cannabis use/some other
drugs
Female
Blue
Metro
NSW
25
18-20 Years
Regular use of other drugs/less
frequent or no cannabis use
Male
Mix
Regional
SA
26
18-20 Years
Regular use of other drugs/less
frequent or no cannabis use
Female
Blue
Metro
QLD
27
21-24 Years
Alcohol or tobacco/none
Male
White
Regional
NSW
28
21-24 Years
Alcohol or tobacco/none
Female
Mix
Metro
VIC
29
21-24 Years
Occasional cannabis/other drugs
Male
Mix
Metro
QLD
30
21-24 Years
Occasional cannabis/other drugs
Female
White
Metro
NSW
31
21-24 Years
Regular cannabis use/some other
drugs
Male
Mix
Regional
VIC
32
21-24 Years
Regular use of other drugs/less
frequent or no cannabis use
Female
White
Metro
SA
33
21-24 Years
Regular use of other drugs/less
frequent or no cannabis use
Male
White
Metro
NSW
Page | 14
Group
School
Year/Age
34
Drug Experience
Gender
SEG
Location
State
21-24 Years
Regular use of other drugs/less
frequent or no cannabis use
Female
Mix
Regional
VIC
35
18-24 Years
Very heavy drug users
Mixed
NA
Metro
NSW
36
18-24 Years
Very heavy drug users
Mixed
NA
Metro
NSW
37
18-24 Years
Injectors / very heavy drug users
Mixed
NA
Metro
SA
38
18-24 Years
Injectors / very heavy drug users
Mixed
NA
Metro
NSW
Methodology – Stage two Quantitative Research
Stage two comprised 1,600 online surveys nationally among young people aged 12-24 years completed
between 31 August and 16 September 2012. Surveys were an average of 20 minutes in length.
The sample was obtained from an online panel (My Tribe/I-link) which is used for research purposes
only. Respondents aged 18 years or older were contacted directly and those aged 12-17 years were
accessed via their parents (see the Technical Report for further detail of the strategies adopted to
reduce sensitivities and increase participation and openness amongst this age group).
Population representative quotas were set by age (12-14, 15-17, 18-24 years), gender, and by state
and the data was post-weighted to the population by these three variables using ABS census estimates.
The number of surveys conducted by age and gender are shown in the table below.
Table 2: Quantitative sampling framework by age and gender
Number of Surveys
Male
Female
Total
12-14 year olds
150
150
300
15-17 year olds
150
150
300
18-24 year olds
500
500
1000
Total
800
800
1600
The appendices to this report contain the quantitative questionnaire, and the separate technical report
provides more detail on the sample, cognitive interviewing process and outcomes, pilot test,
significance testing, response rates and creation of the segmentation.
Differences in methodology between the 2000, 2007 and 2012 segmentation research
To measure changes in drug perceptions over time, the results of this segmentation study have been
compared with the previous two illicit drugs segmentations conducted by GfK Blue Moon, in 2000 and in
2007 (the latter within a study regarding illicit drugs and mental health).
However, there were three key differences between the 2000/2007 studies and the 2012 study. Firstly
the studies were conducted amongst different age ranges. The 2000 and 2007 studies only covered
people aged 15-24 years, while the 2012 research also included 12-14 year olds.16 Importantly, to take
into consideration the youth and inexperience of this group, a reduced questionnaire and a limited list of
drugs (only alcohol, tobacco, marijuana and ecstasy) were posed to 12-14 year olds in the 2012 study.
This younger age group was included to reflect the lower age band in the NDSHS and to better understand prevention issues amongst
young people who hadn’t yet tried drugs.
Page | 15
16
Therefore, to enable comparisons over time, some questions asked of the total sample in 2012 have
been rebased only to 15-24 year olds for reporting purposes.
Secondly, the method of administering the questionnaire differed across the waves. The 2012 study
was conducted online whereas the two earlier studies were conducted primarily using a telephonebased (CATI) methodology. The 2012 research was conducted online with 12-17 year olds being
contacted via their parents’ online panel account and provided with reassurances that their parents
could not access their responses; nevertheless, we suspect that there was reluctance by some young
people to be totally open with their responses in this context.
Finally, for all potentially sensitive questions, respondents were offered a ‘prefer not to answer’ option in
the 2012 online study. Given this was an answer explicitly available in the online survey context (rather
than an answer offered by the respondent in a telephone survey), the proportions of ‘prefer not to
answer/ don’t know’ were higher in this 2012 online survey than in previous telephone surveys.
These methodological differences should be considered when interpreting reported changes between
survey waves.
A note on possible under-reporting of illicit drug use
When interpreting data on self-reported drug usage it is important to consider that there is usually a
certain amount of under-reporting of drug usage amongst young people. This is primarily because it is
an illegal activity and younger respondents are even more likely than older ones to be cautious in
admitting it; and many young people still living with parents may not want their parents to know about
their drug use in a survey situation. It appears from this survey, and the National Drugs Campaign
2009-2010 evaluation survey, that estimates of drug use amongst young people are lower when using
an online methodology (in particular, on an online panel where those aged 12-17 years are contacted
via their parents) than when using a telephone or a hard copy self-complete, drop-and-collect
methodology. It is important to note that the intention of this research was not to conduct a prevalence
survey, however, some drug usage measures were included to profile the segments.
Cognitive testing of the questionnaire
As this was the first time the survey has been conducted amongst 12-14 year olds, it was considered
important to test the questionnaire face-to-face amongst this group (and the rest of the target group) to
ensure that the questions intended for the 12-14 year olds were appropriate, and understood as
intended.
We conducted 12 in-depth cognitive-style face-to-face interviews (45 minutes each) across the target
audience (across both genders and drug users and non-drug users) as follows:

three with 12-13 year olds;

three with 14-15 year olds;

three with 16-19 year olds; and

three with 20-24 year olds.
Page | 16
In order to access and understand the cognitive processes of respondents, our cognitive interviews
combined ‘thinking aloud’ activities along with strategic probing to better understand the strategies used
to formulate and match responses and the types of information required to answer particular questions.
As cognitive testing is a dynamic process, changes were made to the questionnaire during the process
of testing to maximise the utility of this part of the research.17
Statistically significant differences
Statistically significant differences have been noted in this report where a sub-group or a drug is
significantly different from other sub-groups/drugs, with 95% confidence. This means that the
differences are not due to the random statistical variation inherent in all data as they do not overlap
within the sampling associated with the results. Sampling error is a measure of the variability that
occurs because a sample, rather than the entire population, is interviewed in a survey. Sampling error
depends on the base size of the sub-group in question but also the extremeness of response.
To assist in determining how reliably an estimate reflects the true proportion in the 12-24 year old
population consider the estimate that 50% of the total sample of 1,600 had responded yes to a
question. This gives a 95% confidence interval width of 2.5 percentage points. So we can be 95%
confident the true proportion if the entire population of 12-24 year olds was surveyed lies in the interval
50% plus or minus 2.5%, that is, between 47.5% and 52.5%. The sample error decreases as the
response becomes closer to 0% or 100%. For example, if 90% of the sample responded yes to a
question the sampling error would be only plus or minus 1.5%.
Depending on the format of the data, the following tests of significance were used: Chi-square Test (for
single response categorical questions), Cochran’s Q (for multiple response categorical questions,
similar to a paired t-test or paired z-test for proportions) and t-tests (for numerical variables).
Where changes are significant between sub-groups and the rest of the sample, they are shown in red
(either red numbers or a red ‘down’ arrow) indicating a significantly lower result or blue (either blue
numbers or a blue ‘up’ arrow) indicating a significantly higher result throughout the report.
As some questions were not asked of 12-14 year olds, some charts are ‘based’ to 12-24 year olds and
others are based to 15-24 year olds. The relevant base is identified on each chart.
The final questionnaire can be found in Appendix F. Changes to the questionnaire during the cognitive testing process included slight
wording changes to statements so that they were clear to 12-14 year olds (e.g. changing ‘comedowns’ to ‘comedowns/hangovers’,
changing ‘lazy and lethargic’ to just ‘lazy’; changing a 10 point scale on perceptions of specific drugs to a yes/no scale for simplicity,
particularly amongst the younger age group; splitting out LSD/Mushrooms into two separate drugs; testing the best description of using
‘pharmaceutical drugs for non-medical purposes’, this ended up being using ‘medicines (when you’re not sick)’; removing words to
describe drug users that are not understood (e.g. ‘trippers’); identifying which drugs and questions are appropriate to be asked of 12-14
year olds (they ended up only being asked about tobacco, alcohol, marijuana and ecstasy for most questions).
Page | 17
17
DETAILED FINDINGS
Page | 18
THE QUALITATIVE DRUGS LANDSCAPE
Overview
The qualitative research provided a good overview of the drugs landscape and how perceptions
towards different illicit drugs have changed since GfK Blue Moon conducted previous qualitative
research on this topic.
Some observations on the qualitative sample
Some clear differences emerged among those included in the qualitative research sample. These
differences are driven largely by age, location and experience. There is on the whole a clear distinction
between those over and under 15 years of age, with the younger audience (12-14 years) tending to be
much more simplistic in their perceptions of drugs. They tend to think in general terms such as ‘all drugs
are bad’, hold lower drug knowledge levels and often base their opinions on misperceptions or
assumptions. Those aged 15 years and over tend to be less extreme in their views, and more pragmatic
about the subject of drugs in general.
Availability of drugs has also been found to be changeable by location. Examples of specific drugs were
heard in some locations and not in others. Speed, for example, appears to have far greater visibility in
Queensland than elsewhere, while ‘Smurf Pills’ were only spoken about in regional Victoria.
In addition, experience of drug use, or exposure to drugs also has an impact upon attitudes and
perceptions. The greater the experience of taking illicit drugs, the more complex perceptions of them
tend to be. Different drugs are seen as being very different and some ‘users’ tend to ‘pick and choose’
with some drugs rejected as ‘not for me’.
In contrast to previous research there appear to be fewer differences between blue and white collar. In
1999 those with blue collar backgrounds claimed to have more excuses for drug taking than white collar
and there was a clear delineation of more blue or white collar drugs. However, in 2012 far fewer
differences are evident between blue and white collar young people in relation to illicit drugs. There do
remain some distinctions, such as speed being ‘the poor man’s cocaine’, but these are less prevalent.
The drugs landscape in 2012
In 2012, young people claimed to feel that they were relatively exposed to illicit drugs in general and
that they ‘see’ them everywhere. Illicit drugs were felt to be prevalent in popular culture including being
widely seen in movies and TV shows. Access to information about and entertainment involving illicit
drugs was readily accessible online. Respondents were able to readily recall hearing about illicit drugs
in relation to celebrities, including both ‘positive’ and negative stories, and older respondents in
particular claimed they were often regularly exposed to illicit drugs at parties or nights out.
Sources about drugs were wide ranging. Respondents felt that in addition to drugs being regularly
represented in popular culture through movies, TV shows, music, and in the online environment, they
also hear, see and talk about drugs at school, with their peers and with their parents.
“You hear about drugs everywhere, all the time.”18
All but the youngest in our sample claimed that illicit drugs are to some extent ‘normal’ or have been
normalised in society. Users of all kinds of drugs were happy during the research to talk openly in
viewing facilities while being recorded or knowing they were being viewed. It is apparent that the
commonality of drugs has resulted in a sense of nonchalance for many. In keeping with this view of
Focus group participant, GfK Blue Moon, July 2012.
Page | 19
18
normalisation, compared to the 1999/2000 and 2007 segmentation research, there is also far less of a
sense of the ‘thrill’ around drugs in general due to low perceived risks. Many young people are often
more derisory of legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.
“Even though I don’t take them, it doesn’t bother me, if I let it bother me, I’d be
bothered every time I go out.”19
“Drugs are acceptable now, they are like alcohol”20
Changes to the drugs landscape
Certain key changes to the drugs landscape appear to have occurred in recent years. As some drugs
have become less available, others have become more prominent or made a resurgence. The illicit drug
landscape is a shifting one, dependent on attitudes toward, and perceptions of, different drugs as well
as availability and prevalence of different types of illicit drugs. Stakeholders provided feedback that the
landscape has shifted, particularly around the area of ‘party drugs’ and what drugs are being used in
these occasions. Broadly speaking, however, the language of drugs and drug use was not felt to have
changed significantly.
Ecstasy
Ecstasy in particular was the subject of much discussion, particularly among older or more experienced
drug users. The term itself is also used interchangeably with ‘pills’ and the generic term ‘pills’ is widely
used to solely refer to ecstasy. Ecstasy is no longer felt to exist in its ‘original’ form. There is a general
consensus that the quality of ecstasy has dramatically reduced in recent years and as such it has
become far less desirable for many. Many respondents were able to talk with confidence about what
changes have taken place and the fact that the ingredients which made ecstasy so desirable were
MDMA and speed, with MDMA being the primary driver for use. Now, ‘pills’ are perceived to vary
significantly in quality and ingredients, and young people claim that pills with MDMA are very rare. As
such, pills are now considered by more experienced drug users as ‘grubby’ and ‘unappealing’. MDMA
capsules or ‘caps’ are an expensive replacement for ecstasy and so a ‘gap’ has been created for
affordable ‘party’ drugs. Anecdotally the price of MDMA ‘caps’ is double that of pills. Where respondents
reported pills ranging in price from $15 to $25, MDMA caps were reported to cost somewhere between
$30 and $50. Some young people express a sense of nostalgia for ecstasy. Indeed, there are some
signs of increased experimentation to fill this gap.
“Speed pills are crazy, you may as well buy speed.”21
“If you get a good pill, it’s unusual.”22
“Pills became full of s**t.”23
LSD/Mushrooms
There also appears to have been a resurgence of hallucinogenic drugs. LSD and mushrooms are more
commonly talked about than in previous years and in some cases are being used as replacements for
‘party’ drugs.
Focus group participant, GfK Blue Moon, July 2012.
Focus group participant, GfK Blue Moon, July 2012.
21 Focus group participant, GfK Blue Moon, July 2012.
22 Focus group participant, GfK Blue Moon, July 2012.
23 Focus group participant, GfK Blue Moon, July 2012.
Page | 20
19
20
Cannabis
Marijuana still exists in ‘bush’ and ‘hydro’ form. However, the distinction between the two is not as
frequently mentioned as it had been in previous research. There is some indication that hydro has
become more normal and familiar and that it has become difficult to find non-hydro marijuana. Heavy
users who find hydro too strong reported growing their own to supply their needs.
Ice
For the most part ice is seen as a very scary and unattractive drug. It is strongly associated with
imagery derived from government advertising. For many drug users it is a line they would not cross.
However, there is some evidence among older, more habitual drug users of experimentation with what
they term as ‘crack’ (which is most likely ice, smoked using a crack pipe).
Other changes
There have also been some other areas of change such as:

Increased use of pharmaceutical drugs (Dex, Valium, Oxycodin);

Ketamine and GHB are less prevalent than in previous years; and

Heroin was very rarely spontaneously mentioned and seems to have vanished from sight for many.
Mapping the drugs landscape
The young people in the sample mapped drugs according to a range of criteria. As shown in the figure
below, these include differentiating between drugs that are safe versus harmful, natural versus synthetic
and a stimulant versus a relaxant. These criteria tend to become more specific as users have greater
experience with different types of drug.
Figure 1: Perceptions of difference between drugs
While certain drugs have strong associations and clear positioning, others do not. The figure overleaf
shows that while ice, heroin, LSD/acid, marijuana and tobacco have fairly stable positions on the map,
pills, speed and alcohol do not. These issues are covered in greater detail in chapter 13 ‘Individual
Drugs in Profile’ later in this document.
Page | 21
Figure 2: Perceptions of illicit drugs – fun vs. harm
Modes of administration tend to be mapped relatively consistently. Injecting in particular is held up as a
line that most feel they never want to encounter or cross. Injecting is linked by the vast majority with
negative connotations of drug addiction, being a ‘junkie’ and as having lost control. Swallowing and
smoking are generally seen as relatively ‘safe’ modes of ingestion. They also tend to be seen as the
most common. Snorting is seen by many as off-putting but for some has positive associations, largely
with cocaine use.
Page | 22
DRUG AWARENESS AND USAGE
The quantitative survey measured unprompted and prompted awareness of a range of illicit drugs, drug
trial, drugs used in the past 12 months and past four weeks and the drug use situation (using with
others or alone and the location of use).
Unprompted awareness of illicit drugs
Without prompting, amongst 12-24 year olds, the illicit drug most likely to be named was ‘marijuana’ or
its variants (73%). This was followed by cocaine (50%), ecstasy (45%), heroin (41%), ice (36%), speed
(26%) and LSD (18%). A nett of 58% mentioned meth/amphetamines or one of its variants. An average
of 3.6 drugs was mentioned, increasing by age from 2.6 for 12-14 year olds to 4.1 for 18-24 year olds.
Heroin and cocaine have a much greater profile than they deserve as drugs that are only used by a
small minority.
Figure 3: Unprompted awareness of illicit drugs (12-24 year olds)
Q2 And now some questions on drugs. Thinking about illegal drugs, what drugs can you name?
UNPROMPTED.
Base: 12-24 year olds (n=1600).
Page | 23
There was little difference between gender in unprompted mentions of drugs. However, as age
increased there was also an increase in the number of drugs mentioned with LSD and meth mentioned
with increasing age. LSD was mentioned by 4% of 12-14 year olds, rising to 26% of 18-24 year olds
and meth was mentioned by 5% of 12-14 year olds, rising to 20% of 18-24 year olds.
Table 3: Summary of unprompted awareness of illicit drugs, by gender and age
Q2 And now some questions on drugs. Thinking about illegal drugs, what drugs can you name?
UNPROMPTED.
Total
sample
(n=1600)
Male
(n=800)
Female
(n=800)
12-14
(n=300)
15-17
(n=300)
18-24
(n=1000)
NETT Marijuana etc.
73
70
75
67
75
74
Cocaine/coke
50
52
49
38-
42-
58+
NETT Ecstasy/E/eckies/MDMA
45
42
47
32-
41
51+
Heroin
41
41
41
31-
44
44
NETT Ice/Crystal meth
36
34
39
27-
38
39+
Speed
26
25
27
23
27
27
NETT LSD/Acid
18
18
18
4-
12-
26+
Methamphetamine/meth
14
14
15
5-
7-
20+
Crack cocaine/crack
5
6
5
4
5
6
Magic mushrooms/shrooms
5
6
4
1-
2-
8+
GHB
3
3
3
1-
3
4+
Amphetamines
3
3
3
1
2
4+
Ketamine/Special K
2
2
2
0-
1
4+
Opium
2
2
3
0-
1
3+
PCP/phencyclidine
2
2
1
0
0
3+
Tobacco/cigarettes
2
1
2
4+
1
1-
Alcohol
2
2
2
4+
2
1-
Steroids
1
1
1
1
0
2
Bath salts
1
1
1
0
1
1
Morphine
1
1
1
1
0
1
Other answers
10
12
8
4-
9
12+
Don't know
4
5
2
6
2
4
None
5
6
3
9+
5
3-
3.6
3.5
3.6
2.6-
3.2
4.1+
Column %
Average number of drugs
mentioned
Base: 12-24 year olds (n=1600).
Page | 24
Between 2000 and 2012, the ‘top of mind’ illicit drugs mentioned by 15-24 year olds have altered
considerably. Heroin and speed, in particular, are much less likely to be mentioned in 2012 (heroin
dropping from 75% in 2000 to 44% in 2012 and speed declining from 45% in 2000 to 27% in 2012).
Offsetting the decline in mention of speed was an increase in the mention of meth/methamphetamine
(from not listed in 2000 to 20% in 2012) and ice/crystal meth from less than 2% in 2000 to 39% in
2012). There were also smaller increases in the mention of mushrooms (from less than 2% to 8%),
crack (from 3% to 6%), GHB (from less than 2% to 4%) and ketamine (from less than 2% to 4%).
Furthermore, the number of drugs mentioned has increased significantly - from an average of 2.8 to 3.8.
This indicates either that young people are more aware of drugs in 2012 or that the online methodology
was more conducive (than a telephone interview) to responding with a longer list of drugs. There were a
few new drugs (e.g. bath salts, DMT) mentioned by around 1% of the sample.
Table 4: Unprompted awareness of illicit drugs 2000 – 2012 (15-24 year olds)
Q2 And now some questions on drugs. Thinking about illegal drugs, what drugs can you name?
UNPROMPTED.
2000
(n=2306)
2012
(n=1300)
Marijuana/cannabis/pot
79
74
Heroin
75
44-
Ecstasy
58
51-
Cocaine
58
58
Speed
45
27-
LSD/acid/trips
27
26
Not listed
20+
Amphetamines
6
4
Crack
3
6+
Opium
2
3
Cigarettes/tobacco
2
1
Ice/crystal meth
<2
39+
Mushrooms
<2
8+
GHB
<2
4+
Ketamine
<2
4+
PCP
<2
3
Average number of drugs mentioned
2.8
3.8+
Column %
Meth/methamphetamine
Base: 15-24 year olds.
Page | 25
Drug usage
Drugs ever used
As shown in Figure 4, amongst 15-24 year olds, marijuana is by far the most likely illicit drug to have
ever been used. One quarter (24%) of this age group admit to having ever used marijuana. Ecstasy
shows the next highest level of reported trial (9%), followed by medicines ‘when you’re not sick’ (8%),
speed (6%), cocaine (4%), LSD (4%) and mushrooms (4%). There was a very low rate of reporting
having ever used ice (2%) or heroin (1%) amongst this audience.24
Figure 4: Drugs ever used - 15-24 year olds
Q5/Q9 Now, which, if any, of the following drugs have you personally ever used?
Base: Total Sample of 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
Note that, given the topic of the research is (largely) illegal activity and that many of the sample are still living with their parents, we
would expect to see some level of under-reporting of drug usage in each survey.
Page | 26
24
Individual drugs ever used amongst illicit drug trialists, over time
As shown in the table below, when we compare individual drug use amongst illicit drug trialists 25 across
the three waves of segmentation research, the trends are very similar to those found in the 2010
National Drug Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS).26 Amongst 15-24 year olds who have ever used
illicit drugs, the majority have used marijuana (at a similar rate across the two waves – 98%, 95%).
Ecstasy increased significantly between 2000 (28%) and 2012 (36%). Cocaine increased significantly
between 2000 and 2012 (from 10% to 16%). Speed declined significantly between 2000 (28%) and
2012 (23%). Heroin declined significantly between 2000 (5%) and 2012 (2%).
Table 5: Drugs ‘ever used’ amongst those who have ever used illicit drugs
Q9 Which, if any, of the following drugs have you personally ever used? (based to ever used one or
more of these drugs).
2000 survey
(n=1229)
2012 survey
(n=348)
Marijuana
98
95
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
28
36+
LSD/acid
N/A
15-
LSD and other hallucinogens*
27
N/A
Nett LSD and mushrooms
N/A
22
Mushrooms
N/A
15
Cocaine
10
16+
Speed
28
23-
Ice
N/A
9
5
2-
Heroin
Base: Have ever used one or more of these drugs.
* In 2000 this was called ‘LSD and other hallucinogens’ and this has likely influenced the higher reported usage in 2000 than
2012 as it included other hallucinogens.
Cross usage of drugs
It can be useful to examine the effect of using one drug on the likelihood of using another. The first
column in Table 6 shows the incidence of trial of each drug type among 15-24 year olds. The second
column expresses this as an index, with a base of 100.
The later columns show the trial incidence indexed to the 100 ‘base’ amongst trialists of each of the
corresponding drugs listed in the top banner. So, for instance, the incidence of trial of ecstasy amongst
marijuana users was 3.74 times higher than the incidence of ecstasy among the total sample of 15-24
year olds). Similarly, the table shows that a 15-24 year old who had tried cocaine was almost 12 times
more likely (than the total sample of 15-24 year olds) to have also tried speed. And that those who have
tried mushrooms were 13.6 times more likely (than the total sample of 15-24 year olds) to have also
tried LSD.
Those who have ever tried each drug at least once.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2011). 2010 National Drug Strategy Household Survey report. Drug statistics series no. 25.
Cat. No. PHE 145. Canberra: AIHW.
Page | 27
25
26
It is important to take care in interpreting this data. It does not indicate a cause and effect relationship
between trying one drug and trying another. It does not, for instance, indicate that marijuana use can
lead to ecstasy use. After all, only one in three marijuana trialists were also ecstasy trialists.
What it does indicate, however, is that there are ‘tiers’ of drugs which attract different levels of trial.
Marijuana is on its own, with the highest trial level, and the lowest relative barriers to trial. Ecstasy forms
the next tier, and then speed, cocaine, mushrooms and LSD. Ice and heroin are the final tier. Ice
trialists in particular, have the greatest propensity to try any drug.
Table 6: Cross usage of drugs (ever used)
Q9 Which, if any, of the following drugs have you personally ever used?
LSD/acid
(n=51)
Mushrooms
(n=52)
Cocaine
(n=53)
Speed
(n=80)
Ice
(n=30)
Heroin
(n=9)#
Medicines
(when
you’re not
sick)
(n=109)
Total %
(n=1300)
Total
index
Tobacco
(n=457)
Alcohol
(n=875)
Marijuana
(n=333)
Ecstasy
(MDMA)/
pills
(n=120)
Tobacco
33%
100
n/a
147
257
272
274
279
282
274
270
213
224
Alcohol
66%
100
147
n/a
145
145
149
145
140
142
142
104
141
Marijuana
24%
100
257
145
n/a
374
399
397
381
387
365
229
257
Ecstasy
(MDMA)/pills
9%
100
272
145
374
n/a
900
808
965
880
912
711
447
LSD/acid
4%
100
274
149
399
900
n/a
1366
1011
1176
1537
1085
540
Mushrooms
4%
100
279
145
397
808
1366
n/a
1091
1191
1233
1200
568
Cocaine
4%
100
282
140
381
965
1011
1091
n/a
1195
1145
1782
465
Speed
6%
100
274
142
387
880
1176
1191
1195
n/a
1638
1053
591
Ice
2%
100
270
142
365
912
1537
1233
1145
1638
n/a
1125
822
Heroin
1%
100
213
104
229
711
1085
1200
1782
1053
1125
n/a
734
Medicines (when
you’re not sick)
8%
100
224
141
257
447
540
568
465
591
822
734
n/a
n = ever used
Base: 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
#Use with caution, very low sample size.
Page | 28
Drug use summary – ever used, used in last year, used in last four weeks
While reported ‘ever used’ illicit drugs for this sample peaks at 24% for marijuana, reported last twelve
months and last four weeks use of illicit drugs is quite low for this sample. For instance, only 5% of
15-24 year olds report using marijuana in the last four weeks.
Figure 5: Drug use summary – 15-24 year olds
Q9 Which, if any, of the following drugs have you personally ever used?
Q10 Which have you used in the last year?
Q11 And which have you used in the last four weeks?27
Base: 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
Note that less than 0.5% have used heroin in the last year or last 4 weeks.
Page | 29
27
As expected, reported usage of any drug amongst the youngest age group (12-14 year olds) is even
lower.
Figure 6: Drug use summary – 12-14 year olds
Q9 Which, if any, of the following drugs have you personally ever used?
Q10 Which have you used in the last year?
Q11 And which have you used in the last four weeks?
Base: 12-14 year olds (n=300).
Page | 30
Conversion levels
The relative appeal of each drug to those who have ever used it can be highlighted by comparing the
rate at which trialists are converted into occasional or regular users. The table below shows the ratio of
trial to use in the last year and the last four weeks.
The table indicates that most illicit drugs had a trial to annual use ratio of about half. Marijuana shows
both the highest trial to annual use ratio (0.55) and the highest trial to four weeks use ratio (0.21). In
other words, of those who have ever tried marijuana, 21% have used it in the past four weeks. It
appears to be the most appealing and/or the most easily available drug.
LSD and mushrooms trial to annual use ratio was the lowest at about one third, indicating that perhaps
the trialists found the experience less appealing and were uninterested in or unwilling to repeat it.
Mushrooms also had the lowest trial to last four weeks use ratio (only .06). Of course, we need to take
note that these ratios are likely to be affected by availability of the illicit drugs and, in the case of
mushrooms, seasonal availability in particular. Seasonal availability of mushrooms is especially likely to
impact on the apparent conversion rate from trial to last four weeks’ usage (and will alter in different
locations in Australia depending on the time of the year that research fieldwork is conducted).
Interestingly, the ratio of trial to annual use has dropped substantially for ecstasy since 2007 (from 0.63
to 0.46), indicating that it may be a less positive experience than it used to be.
Table 7: Conversion from trial to annual and last four weeks’ usage
Q9/Q10/Q11 Which of the following drugs have you trialled/used in the last year/4 weeks?
Trial
Trial/used
in last year
Used in
last year
Trial/4
week user
Used in
last 4
weeks
Tobacco
Alcohol
Marijuana
Ecstasy
(MDMA)/pills
LSD/
acid
Mushrooms
Cocaine
Speed
Ice
Heroin
Medicines
(when
you’re not
sick)
33.4%
65.6%
24.5%
9.2%
3.8%
4.0%
4.0%
6.0%
2.3%
0.6%
7.8%
0.66
0.90
0.55
0.46
0.34
0.33
0.43
0.44
0.54
0.51
0.53
22.1%
59.0%
13.6%
4.3%
1.3%
1.3%
1.7%
2.6%
1.2%
0.3%
4.2%
0.41
0.65
0.21
0.17
0.13
0.06
0.17
0.13
0.13
0.20
0.19
13.8%
42.8%
5.1%
1.6%
0.5%
0.2%
0.7%
0.8%
0.3%
0.1%
1.5%
Base: 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
Page | 31
Drug use in the past four weeks
Among those who have used each drug in the past four weeks, daily frequency of recent use was
highest for marijuana (at 8.6 days out of the last 28) and cocaine (at 5.8 days), even greater than for
alcohol (4.8 days). While sample sizes are very low here, it does appear that LSD (at 1.7 days) and
mushrooms (at 2.3 days), in particular, are drugs used only occasionally.
Figure 7: Number of days used each drug in past four weeks (among recent users)
Q12 On how many days have you used (DRUG) in the last four weeks?
Base: 15-24 year olds who had used each drug in the past four weeks (sample size shown in brackets above).
Note: use with caution as very low sample sizes are indicated above in some instances.
Page | 32
Drug usage alone or with others
Most drugs are taken in the company of others. The most sociable drugs are mushrooms (94% most
with others), ecstasy (94% mostly with others) and LSD (85% mostly with others). On the other hand, it
appears that the most ‘solitary’ drugs are the more serious drugs of dependency: heroin (61% mostly
with others), cocaine (70% mostly with others) and ice (79% mostly with others).
Figure 8: Drug usage alone or with others
Q13 Do you mostly use each of these drugs by yourself or with others?
Base: Used each drug in the past year (n=5 to n=182).
Note: Most drugs have very small sample sizes, use with caution.
Page | 33
Drug use location
Illicit drugs are taken in a wide variety of locations. The most likely location overall is at a friend’s home,
particularly for LSD (49%), mushrooms (46%), marijuana (38%), speed (28%) and ice (27%). Ecstasy
and cocaine are most likely to be taken at a nightclub (33% and 28% respectively).
Table 8: Drug use location
Q14 Where did you last use each of these drugs?
Marijuana
(n=187)
Ecstasy
(MDMA)/pills
(n=60)
Mushrooms
(n=18)
LSD/acid
(n=18)
Cocaine
(n=22)
Speed
(n=36)
Ice
(n=16)
At a friend’s home
38+
20+
46+
49+
19+
28+
27+
At my home
23+
1
15+
13+
6
14+
25+
At a nightclub
0
33+
0
0
28+
22+
9
14+
10
13+
0
3
13+
4
At a music festival
1
16+
3
12+
6
5
9
At a dance party
2
6
7
0
11+
10+
8
At school or school
event
1
1
5
12+
4
2
0
Outside e.g. park,
beach
11
4
6
8
0
0
0
At the pub, bar
1
2
0
0
9
2
6
In a car
3
0
0
0
0
0
12+
At
TAFE/College/University
1
2
0
0
5
3
0
At work
0
0
6
0
5
0
0
Other
4
2
0
0
3
0
0
Don’t know
1
2
0
7
0
0
0
Column %
At a house party
Base: 12-24 year olds who have used each drug in the past year (n=16 to n=187).
Note that heroin not shown because of the low sample size (n=5).
Note that 12-14 year olds were only asked about marijuana and ecstasy.
Page | 34
PERCEPTIONS OF PEER DRUG USE
Perceived drug use norms
The quantitative research found that drug use is perceived to be much more ‘normalised’ than it is
actually reported to be at an individual level. For all substances, young people estimate that more
people their age have tried the drug than report having actually tried it.
Of all illicit drugs, 15-24 year olds were most likely to perceive that their peers had trialled marijuana
(average of 44%, actual reported trial was 24%) and ecstasy (average of 29%, actual reported trial was
9%). When it comes to legal substances, young people indicate that (on average) 82% of their peers
have tried alcohol and 63% tobacco.
Figure 9: Estimate of percentage of peers who have tried each drug
Q3 What percentage of people your age do you think have tried each of the following drugs at least
once? TYPE IN %.
Base: 15-24 year olds, excluding don’t know (n=782- n=1156 per drug).
Page | 35
As shown in the table below, females perceived a significantly higher rate of trial of each drug among
their peers than males, even though there was little difference in self-reported trial of each drug
between genders. As expected, perception of rate of trial of drugs is lowest among 12-14 year olds (for
the four drugs tested) and highest among 21-24 year olds (for all drugs).
Table 9: Perception of peer trial of drugs
Q3 What percentage of people your age do you think have tried each of the following drugs at least
once?
Column %
Total
Sample
(n=1600)
Male
(n=800)
Female
(n=800)
12–14
(n=300)
15–17
(n=300)
18–20
(n=389)
21–24
(n=611)
Tobacco
57
53-
62+
31-
51-
63+
69+
Alcohol
75
72-
78+
40-
65-
86+
89+
Marijuana
40
36-
44+
17-
36-
44+
48+
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
27
23-
30+
10-
20-
26
35+
Mushrooms
20
17-
22+
N/A
10-
19
23+
LSD/acid
18
16-
20+
N/A
11-
18
21+
Cocaine
20
17-
22+
N/A
10-
19
23+
Speed
22
20-
25+
N/A
16-
20
26+
Ice
18
17-
20+
N/A
13-
18
20+
Heroin
15
13-
16+
N/A
9-
15
17+
Base: 12-24 year olds excluding those who responded ‘don’t know’ for each drug, comprising about 40% for mushrooms
down to heroin, and 15% to 33% for tobacco, alcohol, marijuana and ecstasy.
When we compare perceived and reported levels of drug use it becomes apparent that drug use is
perceived to be much more ‘normalised’ than it is actually reported to be at an individual level. In other
words, 15-24 year olds significantly over-estimate the proportion of their peers who are using drugs.
Furthermore, those who have ‘ever used’ illicit drugs generally over-estimate peer usage to an even
greater extent than those who have ‘never used’. In other words, non-users’ estimates of peer usage
are closer to (reported) reality than users of illicit drugs. For example, 15-24 year olds who have ever
used illicit drugs estimate that 55% of people their age have ever used marijuana, those who have
never tried illicit drugs estimate that only 29% of people their age have tried marijuana, very close to the
24% of 15-24 year olds who admit to trial. The only exceptions here were ice (where both groups
estimated 18% of their peers had ever tried, actual reported trial was 2%) and heroin (where the ‘ever
used’ group was closer to reported usage (estimating 13% against 1% actual reported trial) than the
never used (estimating 16%). So, while both groups over-estimated the level of drug ‘normalisation’
among their peers, the ‘never used’ were generally closer to the mark than those who had ever used
illicit drugs.
Overall, the ‘heavier’ drugs were particularly overestimated (e.g. respondents perceived that an average
of 15% of their peers had ever tried heroin, when it is actually closer to 1%; and that 18% of their peers
had ever tried ice, when it is actually closer to 2%).
Page | 36
“I feel like it’s just a normal thing. I’m around it all the time, it’s basically
everywhere.”28
“There’s a lot more psychedelics going around. A few years ago I was kind of
shocked but it’s more normal now, especially with the festival culture. At festivals you
see all kinds of people using it.”29
Figure 10: Estimated percentage of peer drug usage (‘Ever used’ vs. ‘Never used’) vs. Reported
usage by drug
Q3 What percentage of people your age do you think have tried each of the following drugs at least
once.
Q9 Now, which, if any, of the following drugs have you personally ever used?
Base: Total Sample of 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
Focus group participant, GfK Blue Moon, July 2012.
Focus group participant, GfK Blue Moon, July 2012.
Page | 37
28
29
Perceived increase or decrease in peer drug use
As shown in the figure below, there is a general perception amongst 15-24 year olds that more people
their age are smoking (29% more and 21% less, nett +8%) and drinking (nett +49%) now than they
were a year ago. This is unsurprising as the younger respondents in particular come closer to the legal
smoking and drinking age. In terms of illicit drugs, there is a perception that considerably more people
their age are using marijuana (nett +20%) and, to a lesser extent, ecstasy (nett +7%). However, there
were declines in the perception of use of LSD (nett -4%), heroin (nett -4%) and mushrooms (nett -5%).
Figure 11: Perceived increase or decrease in peer drug use (15-24 year olds)
Q4 Since this time last year, do you think that more, the same, or less people your age are.
Base: 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
Page | 38
Focusing specifically among 12-14 year olds, there is a perception that people their age are more likely
to be using alcohol (nett +27%), marijuana (nett +10%), tobacco (nett +9%) and ecstasy (nett +7%)
than they were a year ago.
Figure 12: Perceived increase or decrease in peer drug use (12-14 year olds)
Q4 Since this time last year, do you think that more, the same, or less people your age are.
Base: 12-14 year olds (n=300).
Page | 39
Not surprisingly, the more recent the illicit drug use (of any drug) the greater the perception that use of
each illicit drug is increasing. For example, while 17% of 12-24 year olds perceived that the use of
ecstasy amongst people their age had increased in the past year, this increased to 28% amongst those
who had ever used illicit drugs, 31% amongst those who had used illicit drugs in the past 12 months
and 42% amongst those who had used illicit drugs in the past four weeks.
Table 10: Perception that more peers are taking drugs – by drug use history
Q4 Since this time last year, do you think that more, the same, or less people your age are.
Total Sample
(n=1600)
Ever used illicit
drugs
(n=385)
Used illicit drugs
in last 12 months
(n=233)
Used illicit drugs
in last 4 weeks
(n=100)
Smoking tobacco
28
30
30
26
Drinking alcohol
48
50
52
50
Using marijuana
25
38+
41+
44+
Using ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
17
28+
31+
42+
Using mushrooms
9
13+
14+
20+
Using LSD/acid
10
14+
15+
15
Using cocaine
13
17+
16
22+
Using speed
13
20+
19+
22+
Using ice
14
20+
19+
22+
Using heroin
10
11
10
12
% More
Base: Total 12-24 year olds. Note that 12-24 year olds were only asked about the top four drugs.
The total sample size for the bottom six drugs is n=1300.
Page | 40
DRUG AVAILABILITY
The quantitative research found that slightly more than one third (36%) of 15-24 year olds had been
offered or had the opportunity to use an illicit drug in the past 12 months. Males (39%) were significantly
more likely than females (33%) to have had the opportunity to use an illicit drug. There was no
statistically significant difference in drug availability by age (35% of 15-17 year olds, 37% of 18-20 year
olds, 36% of 21-24 year olds).
Figure 13: Offered/had opportunity to use illicit drug in last year
Q6 Have you been offered or had the opportunity to use any illegal drug in the last 12 months?
Base: 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
Page | 41
Marijuana was by far the most easily accessible drug, with almost a third (32%) having had the
opportunity to use it. This was followed by ecstasy (16%), medicines when you’re not sick (11%), speed
(9%), cocaine (7%), mushrooms (6%), LSD/Acid (6%) and ice (6%).
The least available drug was heroin with only one in 50 young people (2%) being offered it or having the
opportunity to use it. These ‘opportunity to use’ figures are very similar by drug to the results of the
2010 NDSHS.30
Figure 14: Offered/had opportunity to use specific illicit drugs
Q7 In the last twelve months, have you been offered, or had the opportunity to use, any of the following
drugs?
Base: 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2011). 2010 National Drug Strategy Household Survey report. Drug statistics series no. 25.
Cat. No. PHE 145. Canberra: AIHW.
Page | 42
30
It appears that one sixth to one half of 15-24 year olds who are offered a drug will try it, depending on
the drug offered. They are less likely to have tried (or admit to trying) the more ‘serious’ drugs when
offered (for example, 44% of those who have been offered marijuana in the past 12 months have used
marijuana in the past 12 months, only 17% of those who have been offered ice, LSD and mushrooms
have used these drugs in the past 12 months).31
Figure 15: Offered vs. tried conversion by specific illicit drug
Q7 In the last twelve months, have you been offered, or had the opportunity to use, any of the following
drugs?
Base: 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
With the exception being heroin for which 50% of those offered it in the past 12 months have tried heroin in the past 12 months.
Page | 43
31
When we examine the illicit drugs young people have had access to by their previous drug use
experience, it appears that those who have ever used any drug were very significantly more likely to
have had access to every drug. The more recent the drug use the greater the availability of all drugs.
For example, 16% of 15-24 year olds have been offered, or had the opportunity to use, ecstasy in the
past year, increasing to 39% of those who have ever used any illicit drug, 51% of those who have used
an illicit drug in the past 12 months and 65% of those who had used an illicit drug in the last four weeks.
Table 11: Illicit drugs offered by drug use experience
Q7 In the last twelve months, have you been offered, or had the opportunity to use, any of the following
drugs?
Total Sample
(n=1300)
Ever used illicit
drugs
(n=385)
Used illicit drugs
in last 12 months
(n=233)
Used illicit drugs
in last 4 weeks
(n=100)
Marijuana
32
69+
84+
90+
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
16
39+
51+
65+
Mushrooms
6
18+
25+
37+
LSD/acid
6
16+
23+
37+
Cocaine
7
17+
24+
30+
Speed
9
24+
32+
42+
Ice
6
14+
20+
28+
Heroin
2
5+
6+
7+
Medicines (when you’re not sick)
11
25+
32+
43+
Other
2
4+
6+
8+
Base: Total 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
Page | 44
The table below details the drugs young people have been offered in the past 12 months by age and
gender. There are three key statistically significant differences: males were significantly more likely than
females to have had the opportunity to use speed and ice; those aged 18-24 were significantly more
likely than those aged 15-17 to have had the opportunity to use mushrooms and LSD; and those aged
21-24 were significantly more likely than 15-20 year olds to have had the opportunity to use cocaine
(probably because affordability increases with age).
Table 12: Illicit drugs offered by age and gender
Q7 In the last twelve months, have you been offered, or had the opportunity to use, any of the following
drugs?
Total
Sample
(n=1300)
Male
(n=650)
Female
(n=650)
15–17
(n=300)
18–20
(n=389)
21–24
(n=611)
Marijuana
32
33
31
32
33
31
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
16
16
17
14
16
17
Mushrooms
6
7
5
2-
10+
7
LSD/acid
6
6
6
3-
8
7
Cocaine
7
8
6
5
5
10+
Speed
9
12+
6-
8
9
10
Ice
6
8+
4-
6
6
6
Heroin
2
3
2
3
2
2
Medicines (when you’re not sick)
11
11
10
12
10
10
% Yes
Base: Total 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
Page | 45
RISK OF DRUG TAKING
A key measure of each respondent’s potential to use particular drugs was based on a question in the
quantitative research asking what they would do if they were offered a drug by a friend in a situation
where the friend was using the drug. Any person who would not ‘definitely say no’ to the offer of drugs
from a friend was classed as ‘at risk’ of using that drug.
The figure below points to substantial risk of future drug trial amongst 15-24 year olds. A nett of 40%
would not reject at least one of the listed drugs if offered to them by a friend who was using it. Only
three in five (59%) would definitely not take marijuana if offered by a friend who was using it. Even for
mushrooms and ecstasy, only 78% would definitely not take them if offered by a friend. Heroin and ice
were the drugs at least risk of trial (91% and 89% would definitely say no).
Figure 16: Likelihood of taking drug if offered by a friend by drug type
Q8 If a friend offered you each of the drugs below in a situation where they were using it, would you
definitely say yes and take it, probably say yes, probably say no, or definitely say no?
Base: 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
Page | 46
Males were more likely than females to be at risk of taking each drug. In particular, they were much
more likely to be at risk of using LSD, speed and ice.
Generally, 15-17 year olds were more likely than 18-24 year olds to reject each drug. However, even
33% of 15-17 year olds were at risk of taking marijuana (similar to 38% of 21-24 year olds).
Note that there was little difference in risk between the States and between the city and country with the
exception that those in the ACT were more likely to take marijuana if offered by a friend (53%). This is
not surprising given the more lenient ACT legislation regarding growing cannabis plants for personal
use.
Table 13: At risk of drug taking if offered by a friend by gender and age
Q8 If a friend offered you each of the drugs below in a situation where they were using it, would you
definitely say yes and take it, probably say yes, probably say no, or definitely say no?
Total
Sample
(n=1300)
Male
(n=650)
Female
(n=650)
15-17
(n=300)
18–20
(n=389)
21–24
(n=611)
Marijuana
37
39+
35-
33
40
38
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
19
21+
17-
12-
20
22+
Mushrooms
18
20+
16-
11-
20
21
LSD/acid
13
16+
10-
8-
14
15
Cocaine
15
17+
12-
9-
15
18+
Speed
12
15+
9-
8-
13
14
Ice
8
11+
5-
8
9
8
Heroin
7
9+
4-
6
9
6
% definitely yes, probably
yes or probably no
Base: 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
Page | 47
As shown in the table below, those who have used any illicit drug are at much greater risk of using
every other individual drug. The risk increases with recency of using any illicit drug.
Table 14: Risk of taking drug if offered by a friend by recency of drug use
Q8 If a friend offered you each of the drugs below in a situation where they were using it, would you
definitely say yes and take it, probably say yes, probably say no, or definitely say no?
Total Sample
(n=1300)
Ever used illicit
drugs
(n=385)
Used illicit drugs
in last 12 months
(n=233)
Used illicit drugs
in last 4 weeks
(n=100)
Marijuana
37
75+
83+
92+
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
19
47+
58+
71+
Mushrooms
18
42+
50+
56+
LSD/acid
13
33+
40+
51+
Cocaine
15
37+
49+
58+
Speed
12
31+
39+
52+
Ice
8
17+
22+
31+
Heroin
7
13+
15+
15+
Nett definitely yes, probably yes,
probably no to any drug
40
81+
90+
97+
% Definitely yes, probably yes, probably no to
any drug
Base: Total 15-24 year olds.
Page | 48
There is substantial risk of future drug use amongst current non-users. The figure below compares the
proportion of 15-24 year olds who are at risk of taking each drug if offered by a friend and those who
say that they have taken that drug in the past year. The greatest incremental risk is for marijuana where
there is potential for an additional 23% of 15-24 year olds to use marijuana if offered to them by a
friend. This is followed by mushrooms (where there is potential for an additional 17% to use if offered)
and ecstasy (where there is potential for an additional 15% to use if offered).
Figure 17: Risk of drug taking if offered by a friend vs. drugs used in the past year
Q8 If a friend offered you each of the drugs below in a situation where they were using it, would you
definitely say yes and take it, probably say yes, probably say no, or definitely say no?
Q10 Which have you used in the last year?
Base: 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
Page | 49
IMPACT OF KNOWING PEOPLE WITH DRUG PROBLEMS AND AVENUES OF SUPPORT
Amongst the total quantitative sample of 12-24 year olds a substantial minority (36%) know someone
who has a problem with illicit drug use. As shown in the table below, the person with the drug problem
was as likely to be a friend (15%) as an immediate/extended family member (16% nett).
For most of those who knew someone with a drug problem (85%), it has made them more cautious
about taking drugs. Females (90%) were more likely than males (77%) to have been influenced by
others’ problems with drugs.
Figure 18: Know someone who has a problem with illicit drug use
Q23 Do you know anyone who has had a problem with illegal drug use?
Base: 12-24 year olds (n=1600).
Page | 50
If young people did want help or advice regarding their potential use of illicit drugs, the internet is their
first port of call (a nett of 62% would search the internet or look at an online forum). Specifically, they
were most likely to search the internet (54%), go to friends (53%) or their local doctor (47%). Only one
quarter (23%) would obtain advice from their parents. There was no difference in sources of advice or
help between those who did and did not use drugs.
Figure 19: Sources of advice/help regarding use of illicit drugs
Q26 Where would you go to if you wanted help or advice about your use of illegal drugs?
Base: 12-24 year olds (n=1600).
Page | 51
PERCEPTIONS OF DRUGS
Perceptions of different drugs were examined in the quantitative research by asking a series of
statements for each drug. The perception of dangerousness and fun for each drug was measured
separately as a more detailed understanding of these two important dimensions is useful.
Perceived dangerousness of individual drugs
Heroin and ice are the most likely to be perceived as dangerous drugs (76% and 74% very dangerous,
respectively). These were followed by cocaine (64% very dangerous), LSD/acid (63% very dangerous),
speed (63% very dangerous) and ecstasy (61% very dangerous). Mushrooms and marijuana trailed
behind somewhat with less than a third (31%) classifying marijuana as ‘very dangerous’, and less than
a half (47%) perceiving mushrooms to be very dangerous.
Figure 20: Perceive drug as ‘very dangerous’ by drug type
Q20 Now a question on how dangerous you think different drugs are. For each drug, please select how
dangerous you think using this drug would be (ROTATE DRUGS).
% Very dangerous
Base: 12-24 year olds (n=1600).
Note that 12-14 year olds were only asked about tobacco, alcohol, marijuana and ecstasy.
Page | 52
Females were significantly more likely than males to perceive all illicit drugs as dangerous, in particular
LSD and speed. The perception of danger decreased with age, particularly noticeable between the
12-17 and 18-24 year old groups.
Table 15: Perceived dangerousness of drugs by gender and age
Q20 Now a question on how dangerous you think different drugs are. For each drug, please select how
dangerous you think using this drug would be (ROTATE DRUGS).
% Very dangerous
Tobacco
Alcohol
Marijuana
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
Mushrooms
LSD/acid
Cocaine
Speed
Ice
Heroin
Total
Sample
(n=1600)
Male
(n=650)
Female
(n=650)
12 – 14
(n=300)
15 -17
(n=300)
18 – 20
(n=389)
21 – 24
(n=611)
25
17
31
61
47
63
64
63
74
76
24
16
2755415659566971-
26
18
34+
66+
52+
71+
69+
70+
80+
81+
34+
24+
43+
75+
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
26
19
33
72+
62+
76+
77+
74+
81+
81+
22
14
2556
45
60
61
64
74
74
21142648395758557074
Base: 12-24 year olds (n=1600).
Note that 12-14 year olds were only asked about tobacco, alcohol, marijuana and ecstasy.
Page | 53
The perceived dangerousness of illicit drugs declines with recency of the drug use experience, i.e. it is
lowest amongst those who have used drugs more recently. For example, 57% of 15-24 year olds
perceive that ecstasy (MDMA)/pills are very dangerous, declining to only 26% of those who have used
any illicit drug in the past four weeks. The one exception is heroin, which is perceived as equally
dangerous regardless of recency of illicit drug use.
Table 16: Perceived dangerousness of drugs by illicit drug use
Q20 For each drug, please select how dangerous you think using this drug would be.
Total Sample
(n=1300)
Ever used illicit
drugs
(n=385)
Used illicit
drugs in last 12
months
(n=233)
Used illicit drugs
in last 4 weeks
(n=100)
Tobacco
23
16-
15-
19
Alcohol
16
10-
7-
10
Marijuana
27
9-
6-
5-
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
57
33-
27-
26-
Mushrooms
47
30-
25-
24-
LSD/acid
63
47-
38-
34-
Cocaine
64
46-
37-
36-
Speed
63
42-
36-
35-
Ice
74
68-
65-
58-
Heroin
76
75
74
79
% Very dangerous
Base: Total 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
Page | 54
The figure below compares the perceived dangerousness of individual drugs between the 2000, 2007
and 2012 segmentation surveys. Between 2000 and 2007, there was a significant increase in perceived
dangerousness of tobacco, marijuana, ecstasy and speed among 15-24 year olds. For ecstasy and ice,
the higher perception of danger in 2007 is likely to have been influenced by the National Drug
Campaigns running at that time. These higher levels of dangerousness were maintained in 2012 for
tobacco, marijuana and speed and increased for LSD/Acid between 2000 and 2012. However,
perceptions of dangerousness declined significantly between 2007 and 2012 for ecstasy, ice and
heroin. For heroin, availability, usage and media coverage of overdoses have all declined in the past 10
years, probably contributing to the weaker association of danger with that drug.
Perceptions of dangerousness increased significantly for alcohol between 2007 and 2012.
Figure 21: Perceived dangerousness of drugs – 2000 vs. 2007 vs. 2012 surveys (% very
dangerous)
Q20 This time I’d like to know how dangerous you think different drugs are. For each one, please tell
me if you think it is dangerous to use this drug or not. Firstly, do you consider it dangerous or not
dangerous to use.
Base: Total Sample of 15-24 year olds (2000 survey n=2306, 2007 survey n=1700, 2012 survey n=1300).
Note that in the 2007 survey, cocaine and LSD/Acid weren’t measured and mushrooms weren’t measured in 2000 or 2007.
Page | 55
Perceptions that individual drugs are fun
Every drug (legal or illicit) was considered to be fun (‘lots of fun’ plus ‘quite fun’) by less than half the
12-24 year old respondents. Alcohol is perceived to be the most fun (44%), followed by marijuana
(22%), ecstasy (15%) and mushrooms (13%). The least fun drugs were seen to be heroin (4%), ice
(4%) and tobacco (7%).
Figure 22: Perceptions of how ‘fun’ individual drugs are
Q21 And now a question on how fun you think different drugs are. For each drug, please select how fun
you think using this drug would be.
% Lots of fun/Quite fun
Base: 12-24 year olds. (n=1600).
Note that 12-14 year olds were only asked about tobacco, alcohol, marijuana and ecstasy.
Page | 56
The table below details the perceived ‘fun level’ of each drug by age and gender. The perceived ‘fun
level’ of drugs did not differ by gender, except for mushrooms which were more likely to be perceived as
fun by males. There is a strong positive relationship between the perception that drugs are fun and
increasing age (which is of course also likely to be linked to increasing drug use/experience).
Table 17: Perceptions of how ‘fun’ individual drugs are by gender and age
Q21 And now a question on how fun you think different drugs are. For each drug, please select how fun
you think using this drug would be.
Total
Sample
(n=1600)
Male
(n=650)
Female
(n=650)
12 – 14
(n=300)
15 -17
(n=300)
18 – 20
(n=389)
21 – 24
(n=611)
Alcohol
44
44
44
22-
38-
55+
54+
Marijuana
22
24
20
8-
16-
31+
30+
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
15
16
14
5-
7-
18+
23+
Mushrooms
13
15+
10-
N/A
5-
16+
16+
LSD/acid
11
12
10
N/A
4-
13
15+
Cocaine
11
11
11
N/A
4-
10
15+
Speed
10
10
9
N/A
3-
10
14+
Tobacco
7
7
6
4
7
5
8
Ice
4
5
4
N/A
2-
5
5
Heroin
4
5
3
N/A
2-
4
5
% Lots of fun/Quite fun
Base: 12-24 year olds (n=1600).
Note that 12-14 year olds were only asked about tobacco, alcohol, marijuana and ecstasy.
Page | 57
Not surprisingly, illicit drug users perceive all illicit drugs to be more fun than the total sample of 15-24
year olds. Furthermore, the more recently drugs have been taken, the more fun they are perceived to
be. The greatest difference in perception of fun between illicit drug users and the total sample was for
ecstasy (where only 17% of the total sample perceived it as a fun drug, rising to 41% of illicit drug
trialists).
Table 18: Perceptions of how ‘fun’ individual drugs are by recency of illicit drug use
Q21 For each drug, please select how fun you think using this drug would be.
Total Sample
(n=1300)
Ever used illicit
drugs
(n=385)
Used illicit drugs
in last 12 months
(n=233)
Used illicit drugs
in last 4 weeks
(n=100)
Tobacco
7
15+
15+
16+
Alcohol
50
74+
80+
83+
Marijuana
26
56+
64+
76+
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
17
41+
48+
61+
Mushrooms
13
27+
30+
39+
LSD/acid
11
25+
30+
42+
Cocaine
11
25+
33+
42+
Speed
10
24+
29+
42+
Ice
4
8+
9+
16+
Heroin
4
8+
10+
14+
% Lots of fun/quite fun
Base: Total 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
Page | 58
The relationship between perceptions of drug dangerousness and fun
The figure below compares the perceptions of fun (lots of fun/quite fun) and dangerousness (very
dangerous) of individual illicit drugs amongst the total sample of 15-24 year olds. It shows that very few
illicit drugs are perceived to be fun and most were perceived to be dangerous. As found in the
qualitative research, there was an inverse relationship between fun and dangerousness. 32
Of the illicit drugs, marijuana was perceived to be the most fun and the least dangerous. Ecstasy was
the next most fun, but mushrooms were the second least dangerous. LSD, cocaine and speed were
then clustered as slightly more dangerous and less fun. Ice and heroin were both considered to be the
most dangerous and the least fun.
Figure 23: Fun (lots of fun/quite fun) vs. Very dangerous (among all 15-24 year olds)
Q20 For each drug, please select how dangerous you think using this drug would be.
Q21 And now a question on how fun you think different drugs are. For each drug, please select how fun
you think using this drug would be.
Base: 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
Note that we have compared ‘lots of fun’ and ‘quite fun’ with just the single code ‘very dangerous’ because if we included ‘quite
dangerous’ there is little differentiation between the illicit drugs as they are all close to 100% ‘very/quite dangerous’. If we excluded ‘quite
fun’ from ‘lots of fun’/’quite fun’ then all the illicit drugs are close to 0% ‘lots of fun’.
Page | 59
32
The figure below compares perceptions of fun and dangerousness amongst the part of the sample who
had ever tried illicit drugs. It shows that (compared to the total sample) the perception of danger
reduced and the perception of fun increased for all illicit drugs, except ice and heroin. In fact, marijuana
was considered to be slightly less dangerous than alcohol by this ‘ever used’ segment of the sample.
Figure 24: Fun (lots of fun/quite fun) vs. Very dangerous (among ‘ever used’ illicit drugs sample)
Q20 For each drug, please select how dangerous you think using this drug would be.
Q21 And now a question on how fun you think different drugs are. For each drug, please select how fun
you think using this drug would be.
Base: 15-24 year olds who have ever used illicit drugs (n=385).
Page | 60
Relative perceptions of drugs
Relative perceptions of different drugs were examined by producing perceptual maps. These
summarise the data collected in the study as a two dimensional picture, where drugs which are seen to
be similar are positioned close to each other, and close to the words or phrases which could be used to
described them. The maps are based on correspondence analysis of the association between the drugs
and the attributes.33
One map is presented below for all 15-24 year olds and another for 15-24 year olds who have ever
used illicit drugs.
Amongst all 15-24 year olds, the key outtakes from Figure 25 are that:

marijuana appears to be perceived quite differently to the other drugs, with the positive attributes
that it can help a person relax, can help manage drug comedowns/hangovers and makes the world
seem better, and with only one negative attribute (can make a person lazy);

LSD, ecstasy, mushrooms and speed have very similar drug associations (positive and negative):
you don’t know what’s in it, makes things seem more intense, makes people overconfident, makes
people freak out, makes people feel more connected, and effects are unpredictable;

heroin and ice are perceived very similarly to each other and very negatively: they are addictive,
have bad comedowns, are expensive, make a person lose control of their life, help a person
escape from reality, can lead to long-term health problems, can cause immediate serious harm
when taken, can cause mental health problems, and can cause problems with friends or family (in
addition ice is perceived to make people aggressive);

cocaine was not well differentiated – being close to the centre of the map it is associated with a
wide range of attributes, both positive and negative; and

some of the most positive attributes (e.g. clean drug, fun drug, is not a problem if you just use it
occasionally) were not strongly associated with any drug, (agreement with these statements were
amongst the lowest for each and every drug).
Amongst 15-24 year olds who have ever tried illicit drugs, the key findings from Figure 26 are that,
compared to the total sample of 15-24 year olds:

marijuana was associated with a wider range of positive attributes (including the additional
statements is a clean drug, is not a problem if you just use it occasionally, is a good drug to have
with friends, is a fun drug), some of which were shared with LSD (makes people feel more
connected, makes the world seem better);

there was considerably more differentiation between LSD/acid, mushrooms, cocaine, speed and
ecstasy; and

perceptions of heroin and ice were the same as among all 15-24 year olds (due to limited exposure
to these drugs among both groups).
The data are first standardised so the average of the data is 0 and the x and y data cross at 0. (The process of standardising the data
removes scale bias allowing for relative comparisons and associations.) The standardised data is then mapped showing the relationship
between drugs and perceptions of drugs. The closer the drug and the perceptions, the stronger the relationship. Additionally, the closer
the drugs and perceptions are to the centre, the less differentiated they are and the further they are away from the centre the more
differentiated. Consequently, the axes do not have strict dimensional ‘names’ as such because the axes vary for each statement as they
are considered one at a time (rather than 'all-in' as the correspondence analysis does).
Page | 61
33
Figure 25: Drug perceptions (all 15-24 year olds)
Base: 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
Note that the statement ‘Is natural’ was removed from the map because it compressed all the other attributes. Is natural is
strongly associated with marijuana and ecstasy.
Page | 62
Figure 26: Drug perceptions (amongst those who have ‘ever tried’ illicit drugs)
Base: Ever tried an illicit drug (n=385).
Note that the statement ‘Is natural’ was removed from the map because it compressed all other attributes. ‘Is natural’ is
strongly associated with marijuana and ecstasy.
Page | 63
Only five of these drug perception statements and only three drugs (marijuana, speed and ecstasy)
could be compared amongst 15-24 year olds between the 2000, 2007 and 2012 surveys. Time series
comparison of these five statements indicates that illicit drugs were generally perceived more negatively
in 2007 than in 2000. By 2012, the negative perceptions had diluted somewhat and were back at 2000
levels.
The positive perceptions of all three drugs that could be compared (across the three surveys) appear to
have declined between 2000, 2007 and 2012, particularly for speed (for example, the perception that
speed is a fun drug declined from 44% in 2000 to 25% in 2007 to 11% in 2012). Perception of ecstasy
as a fun drug also declined between 2007 (33%) and 2012 (23%).
Table 19: Drug perceptions – 2000 vs. 2007 vs. 2012 surveys
Q4/Q5a I’m going to read out a number of statements about two different drugs. It doesn’t matter
whether you’ve ever tried each drug or not, it’s just your impressions I’m after.
Marijuana
2000
Survey
(n=1168)
Marijuana
2007
Survey
(n=883)
Marijuana
2012
Survey
(n=220)
Speed
2000
Survey
(n=1173)
Speed
2007
Survey
(n=811)
Speed
2012
survey
(n=220)
Ecstasy
2000
Survey
(n=1168)
Ecstasy
2007
Survey
(n=880)
Ecstasy
2012
survey
(n=220)
Is addictive
66
86+
70
54
91+
74
69
83+
63
Can make a person
(some people)
aggressive
25
70+
52
35
91+
71
55
81+
59
Can help a person to
relax
72
73
65
30
24
10
24
33+
23
Is a fun drug
48
31
28
44
25
11
34
33
23
Is a good drug to share
(have) with friends
49
28
30
26
9
12
22
19
21
Base: 15-24 year olds.
For 2012, each respondent was asked about half the statements and half the drugs, approximately n=220 per drug and
statement.
Page | 64
IMAGERY OF DRUG USERS
Perceptions of the drug users were examined by asking a series of statements for each drug user.
Relative perceptions of different drug users were examined by producing perceptual maps.34 One map
is presented below for all 15-24 year olds and another for 15-24 year olds who have ever used illicit
drugs.
When looking at the image of users of different drugs amongst the total sample of 15-24 year olds
Figure 27 shows that there were three clear groupings of drugs, with the first two having positive
associations and the third negative associations. Marijuana users were considered normal, friendly,
independent and laid back. LSD and mushrooms users were considered creative, adventurous,
interesting and open-minded. Ecstasy, speed, cocaine, ice and heroin users were intense, psycho,
junkies, anti-social, losers and boring. Ecstasy was slightly different here in that its users were not
boring; they were ‘party animals’. Being popular, sophisticated or cool were not associated with people
who used any of the drugs.
Amongst the 15-24 year old drug trialists (‘ever used’), the drugs were more strongly differentiated
Figure 28 shows that Marijuana, LSD, mushrooms, ice and heroin were perceived in a similar way to
the 15-24 year olds generally. However, ecstasy users were more positively perceived – as
adventurous, popular and party animals. Speed and cocaine users had no strong negative associations
amongst illicit drug users - users were perceived as intense and party animals. No users of any of the
drugs were perceived as cool, independent or sophisticated even by trialists of those drugs.
The maps are based on correspondence analysis of the association between the drugs and the attributes. A correspondence map is
therefore a way of mapping cross-tabulated data in a two-dimensional space. The data are first standardised so the average of the data is
0 and the x and y data cross at 0. (The process of standardising the data removes scale bias allowing for relative comparisons and
associations.) The standardised data is then mapped showing the relationship between drugs and perceptions of drugs. The closer the
drug and the perceptions, the stronger the relationship. Additionally, the closer the drugs and perceptions are to the centre, the less
differentiated they are and the further they are away from the centre the more differentiated. Consequently, the axes do not have strict
dimensional ‘names’ as such because the axes vary for each statement as they are considered one at a time (rather than 'all-in' as the
correspondence analysis does).
Page | 65
34
Figure 27: Drug user imagery (all 15-24 year olds)
Base: 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
Page | 66
Figure 28: Drug user imagery (amongst illicit drug trialists)
Base: 15-24 year old illicit drug trialists (n=385).
Page | 67
INDIVIDUAL DRUGS IN PROFILE
A number of drugs were explored in detail during the research. These included tobacco, alcohol,
marijuana, ecstasy, LSD, mushrooms, speed, cocaine, ice and heroin. This section will detail the
findings from the qualitative and quantitative research by drug.
Tobacco
Qualitative research drug perceptions
Tobacco is often perceived to be the most dangerous drug in the long term. The negatives of tobacco
use are well known and understood by all the audiences. It is clearly understood to be highly addictive
and costly. The long term medical effects are well known to all the audiences. Given this knowledge it is
widely perceived to be highly dangerous. Furthermore, there is some evidence to suggest that tobacco
use and smokers are often judged negatively and smoking is increasingly seen as an undesirable habit.
However, while the long term dangers of tobacco are known and appreciated, tobacco is not seen as
‘immediately dangerous’ and the issues are not felt to be relevant in the ‘now’ among young people.
There is no concern about overdosing or any other acute outcome. The majority believe they can quit
before ‘it’s too late’. Almost all in the sample who had tried an illicit drug, had also smoked a cigarette,
and the two often went hand in hand.
Quantitative research drug perceptions
These qualitative perceptions of the short term risk of tobacco were supported in the quantitative
research. Compared to all drugs measured, tobacco was perceived to be the second least dangerous
(with alcohol perceived as the least dangerous). In 2012 one quarter (25%) perceived tobacco to be
very dangerous, a significant increase in the perception of dangerousness since 2000 (16% very
dangerous). While not considered to be comparatively dangerous, it was also not much fun. Only 7%
perceived that smoking tobacco was lots of fun or quite fun, the third least fun of any drug.
Page | 68
Alcohol
Qualitative research drug perceptions
The qualitative research found that alcohol is broadly perceived as being acceptable but has some clear
downsides. Overall, the majority of young people believe alcohol is acceptable if consumed in
moderation. It is socially prevalent and they see their parents, peers and older siblings consuming it as
a ‘norm’. Few see any significant issues with alcohol and although they are aware alcohol can be
addictive and cause severe illness it is not seen as being dangerous in and of itself. Its prevalence and
visibility in society gives it some legitimacy and young people claim to feel far more likely to talk to their
parents about alcohol than illicit drugs.
However, alcohol can also be seen as very expensive, especially when compared to some illicit drugs.
Respondents talked about it being much cheaper to buy a pill for a night out than it was to drink alcohol.
The age restrictions can also limit availability for teenagers leading them to try and experiment with illicit
drugs if they have access to them. Alcohol also has some growing negative connotations, especially
around increased aggression and violence. There are also some immediately acute downsides such as
vomiting and hangovers.
Quantitative research drug perceptions
Compared to all drugs measured, alcohol was perceived to be the least dangerous. In 2012 17%
perceived alcohol to be very dangerous. While this is low, the perception of dangerousness has
increased significantly since 2000 (8% very dangerous). Alcohol was perceived to be the most fun of
the drugs listed with 50% agreeing that it is lots of fun or quite fun.
Page | 69
Marijuana
Qualitative research drug perceptions
Overall, the qualitative research found that marijuana tends to be seen as a benign and mainstream
drug. It is perhaps the most prevalent illicit drug with regards to visibility across the audiences. Even the
youngest in the sample also speak of older kids within their schools ‘smoking/doing weed’. It is
perceived as a relatively ‘soft’ drug and virtually anyone who had tried any other drug had tried
marijuana and often tried it first. Overall there appear to be relatively few negative perceptions of
marijuana and this seems to be driven by an apparent lack of negative shared experiences with the
drug.
Marijuana users are perceived to be almost anyone and its use was not confined to any particular
segment. Many perceive that occasional users could be anyone. In contrast, frequent users can be
seen as ‘stoners’ or ‘losers’ as they are felt to generally be less active and engaged in life.
Marijuana appears to be used in both social and individual situations. Many claim it can be a social drug
and is often used in a close circle of friends, especially among less frequent users. It is often used at
house parties or festivals but is rarely used ‘out’ at clubs or bars.
“It’s a great way to hang out with your mates, everything is so much funnier.”35
Equally it is used by many in individual situations often as a means of stress release at the end of a
long day. More frequent users are more likely to use the drug alone.
“There’s nothing better than coming home from a [bad] day and sinking a bong.”36
Benefits and drawbacks
Users often identify numerous benefits including ‘fun’, ‘creativity’ and ‘acceptance’. Typically users feel it
enables them to have ‘fun’, helps them forget ‘rough days’, enhances creativity, makes them feel
relaxed or happy and makes them feel cool or accepted. That said there is also acknowledgement of
some consequences including those more acceptable in the short term with others being seen as more
serious. Users believe they are often not very productive when stoned and that marijuana ‘slows them
down’. Motivation is considerably reduced and many suggest that users are ‘dumber’ when stoned.
While these consequences might be acceptable in the short term, in the longer term they can be much
less desirable.
More serious consequences include paranoia and memory loss. These can be of particular concern,
especially in the long term. There is some understanding of links between use and mental health
problems. However, while these consequences are seen as more serious they are often not felt to be
personally relevant as most users feel they are most likely to happen to heavy users/‘stoners’ which
they do not feel they are.
Trigger points to use
Initial trigger points to try marijuana are usually based in social situations where other young people are
using the drug. The primary driver is often simply curiosity as young people can be keen to find out
‘what the fuss’ is all about. There is also evidence of some reporting of overt peer pressure and a desire
to ‘fit in’ as playing a role in influencing behaviour. For segments other than the Cocooned
(Conservative) Rejectors there is often a sense of there being little reason to not at least try marijuana.
Focus group participant, GfK Blue Moon, July 2012.
Focus group participant, GfK Blue Moon, July 2012.
Page | 70
35
36
The ‘world’ of marijuana
The world of marijuana can be polarising. On the one hand marijuana can be seen as fun associated
with friends as well as enjoying sensory experiences such as music and food. In contrast others
describe it as boring, linked with lethargy or laziness and to some extent isolation. People tend to do it
in exclusive groups (the ‘stoners’) or by themselves.
Marijuana usage over time
The NDSHS 2010 reported that recent marijuana use (last 12 months) has shown a significant decline
long-term and a small increase short-term. Recent use of marijuana peaked in 1998 (e.g. 36.9% of
20-29 year olds). Use had almost halved by 2010 (e.g. 21.3% of 20-29 year olds), but showed a recent
small increase between 2007 and 2010.37
Quantitative research drug perceptions
As shown in Table 20, marijuana is perceived to have primarily positive perceptions:

helps a person to relax;

makes the world seem better;

is natural (amongst illicit drug trialists);

not a problem if you just use it occasionally (amongst illicit drug trialists);

is a good drug to have with friends (amongst illicit drug trialists);

is fun (amongst illicit drug trialists); and

is clean (amongst illicit drug trialists).
Those who have ever tried marijuana were more likely to agree with the positive effects of marijuana
than the total sample.
The key negative perception was that marijuana could make a person lazy (particularly amongst users).
There were also some negative perceptions (but not as strongly as for other drugs) that marijuana:

could cause problems with friends or family;

is addictive;

can cause long term health problems; and

can make some people aggressive.
The perceived link between marijuana use and mental health problems was not as strong as it was in
2007.
Compared to users of other drugs, users of marijuana were quite positively perceived. They were
considered normal, friendly, independent and laid back.
There was a perception, even amongst regular users of marijuana, that marijuana had some negative
effects. It could cause problems with friends or family, is addictive, can cause long term health problems
and can make some people aggressive. In particular, more recent users were even more likely than the
total sample of 12-24 year olds to perceive that marijuana can make a person lazy.
Those who have ever tried marijuana were more likely to agree with the positive effects of marijuana
than the total sample.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2011). 2010 National Drug Strategy Household Survey report. Drug statistics series no. 25.
Cat. No. PHE 145. Canberra: AIHW.
Page | 71
37
Table 20: Perceptions of marijuana
Q5 Do you personally agree or disagree that generally [MARIJUANA].
Total Sample
Ever used
Marijuana
Used Marijuana in
last 4 weeks
Can cause problems with friends or family
77
76
53-
Is addictive
72
66
60
Can lead to long-term health problems
72
73
56-
Can cause mental health problems
68
70
44-
Can make a person lazy
66
75
83+
Effects are unpredictable
62
55
44-
Makes a person lose control of their life
59
44-
32-
Helps a person escape from reality
57
83+
91+
Makes people freak out
57
42-
15-
Can help a person to relax
56
93+
88+
Can make some people aggressive
53
48
54
You don’t know what’s in it
47
26-
0-
Can cause immediate serious harm when taken
46
22-
7-
Is a party drug
44
57+
61+
Makes the world seem better
42
65+
81+
Makes people overconfident
42
37
42
Is expensive
41
28
44
Has bad comedowns/hangovers
40
34
35
Is natural
40
76+
100+
Makes things seem more intense
37
43
57+
Makes people feel more connected
24
43+
61+
Is not a problem if you just use it occasionally
21
64+
71+
Can help manage drug comedowns/hangovers
21
41+
85+
Is a fun drug
21
59+
92+
Is a good drug to have with friends
19
75+
71+
Is a clean drug
14
35+
69+
Base: 12-24 year olds.
Note that each respondent was randomly allocated half the statements.
The base for each statement ranges from n=350 to n=390.
Page | 72
Marijuana summary
Marijuana appears to be problematic in two main ways:

trial and usage of marijuana is much more widespread than other drugs - even among the Risky
Rejector segment, some (25%) would consider trying it if it was offered to them by a friend; and

there are very few perceived negatives about marijuana but many positives (a fun, relaxing,
sociable drug) - in fact, amongst trialists marijuana is seen as less dangerous than alcohol.
These factors may suggest that marijuana should be a key drug to be targeted by a communications
strategy. However, because of the widespread acceptability of marijuana and its low perceived risk, any
messages (even implying) that marijuana is dangerous are likely to be ignored and ineffective. A
campaign such as the ‘wastes potential/relationship’ is likely to primarily impact heavier users.
However, the key barriers to usage, which could be leveraged in any campaign, are that:

it is perceived to make users lazy (which supports the ‘What a Waste’ campaign strategic
direction); and

because it is usually smoked, there are links to the very negative perceptions of tobacco.
Page | 73
Ecstasy
Qualitative research drug perceptions
The qualitative research found that those with no experience or exposure to the drug still talk in terms of
‘ecstasy’. However, anyone who has exposure to the drug talks more in terms of ‘pills’ as a broader
term because those in the know readily acknowledge that pills no longer contain ecstasy (MDMA). For
users, the experience can be highly variable depending on the contents of the pill.
“You just never know what you’re going to get anymore, its pot luck. Pills are mostly
speed based but you get ones with ketamine and all sorts of other things too.”38
Benefits and drawbacks
The perceived benefits of pills most often revolve around their ability to enable a ‘good time’. Young
people talk about pills making dancing more fun, making music sound better, giving confidence to meet
and talk with strangers, giving hours of energy and being cheaper than drinking. The drawbacks are
also easily articulated by many and include uncertainty about the experience/concern about getting the
‘wrong’ drug and not knowing what other ingredients the pills might contain (toxins, poisons, broken
glass etc.).
Comedowns and physical effects of pills are seen as ‘par for the course’ and an unavoidable and
accepted consequence. Most experienced users have means of managing their comedowns which can
include taking other drugs (e.g. smoking marijuana). There are also known physical effects while on the
drugs including excessive sweating, thirst and chewing or ‘gurning’. These are also expected and
accepted. These consequences appear to have little impact on young people’s decisions about whether
or not to take pills.
There is some acknowledgement or belief that for those who get ‘carried away’ with pills, it can impact
their relationships. Most users see themselves as being ‘in control’ of their usage and do not identify
any issues of concern. However, there is a clearly held belief that it is possible to get carried away and
use pills with increasing frequency. There are certain perceptual thresholds beyond which many feel
users are in danger of their drug use significantly affecting their lives. Weekly use is seen as being a
benchmark for heavy use. Those who do use frequently are often believed to do so to the detriment of
their relationships with others who do not use frequently or at all. This damage to relationships over time
is widely felt to be a credible and concerning effect of heavy pill use, and is potentially the biggest
message opportunity from a communications point of view.
Trigger points to use
The qualitative research found that triggers to first trial of pills tend to be situational and social. Most
expect that the first trial of pills would take place with friends either out or at a party. The findings
indicate that there are few barriers to trial beyond any inbuilt ambivalence. The key trigger is generally
reported as being curiosity and a simple desire to try it. There is also some evidence of peer influence
and a desire to ‘look good’ or ‘be cool’.
On the whole pill users tend to be around 18 to early 20s and interested in partying. They often go out
to licensed venues and are less likely to be experienced drug users. They are often less discerning
about the experience they are seeking. It appears the majority are taken at clubs and to a lesser extent
bars and are seen as a ‘good fit’ with the nightclub environment as they are seen to provide confidence
and increase enjoyment of dancing and music especially. Music festivals are another arena in which
pills are commonly consumed. There is less evidence for pills being used at house parties except
Focus group participant, GfK Blue Moon, July 2012.
Page | 74
38
among teens who are unable to access licensed venues. Typically these house parties mimic club
environments (loud dance music and dancing).
The world of pills
The world of pills tends to be enticing but also slightly seedy. There are strong positive associations
with music, dancing, making friends and meeting strangers on nights out. Pills are seen as a cheap
alternative to alcohol and also cheap in comparison with many other drugs. However, there are
palpable physical side effects including excess sweating, thirst, gurning and difficult comedowns. The
comedowns in particular, although accepted as the inevitable consequence of taking pills, are viewed
as a significant negative.
A proportion of the sample indicated that they use and prefer pure MDMA. MDMA is sold in ‘caps’
(capsules), crystals or ‘rocks’ and is either ingested orally or snorted. Users of MDMA tend to be older,
more experienced and wealthier than most pill users. These users often fall into the ‘Fun Deliberates’
segment. Usage of MDMA is not limited to club environments but is also reported to take place at
smaller, more intimate home gatherings as well. The key perceived benefits are a clearer sense of
predictability around the experience as well as a more intense ‘true ecstasy’ experience that pills are
widely believed to no longer deliver.
Ecstasy usage over time
Recent ecstasy use appears to be declining amongst young people. The NDSHS 2010 reported that
use declined between 2007 and 2010 amongst 14-29 year olds (e.g. from 11.2% of 20-29 year olds in
2007 to 9.9%, down from a high of 12% in 2004).39
Preference for ecstasy also appears to have reduced amongst niche users. The 2012 EDRS survey
amongst regular ecstasy/psychostimulant users showed that ecstasy has declined as their drug of
choice (from 52% in 2003 to 32% in 2012), with concomitant increases being shown for cocaine (from
5% to 13%) and cannabis (from 12% to 19%).40
Furthermore, in the current survey, the conversion from trial of ecstasy to annual use has dropped
substantially between 2000 (.63)/2007 (.63) and 2012 (.46), indicating that it is now a less positive
experience than it was five years ago and fewer people are going on to use it regularly.
Ecstasy and MDMA
These declines in usage may be due to the apparent change in composition of ecstasy tablets. A recent
Australian Crime Commission report stated that ‘ecstasy’ tablets currently often contain no MDMA at all
and Customs and the Crime and Misconduct Commission Queensland describe the range of other
drugs that are now sold in ‘ecstasy’ tables:
“MDMA is commonly referred to as ‘ecstasy’. However, ecstasy tablets can contain a
range of adulterants and often no MDMA at all. As a result, the effects of tablets sold
as ecstasy are unpredictable and can vary greatly due to the unknown content.”41
“In the past few years, the market for new psychoactive (affecting brain function)
substances that mimic the effects of illicit stimulants such as ‘ecstasy’ and
amphetamines has evolved rapidly. Tablets marketed as ‘ecstasy’ may contain a
range of harmful substances other than MDMA including piperazines and drug
analogues. One of the most harmful substances found in ‘ecstasy’ tablets has been
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2011). 2010 National Drug Strategy Household Survey report. Drug statistics series no. 25.
Cat. No. PHE 145. Canberra: AIHW.
40 National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales (2012). Australian Drug Trends 2012: Findings from the
Ecstasy and Related Drugs Reporting System (EDRS).
41 Australian Crime Commission (ACC) 2012, Illicit Drug Data Report 2010–11, ACC, Canberra, p25.
Page | 75
39
the highly toxic PMA (paramethoxyamphetamine), which has been linked to
deaths.”42
“Demand for illicit drugs continues to be strong in the Australian community, and new
synthetic substances are emerging, largely to compensate for the scarcity of MDMA
(ecstasy).”43
However, some very recent law enforcement indicators show that while there have been shortages of
MDMA in the past few years, MDMA production may be increasing globally and that true ecstasy may
soon re-emerge into the Australian drug landscape.
“MDMA (ecstasy) is now in its third year of shortage in the Australian illicit drug
market, due to the global shortage of the precursor chemicals. However, there has
been some re-emergence globally, which may have some implications for the
Australian market in the future.”44
“The MDMA market has contracted in Queensland since 2009. Worldwide shortages
of MDMA precursors resulted in a decrease in the availability and purity of ecstasy
tablets, however there are now indications of a resurgence of MDMA overseas and in
Australia. The MDMA market is volatile and unpredictable, depending heavily on
international trends. While there are indications of increasing MDMA availability,
there is still likely to be an ongoing demand for new and emerging synthetic drugs
and drug analogues that mimic the effects of MDMA.”45
Quantitative research drug perceptions
As shown in Table 21 ecstasy is perceived to have a mix of positive and negative associations:

it is a drug that you don’t know what’s in it (probably influenced by the National Drugs Campaign);

its effects are unpredictable (particularly amongst trialists);

it helps a person escape from reality;

it is NOT a clean drug;

it makes things more intense;

it makes people overconfident; and

it is a party drug (amongst illicit drug trialists).
The drug perceptions map indicates that amongst the total sample of 15-24 year olds, ecstasy profiles
in a similar way to three others - LSD, mushrooms and speed. Consequently, the negative perceptions
of LSD and speed could possibly be leveraged to reduce ecstasy use.
While users of ecstasy rated the negative effects of ecstasy at a similar level to the total sample of
12-24 year olds, they were much more likely to rate its positive effects highly. In particular, they felt that
it is a party drug, makes things seem more intense, is a fun drug, is a good drug to have with friends
and makes people feel more connected.
Crime and Misconduct Commission Queensland, Illicit drug markets in Queensland, December 2012, p.5.
Australian Customs Service Annual Report 2012
(http://www.customs.gov.au/aboutus/annualreports/2012/part03/1_1_illicit_drugs_and_precursors.html)
44 Australian Customs Service Annual Report 2012
(http://www.customs.gov.au/aboutus/annualreports/2012/part02/1_3_program_1.3_border_protection_and_enforcement.html)
45 Crime and Misconduct Commission Queensland, Illicit drug markets in Queensland, December 2012, p.5.
Page | 76
42
43
Compared to users of other drugs, users of ecstasy were perceived by the total sample of 15-24 year
olds to be intense, psycho, junkies, anti-social, losers and party animals. These perceptions are very
different to those of illicit drug trialists who perceive ecstasy users as adventurous, popular and party
animals.
Table 21: Perceptions of ecstasy
Q5 Do you personally agree or disagree that generally [ECSTASY].
Total Sample
Ever used Ecstasy
Can cause problems with friends or family
79
88
You don’t know what’s in it
73
91
Can lead to long-term health problems
72
83
Can cause mental health problems
71
73
Makes people freak out
68
71
Effects are unpredictable
65
78
Is addictive
65
51
Can cause immediate serious harm when taken
63
57
Makes a person lose control of their life
63
63
Is a party drug
61
100+
Can make some people aggressive
57
75
Helps a person escape from reality
52
91+
Is expensive
52
63
Makes people overconfident
51
61
Makes things seem more intense
48
95+
Has bad comedowns/hangovers
48
66
Makes the world seem better
34
60+
Can make a person lazy
32
26
Can help a person to relax
23
60+
Makes people feel more connected
21
67+
Is a fun drug
16
75+
Is a good drug to have with friends
14
77+
Can help manage drug comedowns/hangovers
10
12
Is not a problem if you just use it occasionally
9
49+
Is a clean drug
2
9
Is natural
2
11+
Base: 12-24 year olds.
Note that each respondent was randomly allocated half the statements.
The base for each statement ranges from n=359 to n=386.
Page | 77
Ecstasy summary
Both stages of research indicate that perceptions of ecstasy appear to have altered since 2007. In the
past, ecstasy was difficult to criticise because the effects of the drug were felt to be so positive.
However, with the apparent reduction of MDMA in pills, they are now often perceived to contain other
drugs. Therefore, the effects of ‘ecstasy’ are perceived to be unpredictable because now, more than
ever, ‘you don’t know what’s in the pills’. Ecstasy is also perceived to be less fun than it used to be,
probably because it is not the same drug as it was in 2000 and 2007.
These changed perceptions, and the phases of the National Drugs Campaign which targeted ecstasy,
are likely to have been influential in the reduction in recent use of ecstasy between 2007 and 2010.
If ecstasy remains in its current form and trial of ecstasy and subsequent negative word of mouth
increase, recent usage is likely to continue declining. However, if MDMA (or drugs with similar effects to
MDMA) is reintroduced to certain ‘brands’ of pills, or if the price of MDMA capsules is reduced and
supply increased, then ecstasy may make a resurgence.
In the meantime, it appears that marijuana, hallucinogens, cocaine and pharmaceuticals may be filling
the gap left by ecstasy (in addition to the amphetamines contained in ‘ecstasy’ pills).
Page | 78
Mushrooms
Qualitative research drug perceptions
The qualitative research indicated that mushrooms are seen to offer a slightly ‘softer’ hallucinogenic
experience. There is also some indication that their usage has been increasing in popularity in recent
times. While mushrooms are perceived to offer many of the benefits of LSD (altered states) they are
also seen as a more natural and less chemically intense drug than LSD. Many young people talk about
mushrooms as being the link between marijuana and heavier hallucinogens.
The world of mushrooms
The world of mushrooms is characterised by users as similar to aspects of LSD use. The focus is on
altered states and shared experiences with friends at home, or outdoors. Similarly to LSD, mushrooms
are not seen as ‘party drugs’ per se although there was some reporting of people using them on nights
out. There are concerns with ‘bad trips’ but these are felt to be potentially less serious than those on
LSD as they are considered a slightly softer drug overall.
Quantitative research drug perceptions
The quantitative stage of the research found that perceptions of mushrooms are primarily positive and
there were no strong barriers to usage. As shown in Table 22, mushrooms are perceived to:

help a person escape from reality;

be natural;

NOT make people aggressive;

NOT be a party drug; and

NOT be expensive.
Of all the illicit drugs, mushrooms were the least likely to be perceived to:

lead to long-term health problems;

make a person lose control of their life;

make someone aggressive;

cause problems with friends and family;

be addictive; and

be expensive.
The 15-24 year old users of mushrooms were significantly more likely than the total sample to agree
with both the positive and negative effects of mushrooms. They felt that the effects are unpredictable,
that mushrooms make people freak out, makes things more intense and have bad comedowns.
Compared to users of other drugs, users of mushrooms were perceived quite positively (and similarly to
LSD users) by the total sample of 15-24 year olds and by illicit drug trialists. Thus, mushrooms users
were perceived to be creative, adventurous, interesting and open-minded.
Page | 79
Table 22: Perceptions of mushrooms
Q5 Do you personally agree or disagree that generally [MUSHROOMS].
Total Sample
Ever used
Mushrooms
69
68
62
61
58
55
49
47
43
36
36
34
34
34
34
34
32
29
29
28
21
19
16
14
12
8
73
59
90+
86+
68
88+
2137
42
100+
33
66+
43
64+
49
76+
56
34
34
24
48+
82+
72+
70+
82+
27
Can cause problems with friends or family
Can cause mental health problems
Effects are unpredictable
Makes people freak out
Can lead to long-term health problems
Helps a person escape from reality
You don’t know what’s in it
Makes a person lose control of their life
Can cause immediate serious harm when taken
Is natural
Is addictive
Makes things seem more intense
Can make a person lazy
Has bad comedowns/hangovers
Can make some people aggressive
Makes the world seem better
Makes people overconfident
Is a party drug
Can help a person to relax
Is expensive
Makes people feel more connected
Is a fun drug
Is a good drug to have with friends
Is not a problem if you just use it occasionally
Is a clean drug
Can help manage drug comedowns/hangovers
Base: 15-24 year olds.
Note that each respondent was randomly allocated half the statements.
The base for each statement ranges from n=207 to n=231.
Page | 80
Mushrooms summary
Despite the perception amongst young people that mushrooms are safe, they could actually be one of
the most immediately harmful drugs. Users could be in significant danger if toxic mushrooms are
accidentally taken, or if the strong hallucinogenic effect of the drug causes an accident.
Therefore, we see it as fortunate that conversion from trial of mushrooms to more regular use is, in fact,
very low. This low conversion rate could be due to:

irregular supply and seasonality of the substance;

its strong hallucinogenic effects, driving trialists to believe that ‘once is enough’ (trialists of
mushrooms were more negative about the effects of mushrooms than 15-24 year olds generally);
and

tolerance to regular use which may discourage use that is more regular.
Page | 81
LSD
Qualitative research drug perceptions
The qualitative research found that LSD appears to be enjoying a renaissance among young people
and (with the change in perceptions of ecstasy) this is probably the largest shift in the drugs landscape
since the previous wave of research.
Benefits and drawbacks
The perceived benefits of LSD are firmly grounded in the altered states it provides. It is felt to enable
people to experience different perspectives, aid with creativity, engender deep connections with friends
and increase a sense of engagement with the world.
The consequences are most often related to the intensity of the experience. Users and non-users seem
to recognise that LSD significantly enhances existing moods. This can be both positive and negative
depending on the mood or feeling that is amplified. The majority are aware of ‘bad trips’ and recognise
that LSD ‘trips’ can go wrong. In particular many are concerned at the prospect that they are unable to
‘get out’ of their mental experience if they want to. Critically, most users believe they can mitigate these
risks by choosing their occasions carefully and surrounding themselves with trusted friends.
Trigger points to use
LSD appears to be having a resurgence among young people. A notable number of young people
across the sample are aware of LSD and claim to have taken it. The number of people claiming to have
contact with, or have consumed LSD, probably represents the largest shift in the drugs landscape since
the previous research phase. It appears that LSD is meeting a greater demand for a ‘truly altered state’.
This could potentially be driven by the gap that has been left by the drop in quality of pills and the
resulting lack of a genuine ‘ecstasy experience’.
Usage tends to be in homes or ‘outdoors’ (in parks and bushland) and appears quite regulated. Users
report that it is predominantly used in smallish groups, often at home, or outdoors where users feel they
can ‘connect with nature’. LSD is not seen as a ‘party drug’ and users sometimes express scorn about
the shallowness of the ‘party scene’ (clubs, bars). However, usage is treated with a degree of caution.
There is an awareness that users can have strong negative experiences and most users believe LSD
offers an experience of such intensity that it is not suitable for regular use. As a result those who do use
LSD tend to do so on a relatively occasional basis.
Users tend to be slightly ‘alternative’ young people, aged 17 and above. They often choose not be part
of the mainstream ‘party scene’. They perceive themselves, and are often perceived by others, as
creative, artistic, musical and spiritual types. Ultimately those using LSD tend to fall into the ‘Reality
Augmenters’ segment although there is also some evidence of experimentation among ‘Fun
Deliberates’ and ‘Fun Indiscriminates’. ‘Fun Dabblers’ are less likely to take LSD as it is seen as being
too ‘extreme’ or ‘strong’.
Page | 82
LSD usage over time
Multiple other sources support the qualitative indications that the trial of hallucinogens is increasing.
Firstly, the NDSHS 2010 reported that across the population aged 14 upwards, it appears that the
recent use of hallucinogens has increased between 2007 (0.6%) and 2010 (1.4%). 46 Secondly, the
Ecstasy and Related Drugs Reporting System (EDRS) 2012 reported that, amongst ecstasy and
psychostimulant users, there was a steady increase in recent usage of LSD (from 28% in 2003 to 46%
in 2011, with a downwards blip to 34% in 2012).47 Thirdly, this 2012 quantitative segmentation research
showed that LSD trial amongst illicit drug users aged 15-24 years has increased from 10% in 2007 to
15% in 2012.
Quantitative research drug perceptions
As shown in Table 23, in terms of perceptions LSD is perceived to:

have unpredictable effects;

make people freak out; and

be a drug that you don’t know what’s in it.
Compared to users of other drugs, users of LSD were perceived quite positively (and similar to
mushroom users) by the total sample of 15-24 year olds and illicit drug trialists. Users were perceived to
be creative, adventurous, interesting and open-minded.
Table 23: Perceptions of LSD/acid
Q5 Do you personally agree or disagree that generally [LSD/ACID].
Total Sample
Ever used LSD/acid
Can cause problems with friends or family
78
95
You don’t know what’s in it
74
34-
Can cause mental health problems
73
96+
Effects are unpredictable
73
62
Can lead to long-term health problems
73
81
Makes people freak out
68
88
Makes a person lose control of their life
65
34
Can cause immediate serious harm when taken
62
22-
Is addictive
60
24-
Can make some people aggressive
55
49
Makes things seem more intense
52
82
Helps a person escape from reality
50
85
Has bad comedowns/hangovers
47
34
Makes people overconfident
44
39
Is a party drug
43
43
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2011). 2010 National Drug Strategy Household Survey report. Drug statistics series no. 25.
Cat. No. PHE 145. Canberra: AIHW.
47 National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales (2012). Australian Drug Trends 2012: Findings from the
Ecstasy and Related Drugs Reporting System (EDRS).
Page | 83
46
Total Sample
Ever used LSD/acid
Is expensive
41
19
Can make a person lazy
35
26
Makes the world seem better
26
83+
Makes people feel more connected
17
70+
Is a fun drug
16
86+
Can help a person to relax
15
20
Is a good drug to have with friends
15
73+
Is not a problem if you just use it occasionally
11
81+
Can help manage drug comedowns/hangovers
9
0
Is a clean drug
8
46+
Is natural
7
7
Base: 15-24 year olds.
Note that each respondent was randomly allocated half the statements.
The base for each statement ranges from n=205 to n=228.
LSD summary
The increasing trial of LSD appears to be largely due to the gap in the market left by genuine ecstasy.
In the qualitative research, users reported that ecstasy no longer has the euphoric mind-altering effects
that used to be obtained from the MDMA in ecstasy. LSD (and mushrooms) appears to be currently
filling this need.
While trial of LSD may have temporarily increased, it is fortunate that regular use is unlikely to follow.
LSD is such an intense experience that it is a once-off or occasional use drug for most trialists. Its
frequency of use is the second lowest of all illicit drugs (after mushrooms). Furthermore, conversion
from trial to regular use is the second lowest of all illicit drugs (after mushrooms).
Adding to this intense trial experience, 15-24 year old users of LSD were significantly more likely than
the total sample to agree that LSD can cause mental health problems (96%).
Page | 84
Cocaine
Qualitative research drug perceptions
Benefits and drawbacks
The qualitative research found that the perceived benefits of cocaine primarily relate to perceived
improvements in confidence. Users report that it makes them feel ‘on top of the world’, allowing them to
drink without feeling drunk and talk to people with confidence. In addition there is some indication of
users feeling they belong to an elite few while at the same time it is something fun to do with friends. It
is also felt to lack a significant comedown.
The perceived consequences focus primarily around addiction. However, given that few have actual
experience of the drug, little is known about its consequences overall. Most appear to be aware that
cocaine is highly addictive, but this is rarely a source of concern among users as the majority feel they
are unable to afford to buy it regularly enough to become addicted.
Trigger points to use
Cocaine is almost always used socially and in drinking establishments. It is rarely used when people are
alone. The vast majority of those who had used cocaine indicated that they had done so while drinking
alcohol. Often cocaine is used only on special occasions such as birthdays. It is reported to be used in
particularly in situations where users can easily interact with others such as bars.
“We got some coke for my best friend’s birthday and spent the night at a cool bar in
the city, it felt like a really special occasion.”48
The world of cocaine
Cocaine is seen to be an exclusive and aspirational drug for party goers. The findings suggest that
cocaine is more prevalent and available than in previous research. For many current drug users it
represents the pinnacle of drug use and many aspire to be able to use, find or afford it. It is seen as
very expensive and often difficult to source. Those with less experience with drugs, and particularly
younger people with less means, often have little awareness of it and exposure to it.
Users tend to be older and more experienced with drugs. They tend to be wealthier and able to afford to
buy it. They are also generally better connected and are able to source it more readily. Overall there is
some indication that users tend to be more sophisticated in their tastes than those first starting to use
drugs. Those who aspire to it often feel that there is something ‘special’ about cocaine and are often
very keen to try it or have tried it and had an enjoyable experience. The majority who have tried or try
cocaine are already using other drugs.
Cocaine usage over time
Multiple sources are supporting the qualitative research indications that cocaine use is increasing. The
NDSHS 2010 reported that recent cocaine use has increased amongst 18-29 year olds (e.g. amongst
those aged 20-29, up from 3% in 2004, 5.1% in 2007, to a peak of 6.5% in 2010). 49 Preference for
cocaine also appears to have increased amongst niche users - the 2012 EDRS survey amongst regular
ecstasy/psychostimulant users showed that cocaine has increased as their drug of choice (from 5% in
2003 to 13% in 2012), at the expense of ecstasy.50
Focus group participant, GfK Blue Moon, July 2012.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2011). 2010 National Drug Strategy Household Survey report. Drug statistics series no. 25.
Cat. No. PHE 145. Canberra: AIHW.
50 National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales (2012). Australian Drug Trends 2012: Findings from the
Ecstasy and Related Drugs Reporting System (EDRS).
Page | 85
48
49
Quantitative research drug perceptions
It is important to note that given the high cost of cocaine, it would appear that many cocaine users are
likely to be older than the 15-24 year olds in this research.
As shown in Table 24, cocaine is perceived quite negatively amongst most 15-24 year olds. It is
perceived to:

be addictive;

make people overconfident;

be a party drug;

possibly cause immediate serious harm when taken; and

be expensive.
Cocaine trialists perceived cocaine very positively; in particular, it is seen as:

a fun drug;

helps a person escape from reality; and

makes people feel more connected.
15-24 year old users of cocaine were significantly more likely than the total sample to agree with the
positive effects of cocaine (helps a person escape from reality, makes people feel more connected, is a
fun drug). They were also slightly more likely than the total sample to agree that cocaine use has some
negative consequences (in particular, that it is addictive, can lead to long-term health problems, can
make some people aggressive and is expensive).
Compared to users of other drugs, users of cocaine were perceived quite negatively by the total sample
of 15-24 year olds (and similar to ecstasy, speed, ice and heroin users). Users were perceived to be
intense, psycho, junkies, anti-social, losers and boring. Illicit drug trialists perceived cocaine users very
differently, and appeared to view cocaine more aspirationally. They were seen as intense and party
animals.
Table 24: Perceptions of cocaine
Q5 Do you personally agree or disagree that generally [COCAINE].
Total Sample
Ever used Cocaine
Is addictive
82
91
Can cause problems with friends or family
81
86
Can lead to long-term health problems
79
100
Can cause mental health problems
75
45
Effects are unpredictable
72
84
You don’t know what’s in it
71
89
Can cause immediate serious harm when taken
70
57
Makes a person lose control of their life
70
55
Can make some people aggressive
67
87
Is expensive
65
100+
Makes people freak out
65
14-
Page | 86
Total Sample
Ever used Cocaine
Makes people overconfident
58
85
Has bad comedowns/hangovers
57
64
Is a party drug
56
92+
Makes things seem more intense
55
58
Helps a person escape from reality
53
100+
Can make a person lazy
37
58
Makes the world seem better
32
49
Can help a person to relax
26
48
Makes people feel more connected
18
58+
Is a fun drug
17
70+
Is a good drug to have with friends
14
69+
Is not a problem if you just use it occasionally
11
62+
Is a clean drug
9
0
Can help manage drug comedowns/hangovers
9
14
Is natural
8
0
Base: 15-24 year olds.
Note that each respondent was randomly allocated half the statements.
The base for each statement ranges from n=191 to n=223.
Cocaine summary
It appears that cocaine use is increasing and the rise is likely to be due to two main factors. First, the
positive effects of cocaine on users and the aspirational nature of the drug. Second, cocaine may be
acting as a substitute for MDMA-free ecstasy. The change in the composition of ecstasy pills has,
therefore, possibly introduced a new market to using cocaine.
There are a number of key barriers to trial of cocaine (primarily that it is addictive, can lead to long-term
health problems and can make some people aggressive). However, once trialled cocaine is perceived
very positively. It is therefore very fortunate that cocaine is so expensive, meaning that more than
occasional use is not possible for most users. Consequently, most cocaine trialists do not progress to
regular use with its associated potential harms. However, it also means that most direct experience with
cocaine, and word of mouth, is positive.
Page | 87
Speed
Qualitative research drug perceptions
The qualitative research found that many young people are less knowledgeable about speed and
deliberate usage appears to be slightly marginalised. Speed is a key point of uncertainty for many
young people including both drug users and non-users. Some users recognise that speed can be, and
they felt often is, included as an ingredient in other drugs (primarily pills). However, deliberate usage of
speed was found less frequently than it had been in past research. Speed appears to have lost its
clarity in the eyes of users.
Benefits and drawbacks
The perceived benefits of speed are largely seen as being functional. Young people talked about it in
terms of helping party goers keep going all night, and a common perceived positive is that it can
prevent them from getting too drunk. It is felt to provide a base for taking other drugs, as it is not
particularly strong and thereby enables the user to function ‘normally’. The consequences of speed are
somewhat unknown for most. There is a perception of not being able to sleep when the night is over
and an impression that it can potentially make users more aggressive or paranoid. There is some
indication that it can also increase a sense of ‘drama’ when something goes wrong on a night out (e.g.
friends falling out).
Trigger points to use
Overall speed is seen as less mainstream and a slightly ‘grungy’ drug. Usage does not appear to be
especially overt in the mainstream population. Few claim to knowingly use speed although in the
research it was more prevalent in Brisbane than anywhere else. Non-users expect speed users to be
slightly downmarket and it is often referred to as ‘the poor man’s coke’.
The context for use is relatively unknown but it often assumed to be at home. Evidence of usage is
rarely found in public so few know much about when speed is used and among those in the sample
who were users claimed to primarily take it at home. Often speed is taken prior to going out or using
other drugs as a means of enhancing stamina. In this respect it is sometimes used functionally.
“I have it at home before we go to a club ... but sometimes I have it a bit beforehand
so I can do the vacuuming.”51
Speed usage over time
In tandem with the deterioration of speed’s image, usage of speed appears to be in decline. The
NDSHS 2010 reported that recent use of meth/amphetamine declined between 2007 and 2010
amongst 14-29 year olds (e.g. from 7.3% to 5.9% amongst 20-29 year olds, down from a high of 12% in
1998).52 The 2012 EDRS survey amongst regular ecstasy/psychostimulant users also showed that
recent use of speed has declined (from 73% in 2003 to 48% in 2012).53
Focus group participant, GfK Blue Moon, July 2012.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2011). 2010 National Drug Strategy Household Survey report. Drug statistics series no. 25.
Cat. No. PHE 145. Canberra: AIHW.
53 National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales (2012). Australian Drug Trends 2012: Findings from the
Ecstasy and Related Drugs Reporting System (EDRS).
Page | 88
51
52
Quantitative research drug perceptions
As shown in Table 25, speed is perceived to:

make some people aggressive;

make people freak out;

cause mental health problems;

be a drug that you don’t know what’s in it;

NOT be fun;

NOT be clean; and

NOT make the world seem better.
Compared to users of other drugs, users of speed were perceived quite negatively by the total sample
of 15-24 year olds (and similar to ecstasy, cocaine, ice and heroin users). Users were perceived to be
intense, psycho, junkies, anti-social, losers and boring. Illicit drug trialists perceived speed users very
differently – they were considered to be intense and party animals.
The total sample of 15-24 year olds rate the negative aspects of speed at the same level as users of
speed. However, speed trialists had a more positive impression of speed than the total sample.
Table 25: Perceptions of speed
Q5 Do you personally agree or disagree that generally [SPEED].
Can cause problems with friends or family
Can lead to long-term health problems
Can cause mental health problems
You don’t know what’s in it
Is addictive
Makes a person lose control of their life
Effects are unpredictable
Can make some people aggressive
Makes people freak out
Can cause immediate serious harm when taken
Has bad comedowns/hangovers
Makes things seem more intense
Makes people overconfident
Is a party drug
Helps a person escape from reality
Is expensive
Can make a person lazy
Makes the world seem better
Makes people feel more connected
Is a good drug to have with friends
Is not a problem if you just use it occasionally
Page | 89
Total Sample
Ever used Speed
79
78
77
75
74
72
72
71
70
64
56
55
53
51
50
47
25
23
18
12
12
79
75
56
78
68
56
49
75
41
35
90
87+
54
79
90+
51
23
51
70+
60+
64+
Is a fun drug
Can help a person to relax
Can help manage drug comedowns/hangovers
Is natural
Is a clean drug
Total Sample
Ever used Speed
11
10
9
6
5
49+
22
41+
10
20+
Base: 15-24 year olds.
Note that each respondent was randomly allocated half the statements.
The base for each statement ranges from n=210 to n=246.
Speed summary
In addition to declining usage, speed appears to be losing any positive ‘brand image’ it may have had in
the past. For example, it is perceived to be significantly less of a ‘fun’ drug than in the past (declining
from 44% in 2000 to 25% in 2007 and to 11% in 2012). Recent users of speed in fact rate the negative
attributes of speed at the same high level as non-users. The qualitative research also found that it is
perceived to be a down market and grungy drug (to a greater extent than in the 2007 and 2000
segmentation research).
Page | 90
Ice
Qualitative research drug perceptions
The qualitative research found that ice is perceived extremely negatively by drug users and non-users
alike. Ice has strong negative connotations which are held by drug users and non-users alike. Of all the
drugs explored it probably has the clearest perceptions of all. Non-users as young as 13 years of age
hold clear views on its potential negative consequences. For drug users, ice is often held up as a line
they would not cross and among ice users themselves there is acute awareness of the negative
potential of the drug. There was also some anecdotal evidence that smoking and injecting the drug are
seen differently with injecting providing a stronger effect but also seen as somewhat ‘dirtier’ or more
akin to being a ‘junkie’.
Benefits and drawbacks
The perceived benefits of ice primarily relate to socialising and enhanced sense. Users talk about it
making them feel like they were in ‘total control’ and that it provides ‘amazing clarity’. It is also
associated with doing some ‘crazy stuff’ for fun and a sense that it can help them connect with friends,
as well as making them feel less inhibited. Conversely the consequences of ice are well known and
quite frightening. Drug users and non-users, as well as ice users, are aware of the consequences.
Addiction is a significant concern for the majority and all are aware that ice usage can lead to psychotic
episodes and violence. Concerns about damaging relationships are paramount and there is a strong
perception that ice can ruin your life. The skin scratching visual from previous campaigns is an often
repeated negative consequence as well as imagining bugs crawling under the skin. These images
clearly have significant resonance across the audiences. The world of ice reflects the negatives
portrayed in previous ads. It is seen as extremely harmful, associated with violence and as a ‘dirty’ drug.
Trigger points to use
Ice is predominantly ingested at home. It is rarely reported as being used in public spaces, partly due to
smoking being the preferred route of administration. Those who use ice tend to do so in small intimate
groups of friends in more relaxed home environments. Ice users in our sample claim that they are
carefully monitoring their usage to avoid overusing. To some extent they treat the drug with a degree of
respect.
“We just usually smoke it at home with friends, but you’ve gotta be careful that it
doesn’t get out of hand.”54
Users were in the minority of our sample and those that were using it tended to be highly experienced
and had tried a range of other drugs first. There does not appear to be any gender skew among users
but most in our sample were into their mid-20s.
Ice usage over time
The 2012 EDRS survey amongst regular ecstasy/psychostimulant users indicates that recent use of ice
has declined (from 52% in 2003 to 29% in 2012). Interestingly, use of ice amongst this group peaked in
2006 at 49% and then fell steeply to a low of 15% in 2009,55 corresponding to the running of the
National Drugs Campaign targeting ice between 2007 and 2010. In 2011 and 2012 there has been
some rebound in usage.
Focus group participant, GfK Blue Moon, July 2012.
National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales (2012). Australian Drug Trends 2012: Findings from the
Ecstasy and Related Drugs Reporting System (EDRS).
Page | 91
54
55
Quantitative research drug perceptions
As shown in Table 26, ice is perceived to:

be addictive;

make people lose control of their lives;

make people freak out;

cause mental health problems;

be a drug that you don’t know what’s in it;

be able to cause immediate serious harm when taken;

NOT be fun; and

NOT make the world seem better.
Interestingly, those who have ever used ice were more likely than the total sample to agree with the
negative effects of ice (although not statistically significant because of the small sample size of ice
users).
Compared to users of other drugs, users of ice were perceived very negatively. Users were perceived to
be intense, psycho, junkies, anti-social, losers and boring (by both illicit drug trialists and non-trialists).
This negative perception of ice users (and ice itself) is more likely to have come from personal
observation than for any other drug. The negative impact of ice on the user is more obvious than for
other drugs (e.g. the sores, scratching, aggression etc.), possibly helping to turn young people off the
drug. Perceptions of dangerousness of ice have declined between 2007 and 2012.
Table 26: Perceptions of ice
Q5 Do you personally agree or disagree that generally [ICE].
Can cause problems with friends or family
Is addictive
Can cause mental health problems
Can lead to long-term health problems
You don’t know what’s in it
Makes a person lose control of their life
Effects are unpredictable
Makes people freak out
Can cause immediate serious harm when taken
Can make some people aggressive
Has bad comedowns/hangovers
Is expensive
Helps a person escape from reality
Is a party drug
Makes people overconfident
Makes things seem more intense
Can make a person lazy
Page | 92
Total Sample
Ever used Ice
81
79
79
77
76
75
71
69
67
64
58
51
50
49
47
45
32
100
86
100
100
56
86
74
100
36
100
100
100
79
70
54
79
34
Makes the world seem better
Makes people feel more connected
Can help a person to relax
Can help manage drug comedowns/hangovers
Is a fun drug
Is not a problem if you just use it occasionally
Is a good drug to have with friends
Is a clean drug
Is natural
Total Sample
Ever used Ice
24
17
13
12
10
10
9
7
5
46
52
10
0
46
41
40
16
0
Base: 15-24 year olds.
Note that each respondent was randomly allocated half the statements.
The base for each statement ranges from n=206 to n=230. Use with caution, the sample size for each statement for users of
ice is around n=15.
Ice summary
Ice is perceived very negatively, both in terms of its effects and the perceived profile of those who use
it. These perceptions are likely to have been strongly influenced by the National Drugs Campaign ice
executions (running from 2007 to June 2010). There are indications from the EDRS that use of ice may
have rebounded in 2011 and 2012.56 This needs to be monitored carefully and if it is assessed to
become a problem, the ice campaign could be relaunched.
National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales (2012). Australian Drug Trends 2012: Findings from the
Ecstasy and Related Drugs Reporting System (EDRS).
Page | 93
56
Heroin
Qualitative research drug perceptions
The qualitative research found that heroin has been so effectively marginalised that users are almost
pitied. None within our sample had any experience with heroin and virtually none wanted to. It is seen
as beyond acceptability due to its addictive and destructive nature. There were no positive perceptions
or benefits identified by respondents in the sample. It appears that rejection of heroin is so entrenched
among young people that further action is not necessary.
Quantitative research drug perceptions
Heroin continues to be used by a very tiny minority of the population. 57 As shown in Table 27, it is
perceived to:

be addictive;

lead to long-term health problems;

cause mental health problems;

make people lose control of their lives;

help a person escape from reality;

has a bad comedown;

be able to cause immediate serious harm when taken;

be expensive;

is a problem if you just use it occasionally;

NOT be fun;

NOT be clean; and

NOT be a party drug.
The NDSHS reports that in 2010 1.4% of people aged 14+ had used heroin in their lifetime and 0.2% had used heroin in the past 12
months. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2011). 2010 National Drug Strategy Household Survey report. Drug statistics series no.
25. Cat. No. PHE 145. Canberra: AIHW, p. 152.
Page | 94
57
Compared to users of other drugs, users of heroin were perceived very negatively. Users were
perceived to be intense, psycho, junkies, anti-social, losers and boring (by both illicit drug trialists and
non-trialists).
Table 27: Perceptions of heroin
Q5 Do you personally agree or disagree that generally [HEROIN].
Total Sample
Is addictive
Can lead to long-term health problems
Can cause mental health problems
Makes a person lose control of their life
Can cause problems with friends or family
Can cause immediate serious harm when taken
Effects are unpredictable
You don’t know what’s in it
Has bad comedowns/hangovers
Can make some people aggressive
Makes people freak out
Helps a person escape from reality
Is expensive
Makes things seem more intense
Makes people overconfident
Can make a person lazy
Makes the world seem better
Is a party drug
Can help a person to relax
Makes people feel more connected
Can help manage drug comedowns/hangovers
Is natural
Is a fun drug
Is a good drug to have with friends
Is not a problem if you just use it occasionally
Is a clean drug
86
86
84
83
82
74
73
70
67
64
64
61
59
47
40
37
30
25
24
14
10
6
5
4
2
2
Base: 15-24 year olds.
Note that each respondent was randomly allocated half the statements.
The base for each statement ranges from n=206 to n=230. There were too few users of heroin to look at these statements
amongst users.
Page | 95
Heroin summary
Perceptions of dangerousness of heroin declined between 2007 and 2012. Declines in availability and
usage of heroin in the past ten years,58 as well as the associated reduced media coverage of overdoses
has probably lessened the fear of the drug amongst young people who were too young to remember
when heroin was more problematic than it is today. With lower availability and limited media coverage,
there is less opportunity for non-users to vicariously experience the negatives of heroin use. However,
heroin has such a negative image, even amongst regular drug users, that there is no current need for
any specific communications.
The Australian Institute of Criminology found that ‘research examining the impact of the heroin shortage in 2000-01 in Australia noted
that the increase in heroin prices and the reduction in heroin availability and purity lowered the overall demand for heroin’. Australian
Institute of Criminology description of heroin (http://www.aic.gov.au/crime_types/drugs_alcohol/drug_types/heroin.html).
Page | 96
58
Summary of barriers to illicit drug use
This qualitative and quantitative research shows that the key barriers to overall illicit drug use are:

fear;

perceived effects of use:
-
causing problems with friends and family;
-
long term health problems;
-
mental health problems;
-
losing control of your life;
-
aggression;
-
making people freak out;
-
you don’t know what’s in it (except marijuana and mushrooms);
-
unpredictability of the effects;
-
addiction;

not being exposed to/being able to access drugs; and

knowing someone who has had a problem with drugs:
-
85% of those who knew someone with a problem said that it had made them more cautious
about taking drugs, particularly females.
In addition, there are other barriers specific to individual drugs, as shown below.
The key barriers to using marijuana are laziness (supporting the 2010 Phase 4 National Drugs
Campaign ‘What a Waste’ executions as part of the suite of materials that included ice and ecstasy)
and smoking marijuana is becoming a stronger barrier, as tobacco smoking is increasingly rejected.
The key barriers to using ecstasy are that the effects are unpredictable because you don’t know what’s
in it (could be MDMA, speed, ketamine etc.), that it’s not a clean drug, and the comedowns.
For mushrooms the perceptions are more positive than other drugs because there was no stand-out
barrier (apart from a reluctance to use again).
The key barriers to using LSD are that effects are unpredictable, and that it makes people freak out.
The key barriers to using cocaine are that it is addictive, it can cause problems with friends or family,
and that it is expensive, which is fortunate as the qualitative research indicated that if cocaine was more
affordable it would be used much more frequently.
The barriers to using speed, ice and heroin were very strong and quite similar to each other.

The key barriers to using speed and ice were that they raise aggression, make people freak out,
you can lose control of your life, cause mental health problems, you don’t know what’s in it, and
they are addictive.

The key barriers to using heroin are addiction and withdrawal, long term health problems, you can
lose control of your life, cause mental health problems, and it is expensive. The mode of ingestion
had some impact as a barrier as the majority immediately associated heroin with injecting oneself
which is a key barrier to any drug consumption.
Page | 97
Summary of motivators to illicit drug use
The qualitative and quantitative research also point to the current factors that are influencing young
people to use, or contemplate using, particular illicit drugs. These are:

simple curiosity – ‘What’s it like?’;

peer pressure, a desire to ‘fit in’;

need for excitement in their lives;

boredom;

a need to alter their reality;

the desire to have new experiences;

desire to feel more connected; and

for marijuana, there is perceived to be little reason not to, at least, try it.
Page | 98
ATTITUDES TO LIFE AND DRUGS
The quantitative segmentations in 2000, 2007 and 2012 have been based upon key dimensions of
attitudes to life and attitudes to drugs.
Attitudes to life
The majority of 12-24 year olds seem to be happy with their life (72% like their lives). However, at the
same time, many are interested in changing their lives in some way (77% like new experiences, 64%
are interested in ways to enhance their experiences and 49% like to escape the real world).
Furthermore, there is a substantial interest in having a good time, living for today, risk taking and
partying. Of concern is the one in five (21%) who don’t feel like they are in control of their life.
Figure 29: Attitudes to life – summary
% Strongly agree/Agree
Base: 12-24 year olds (n=1600).
Page | 99
Males were more likely than females to say they ‘live for today’ and ‘like to take risks’. Those aged
12-17 years old were more likely than the 18-24 year old group to say they ‘like their life’ or that they
‘don’t really have any problems in their life’. The older group were more interested in augmenting their
reality - ways to enhance their experiences, to escape the real world and to take risks.
Table 28: Attitudes to life by gender and age
% Strongly agree/agree
Total
Sample
(n=1600)
Male
(n=800)
Female
(n=800)
12–14
(n=300)
15-17
(n=300)
18–20
(n=389)
21–24
(n=611)
I like new experiences
77
76
79
79
73
82
77
I always like to be in
control of the situations
I’m in
72
70
73
69
71
72
74
I like my life
72
70
73
78+
76
68
67-
I’m interested in new
ways to enhance my
experiences
64
62
66
57-
55-
70+
70+
I like to escape the real
world
49
48
50
36-
40-
56+
57+
I’ll do what it takes to
make sure I have a great
time
46
48
45
46
36-
53+
48
I’m often influenced by
my friends
40
40
40
43
38
41
38
You have to live for
today, rather than worry
about the future
38
41+
35-
40
37
40
36
I don’t really have any
problems in my life
35
38
33
47+
45+
27-
27-
I like to take risks
32
37+
28-
27
23-
40+
37+
I like to party a lot
28
29
27
24
25
34+
29
I'm not really in control of
my life
21
21
20
24
17
26+
18
Base: 12-24 year olds (n=1600).
Page | 100
As shown in the figure below, there were five attitudes to life statements that could be compared across
the segmentation surveys conducted in 2000, 2007 and 2012.
In 2012, young people appear more troubled: they seem to like their life less, worry more about the
future and feel less in control of their life. They were also less likely to agree that they were ‘not
interested in drugs’ than in 2007 (but similar to 2000).
Figure 30: Attitudes to life - 2000 vs. 2007 vs. 2012 surveys (15-24 year olds)
% Strongly agree/Agree
Base: 15-24 year olds (2000 survey n=2306, 2007 survey n=1700, 2012 survey n=1300).
Page | 101
Attitudes to drugs
Amongst 12-24 year olds, agreement was strongest for the statement ‘I’m not interested in illegal drugs’
(73%). This was followed by agreement with negative drug statements: ‘illegal drugs just make your
problems worse’ (69%), ‘all illegal drugs are harmful’ (69%), and ‘illegal drugs frighten me’ (62%).
Half were non-judgemental and consider that ‘if people want to take illegal drugs, it’s their decision’
(50%). Only a minority agreed with the drug usage and positive statements about illegal drugs.
Figure 31: Attitudes to drugs – summary
% Strongly agree/Agree
Base: 12-24 year olds (n=1600).
Page | 102
There were considerable differences in attitudes to drugs by gender and age. Males and those aged
18-24 years were more interested in drugs and more likely to perceive illicit drugs positively (e.g. they
aren’t harmful or frightening and they can be fun).
Table 29: Attitudes to illicit drugs, by gender and age
Total
Sample
(n=1600)
Male
(n=800)
Female
(n=800)
12–14
(n=300)
15-17
(n=300)
18–20
(n=389)
21–24
(n=611)
I'm not interested in illegal drugs
73
69-
76+
80+
77
73
66-
All illegal drugs are harmful
69
64-
74+
77+
73
66
63-
Illegal drugs just make your problems
worse
69
67
71
71
76+
68
64-
Illegal drugs frighten me
62
56-
69+
74+
68+
61
52-
If people want to take illegal drugs, it’s
their decision
50
52
48
41-
45
56+
54+
If I were to use a specific illegal drug, I
would first have to find out all of its effects
50
49
51
37-
44-
60+
55+
I don’t really know much about illegal
drugs
42
40
43
54+
45
34
37-
I can control my use of illegal drugs
24
24
24
11-
18-
33+
31+
Most of my close friends have taken illegal
drugs
23
22
23
8-
16-
27
33+
Illegal drugs are only a problem if you let
them be
21
25+
18-
19
19
23
23
Illegal drugs can be fun
19
22+
17-
8-
12-
27+
27+
Some illegal drugs are OK
18
19
16
8-
10-
24+
24+
Using illegal drugs at my age is just
normal these days
16
15
17
7-
16
21+
19
I use illegal drugs to improve my reality
6
7+
4-
2-
5
8
7
I like to experiment with a range of
different illegal drugs
5
7+
3-
3
3
8+
6
I use illegal drugs to help me cope with life
5
6
4
2-
5
6
7
I sometimes use illegal drugs to keep me
going
5
7+
3-
2-
5
6
7
I take illegal drugs to help me get things
done
4
5+
3-
2-
4
4
6
% Strongly agree/agree
Base: 12-24 year olds (n=1600).
Page | 103
SEGMENTATION
The 2012 qualitative segments
The segmentation research conducted by GfK Blue Moon in 2000 and 2012 both comprised two stages.
Firstly, qualitative research amongst young people was completed to identify the illicit drug-related
behavioural and attitudinal segments. This was followed by quantitative research to confirm, revise, size
and profile the segments.
In our 2000 research, the six attitudinal segments shown in Figure 32 were identified and confirmed in
the quantitative research.59
Figure 32: Segments identified in the 2000 quantitative research
Clark G, Scott N and Cook S (2003). Blue Moon Research and Planning. Formative research with young Australians to assist in the
development of the national Illicit Drugs Campaign (2000). Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing, Canberra.
Page | 104
59
In 2012, the qualitative research found some of the same segments, while others were new or changed.
Consequently, the qualitative segmentation became more complex in 2012. Eight potential segments
were identified, as listed below.
Figure 33: Potential segments identified in the 2012 qualitative research
These qualitative segments arose from the following five key attitudes and motivations towards drugs.
Figure 34: Qualitative segments identified by five key attitudes towards drugs
Page | 105
Summary of the 2012 qualitative segments
Cocooned Rejectors are scared of illicit drugs. They tend to have no or very little exposure or
experience of drug use and are generally younger. Drugs are not visible in their social circles and they
are unlikely to know anyone or be friends with anyone who regularly takes illicit drugs. They have very
low levels of awareness of different types of drugs beyond their names. They often mirror their parents’
or teachers’ viewpoints.
The Ambivalent Neutrals segment is the least at risk of all the archetypes of drug misuse. They tend
not to be interested in drugs in general. They are often relatively well informed about illicit drugs and are
aware of different drugs and their effects. Equally they may have a number of friends who take drugs.
However, they are relatively indifferent to the issue of drugs, do not tend to hold strong feelings either
way and feel little need to be on one side of the fence or the other.
Fun Seeking Segments (Fun Dabblers, Fun Deliberates and Fun Indiscriminates)
In 2012 it seems drug taking is much less about a ‘thrill’ than it has been in the past. ‘Thrill’ suggests a
level of perceived risk and excitement that no longer seems to exist in young people’s minds, possibly
as drug use becomes more normalised. Apart from in the early stages of drug use, ‘thrill’ does not
accurately describe what is being sought. Drug use has, for many, transformed into a more ‘legitimate’
form of having fun rather than knowingly doing something ‘naughty’ or illicit and deriving their pleasure
from that knowledge. As shown in Figure 35, three fun seeking segments (Fun Dabblers, Fun
Deliberates and Fun Indiscriminates) have emerged to replace the former Thrill Seeker segment. When
defined by their drug use, the Fun Dabblers generally use single drugs infrequently and are very
particular about the drugs taken, the Fun Deliberates use a number of drugs frequently but are also
very particular about the drugs taken, and the Fun Indiscriminates use a number of drugs frequently but
are happy to experiment.
Figure 35: Three fun seeking segments defined by their drug use
Page | 106
The Fun Dabblers segment is comprised of occasional drug users and usage is often restricted to
certain events such as music festivals. These users tend to stick to one or two preferred drugs, most
commonly ecstasy/MDMA or cocaine. They tend to take drugs as a group activity where participants
‘look out’ for each other. They often have professional jobs and their drug taking is viewed as an
infrequent ‘indulgence’.
“I’d only really ever consider taking drugs at a really big party, or a festival, something
like that.”60
“I’ve only ever got drugs through a friend and done them with friends as more of a
group thing at gigs and stuff.”61
The Fun Deliberates segment is differentiated from the ‘Dabblers’ in that they take drugs regularly and
frequently, but they feel they do so ‘knowledgeably’. They are generally particular about the types of
drugs they take and will often have a range of drug choices to match different occasions. They hold a
level of interest about drugs which leads them to often research drugs and their effects online through
websites such as pillreports.com or erowid.org. They see themselves as somewhat discerning about
their drug use and claim to be concerned about quality and tend to actively seek out the experience
they want.
“It depends what I’m doing or what I’m after. Some things are better for certain
occasions and others for different things.”62
The Fun Indiscriminates segment is differentiated from the ‘Deliberates’ and ‘Dabblers’ in that they
seem happy to take any type of drug they can get hold of. They talk about being more willing to
experiment with anything but at the same time there is little evidence of research about drugs as with
the ‘Deliberates’. There is some evidence of loss of control in regards to the frequency, regularity and
quantity of their drug use, but the emphasis is still very much on ‘fun’. Drugs are often highly prevalent
in their social circles, and they trust their sources but are also relatively unconcerned about quality
compared to the other fun segments.
“Whatever’s going I’ll try some.”63
“Most of my mates are doing something every weekend and we’d definitely try new
things if we could get hold of it, there’s loads I’d want to try.”64
Reality Augmenters tend to use drugs to ‘improve’ their reality or to positively experience another
‘reality’. They are often users of hallucinogens and heavy users of marijuana. There is a strong
attraction to psychedelic experiences and there is some indication they tend to be ‘creative types’
(music, arts etc.). This segment may deride ‘party’ drugs and view fun-seekers as shallow. Their drug
taking is often a group activity and they claim to seek a deep and shared experience.
“I want to connect with the planet, not escape it.”65
In contrast to ‘Augmenters’ the Reality Swappers are seeking to escape their reality. Drugs are often
used as a ‘crutch’ or means of ‘getting by’ and being high is often perceived as better than the realities
of everyday life. There is a greater likelihood of these users coming from unhappy backgrounds or
situations. Within this research these users were generally ice users with some smoking and others
Focus group participant, GfK Blue Moon, July 2012.
Focus group participant, GfK Blue Moon, July 2012.
62 Focus group participant, GfK Blue Moon, July 2012.
63 Focus group participant, GfK Blue Moon, July 2012.
64 Focus group participant, GfK Blue Moon, July 2012.
65 Focus group participant, GfK Blue Moon, July 2012.
Page | 107
60
61
injecting (reformed users). They are often heavy marijuana smokers and they often take drugs on their
own. Drugs and drug taking are often a large part of the user’s identity.
“Sometimes I’d rather stay home and get high than go out, be around loads of people
and deal with all that.”66
“I’m quite happy smoking a joint on my own, it relaxes me, lets me get away from
everything.”67
The qualitative research found a sub-segment of Functional Users. To what extent Functional Users
are a discrete segment was tested in the quantitative research and there is evidence of functional drug
use across all the segments. This includes use of both ‘uppers’ such as speed or cocaine, and
‘downers’ such as marijuana, opiates and sleeping tablets. This form of drug taking often relates to
specific occasions or needs such as job performance, but it can also relate to recovering from other
drug use (e.g. avoiding comedowns or sleepless nights).
“I know people at my work who will take some speed late at night so they can work
through to meet deadlines.”68
“I’ll smoke a couple of joints to stave off the comedown ... it’s like medication.”69
The 2012 quantitative segmentation
The 2012 quantitative research used the findings from the qualitative research to identify the key
dimensions (in terms of attitudes to life and drugs) and fine-tune the questionnaire. The quantitative
research identified the following six quantitative attitudinal segments.
Figure 36: Segments identified in the 2012 quantitative research
Focus group participant, GfK Blue Moon, July 2012.
Focus group participant, GfK Blue Moon, July 2012.
68 Focus group participant, GfK Blue Moon, July 2012.
69 Focus group participant, GfK Blue Moon, July 2012.
Page | 108
66
67
The difference between the 2012 qualitative and quantitative segmentations
In 2012, the qualitative research identified more segments (a finer gradation) amongst the drug users
than the quantitative research because the focus groups focused on drug users. The qualitative sample
prioritised drug users as the aim of this stage was to explore attitudes towards illicit drugs and drug
trends and so those with more experience were specifically recruited (although non-drug users were
also included). The quantitative research on the other hand was more representative of the population
and found very large non-user segments (partly also due to the younger sample and the representative
sample structure). Figure 37 illustrates the transition of the qualitative segments to the quantitative
segments.
Figure 37: Summary of the 2012 segments - qualitative vs. quantitative research
The key difference between the 2012 qualitative and quantitative segments is the merging of some of
the qualitative sub-segments in the quantitative phase. The qualitative segmentation found three ‘Fun’
segments and two ‘Reality’ segments. The quantitative research merged two of the ‘Fun’ segments
(Fun Deliberates and Fun Indiscriminates), because they were too small to identify, into the single Fun
Seekers segments.
The quantitative research also merged the two Reality segments from the qualitative phase into the
single Reality Swappers segment. It should also be noted that some of the Reality Augmenters from the
qualitative research are likely to also exist within the quantitative Fun Seekers segment.
The quantitative Occasionals segment drew primarily from the qualitative Dabblers segment, with some
coming from the Ambivalent Neutrals segment.
The quantitative Neutrals segment is comprised primarily of the Ambivalent Neutrals segment.
However, this quantitative Neutrals segment is ‘neutral’ either in terms of attitudes towards life and drug
use and/or to their responses to the survey. A substantial proportion of this segment in fact responded
with ‘neither agree nor disagree’, ‘don’t know’ or ‘prefer not to say’ to the attitudes to drugs statements
and to a lesser extent to the attitudes to life statements. It is, therefore, possible that there are also
some heavier drug users in this Neutrals segment, drawn from the qualitative Fun and Reality
segments, but who refused to identify themselves as such in responses to the survey.
The qualitative Cocooned Rejectors segment has split into the Conservative Rejectors and Risky
Rejectors segments in the quantitative research.
Page | 109
The qualitative Functional User segment was not incorporated in the quantitative segmentation. These
respondents comprised approximately 4% of the total sample and were identified only by agreement
with the statement ‘I take illegal drugs to help me get things done’. Their inclusion as a segment diluted
the other drug segments and so they were not used in the segmentation.
These differences are not unexpected as the qualitative research necessarily conducted more focus
groups with illicit drug users than non-users and so was able to extract more granularity amongst users.
Summary of 2012 quantitative segments
Figure 38 below shows the relative size of the 2012 quantitative segments amongst both 12-24 and
15-24 year old age groups. The research identified six segments ranging from 4% to 36% in size.
Between them, the Rejectors (Conservative + Risky) account for almost seven in 10 (68%) of 12-24
year olds. The two higher risk user groups (Fun Seekers + Reality Swappers) accounted for one in 10.
Figure 38: Size of 2012 quantitative segments
The segments were segmented based on respondents’ attitudes to drugs and attitudes to life. The key
characteristics of these six segments can be summarised below. For a detailed description of each
segment see Appendix A.
Conservative Rejectors are conservative in general. They worry about the future, don’t like to take
risks and don’t party or seek out excitement and new experiences. Generally, they are also less
satisfied with life than the Risky Rejectors (in particular, they have more problems and are less likely to
agree with the statement ‘I like my life’).
They hold negative attitudes to drugs and show very low levels of drug use (9% have ever used an illicit
drug). They are also the youngest segment (56% are aged 12-17 years of age) with 57% still at school.
Importantly, they are not strongly influenced by their friends and so are less likely to trial drugs in a peer
situation.
There is a very low risk of future drug use amongst this segment given the negative attitudes towards
drugs, the low influence of friends and the reluctance to seek out new and exciting experiences. The
Cocooned Rejector segment that was found in the qualitative research phase has been split into this
Conservative Rejector segment and Risky Rejector segment below in this phase of research
(quantitative).
Page | 110
Risky Rejectors are less conservative than the Conservative Rejectors. They are more likely to take
risks and say they want to live for today. They are open to new experiences, fun and excitement and
believe in doing what it takes to have a good time. They also have a positive outlook on life (they like
their life and don’t really have any problems). Importantly, they are significantly more likely to be
influenced by their friends than the Conservative Rejectors.
They are not currently interested in drugs and their attitudes to drugs are very similar to the
Conservative Rejector segment with one exception: they are less judgemental about drugs and more
likely to agree that ‘if people want to take illegal drugs, it’s their decision’. Their current drug use is very
low (17% have ever used an illicit drug) although they are more likely than the Conservative Rejectors
to have trialled tobacco, alcohol and marijuana.
This segment is equally divided by gender and is the second youngest segment (44% are aged 12-17
years old) with 46% still attending school.
The combination of adventurous attitudes, being open to other people taking drugs and being
influenced by friends does indicate that this segment may be at risk of drug trial as they get older,
meeting both their need for new experiences and for peer approval. In fact, their attitudes to life are very
similar to the Fun Seeker segment and, as they age, this attitude may see them trialling drugs and
shifting to this segment (either directly or via the Occasionals segment).
This segment should be the primary target of any future prevention focused campaign.
Neutrals are primarily neutral in both their attitudes to life and drugs. This could pertain to either
attitudinal or scale neutrality or both (i.e. they are secretive and may refuse to disclose attitudes to
drugs).
They were much more likely than other segments to respond with ‘prefer not to say’, ‘don’t know’ or
‘neither agree nor disagree’. They reported low agreement to the positive drug attitudes, but also low
disagreement. The drug use for this segment is likely to be under-reported (21% claim to have ever
used an illicit drug with 43% saying ‘none of the above’ [including tobacco and alcohol] or ‘prefer not to
say’).
This segment has a strong male skew (64%) and is slightly older than the total sample (62% are aged
18-24 years). They are also likely to be a mixed segment of low risk neutrals and higher risk (secretive)
drug users.
They have probably been drawn from the qualitative research segments of Ambivalent Neutrals, Fun
Dabblers and Fun Deliberates.
Occasionals generally like their life but some do have problems and they are the third most likely
segment to want to escape the real world (56%). While they are reasonably conservative, they are open
to new experiences and have the third most positive attitudes about illicit drugs.
Almost two thirds (64%) claim to have ever used an illicit drug. But they are occasional users of a
limited range of drugs (primarily marijuana and ecstasy) and none of them agreed that they experiment
with drugs, indicating that they are mono drug users, primarily cannabis.
They are selective about the occasions that they use drugs and the drugs that they would use. They
minimise the risk of their drug use and are the most likely to agree that ‘if I were to use a specific illegal
drug, I would first have to find out all of its effects’.
Occasionals are the oldest segment (83% are aged 18-24 years) and they have a male skew (58%).
They are very similar to the Fun Dabblers segment found in the qualitative research.
There is a low to medium risk of future controlled drug use amongst this segment.
Page | 111
Fun Seekers are happy and secure, with the highest life satisfaction of all segments. They are very
open to new experiences and interested in finding ways to enhance them. They say they want to live for
today, rather than worry about the future, and that they’ll do what it takes to have a good time.
Fun Seekers like to take risks and party a lot. They are the segment with the most positive attitudes
towards illicit drugs. They have many motivators to take drugs (this was the segment most likely to
perceive drugs to be fun and to use drugs to keep them going, to get things done or to improve their
reality).
They also emerged as the most experimental segment, with a wide repertoire of drug use (82% have
ever used an illicit drug) and high risk of future drug use if offered by a friend. They were the third oldest
segment (72% are aged 18-24 years) and have a male skew (57%). The Fun Seekers combine the
three ‘Fun’ segments found in the qualitative research.
There is a medium to high risk of future drug use amongst this segment.
Reality Swappers are unhappy and want to escape the real world. In fact, they have the lowest life
satisfaction of any segment (in particular, most have problems in their life, say they don’t like their life
and don’t feel in control).
They are less likely than the Fun Seeker segment to seek out fun (less likely to agree with the
statements ‘I do what it takes to have a good time’ or ‘I like to party a lot’). They are also less positive
about illicit drugs than the Fun Seekers segment, although they are open to drug use and many say
they need drugs to cope with life.
They are the segment most likely to have ever taken any illicit drug (86%). Specifically this segment
was the most likely to take LSD, mushrooms and ice if offered by a friend, and was the segment most
likely to be taking drugs by themselves.
This is the second oldest segment (76% are aged 18-24 years) and has a female skew (57%). The
Reality Swappers segment is a combination of the two Reality segments found in the qualitative
research.
There is medium to high risk of future drug use amongst this segment.
Page | 112
Age by segment
There were substantial differences in age between segments. The Conservative Rejector segment was
the youngest (56% aged 12-17 years), followed by the Risky Rejectors and the Neutrals. The three drug
using segments were older, with the Occasionals segment being the oldest (83% aged 18-24 years).
Figure 39: Segments by age
Base: 12-24 year olds (n=1600).
Page | 113
Attitudes to life across segments
As well as positive or negative attitudes to drugs, the two dimensions which had the strongest influence
on differentiating the segments were whether outlook on life was positive or negative and whether they
had a conservative or adventurous mind-set.
As is shown in the figure below, the Fun Seekers (a drug using segment) and Risky Rejectors had the
most positive outlook on life. The Fun Seekers were also the most adventurous, followed by the Reality
Swappers (a drug using segment), Risky Rejectors, Occasionals and then Neutrals. The Conservative
Rejectors were the most conservative in their outlook and also slightly negative about life.
Figure 40: Segments mapped on the two key attitudes to life
Page | 114
The first key differentiating attitude was therefore that the two heaviest drug using groups differed
dramatically from each other in terms of life satisfaction. Reality Swappers were seriously unhappy with
their life while the Fun Seekers were the most satisfied of all the segments. The two Rejector segments
also differed on this dimension with the Risky Rejectors liking their life more than the Conservative
Rejectors. The Neutrals appear the second least likely to ‘like their life’ but they also had a low level of
disagreement to this statement, and their low rating is a function of their propensity to respond with
‘prefer not to say’, ‘don’t know’ or ‘neither agree nor disagree’. These findings are illustrated in the figure
below.
Figure 41: I like my life
Base: Total sample (n=1600).
Page | 115
Given their dissatisfaction with life, it is unsurprising that the Reality Swappers were the most likely to
want to escape the ‘real world’. They were followed by the other drug using segments – the Fun
Seekers and the Occasionals - in agreeing with this second differentiating sentiment. The Risky
Rejectors were almost equal to the Occasionals on this dimension, indicating that they may be at future
risk of drug use.
Figure 42: I like to escape the real world
Base: Total sample (n=1600).
Page | 116
Furthermore, the Risky Rejectors were equal to the Fun Seekers in ‘doing what it takes’ to make sure
they have a good time. Being conservative, the majority of Conservative Rejectors disagreed with this
statement.
Figure 43: I’ll do what it takes to make sure I have a great time
Base: Total sample (n=1600).
Page | 117
Finally, the Conservative Rejectors also do not like to take risks and are very different in this sense from
the Risky Rejectors. The two key drug using segments were the most likely to like to take risks.
Figure 44: I like to take risks
Base: Total sample (n=1600).
Page | 118
Attitudes to drugs across segments
The charts below detail the results by segment for a few of the statements which most influenced the
segmentation. The Rejector segments have had very little exposure to illicit drugs, although the Risky
Rejectors have slightly more than the Conservative Rejectors. The Neutrals segment are the least likely
to admit that most of their close friends have taken illicit drugs, this is likely to be because they appear
reluctant to admit to anything.
Figure 45: Most of my close friends have taken illegal drugs
Base: Total sample (n=1600).
Page | 119
Both Rejector segments perceive all illicit drugs to be harmful. The Occasionals were the drug using
segment least likely to think that all illicit drugs are harmful. These are very ‘light’ drug users and so are
more likely to have only had positive experiences with drugs. The Reality Swappers are likely to have
had the most direct negative experiences with drugs. Very few of the Neutrals agreed or disagreed with
this statement.
Figure 46: All illegal drugs are harmful
Base: Total sample (n=1600).
Page | 120
Not surprisingly, the more regular drug using segments are more likely to perceive drugs as fun. The
Rejector segments are very negative about drugs. Very few of the Neutrals agreed or disagreed with
this statement.
Figure 47: Illegal drugs can be fun
Base: Total sample (n=1600).
Page | 121
The Fun Seekers are the most experimental when it comes to illicit drugs while Reality Swappers are
more selective and particular in the drugs they use.
Figure 48: I like to experiment with a range of different illegal drugs
Base: Total sample (n=1600).
Page | 122
The Reality Swappers are more likely than the Fun Seekers (33% vs. 23%) to use drugs as a necessity
to cope with life.
Figure 49: I use illegal drugs to help me cope with life
Base: Total sample (n=1600).
Page | 123
Drug use patterns across segments
Almost all the Fun Seekers and Reality Swappers have had the opportunity to use an illicit drug in the
past 12 months. Less than one third of the Rejector segments and the Neutrals claim that they have
had the opportunity to use illicit drugs in the past 12 months.
Figure 50: Been offered an illegal drug in past 12 months
Base: 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
Page | 124
The majority of the Reality Swappers, Fun Seekers and Occasionals segments are at risk of taking an
illicit drug if offered by a friend.70 The figure below shows the ‘nett’ figure across all illicit drugs and the
percentage within each segment that would not reject outright an offer of illicit drugs.
Even amongst the Rejector segments, there is a substantial minority (ranging from 18% to 26%) who
are possibly at risk (primarily from accepting marijuana).
Figure 51: At risk of using drugs if offered by a friend (definitely/probably yes/probably no)
Base: 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
Any person who would not definitely say no to the offer of drugs from a friend was classed as ‘at risk’ of using that drug - Q8 If a friend
offered you each of the drugs below in a situation where they were using it, would you definitely say yes and take it, probably say yes,
probably say no, or definitely say no?
Page | 125
70
The Reality Swappers are at greater risk of using some of the hallucinogenic drugs than the Fun
Seekers, in particular mushrooms, LSD and ice. Even the Rejector segments contain some members
who are at risk of taking marijuana if offered by a friend.
Table 30: At risk of using drugs if offered by a friend (definitely/probably yes/probably no)
Column %
Total
Sample
Conservative
Rejectors
Risky
Rejectors
Neutrals
Occasionals
Fun
Seekers
Reality
Swappers
Marijuana
37
17-
25-
37
74+
88+
84+
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
18
3-
7-
26
31+
67+
67+
Mushrooms
18
3-
8-
26
33+
54+
67+
LSD/acid
12
2-
4-
18
23+
43+
56+
Cocaine
17
2-
4-
34+
33+
54+
57+
Speed
12
3-
3-
20+
19+
42+
39+
Ice
7
2-
3-
16+
8
20+
29+
Heroin
6
2-
3-
17+
5
13+
16+
Base: Total sample (n=1600).
Twenty-eight per cent of 15-24 year olds claim that they have ever used an illicit drug. Lifetime use of
illicit drugs increases across the segment spectrum from 9% for the Conservative Rejectors to 93% for
the Reality Swappers, (with 17% for Risky Rejectors, 21% for Neutrals, 64% for Occasionals and 82%
for Fun Seekers).71
Figure 52: Ever used an illicit drug
Base: 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
Note that the segmentation is based upon attitudes to life and drugs and not behaviour. That is why a very small proportion of the
Rejector segments have claimed to have ever used illicit drugs.
Page | 126
71
As expected, the Rejector segments report very low trial of illicit drugs. However, the Risky Rejectors
are more likely than the Conservative Rejectors to have trialled tobacco, alcohol and marijuana. The
Fun Seekers are the most experimental, with a wide repertoire of drug use. As a segment, the
Occasionals are much more likely to have used marijuana and ecstasy than other drugs.
Table 31: Drugs ever used
Column n
Tobacco
Alcohol
Marijuana
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
LSD/acid
Mushrooms
Cocaine
Speed
Ice
Heroin
Medicines (when you’re not sick)
Any other illegal drug
Base: 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
Page | 127
Total
Sample
(n=1300)
Conservative
Rejectors
(n=431)
Risky
Rejectors
(n=396)
Neutrals
(n=156)
Occasionals
(n=42)
Fun
Seekers
(n=95)
Reality
Swappers
(n=64)
33
66
24
9
4
4
4
6
2
0
8
1
165471000000
30-
29
68
142100110
50
2550157
02
3
5
1
1
4
0
59+
84+
57+
21+
7+
9+
12+
14+
2
0
17+
1
74+
85+
77+
38+
23+
26+
20+
32+
15+
3+
22+
5+
84+
95+
82+
44+
16+
11+
15+
25+
12+
3+
26+
7+
The difference between the 2000 and 2012 quantitative segments
The key difference between the 2000 and 2012 quantitative segmentations is the appearance of a new
Rejector segment – the Risky Rejectors. In the 2000 segmentation,72 the two Rejector segments were
both very negative about illicit drugs and did not need to add excitement to their lives. They were
primarily differentiated by their outlook on life:

the Cocooned Rejectors were not particularly happy or secure in their lives, and did not feel in
control; while

the Considered Rejectors were happy with their lives and did feel in control.
In the 2012 segmentation, the two Rejector segments were also very negative about illicit drugs but one
segment (Conservative Rejectors) had a negative outlook on life while the other (Risky Rejectors) had a
positive outlook on life. Similar to the Cocooned Rejectors, the Conservative Rejectors also did not want
to take risks or add excitement to their life. However, unlike the Considered Rejectors in 2000, the 2012
Risky Rejectors did want to add excitement to their lives.
This Risky Rejector segment is one that did not exist in the 2000 segmentation. Back then, those who
rejected drugs also did not want to add excitement to their life. The current segmentation points to the
risk that, as this Risky Rejector segment ‘grows up’, their willingness to try new experiences may
increasingly expose them to seeking experimentation with illicit drugs.
Figure 53: Summary of the 2000 vs. 2012 quantitative segments
Clark G, Scott N and Cook S (2003). Blue Moon Research and Planning. Formative research with young Australians to assist in the
development of the national Illicit Drugs Campaign (2000). Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing, Canberra.
Page | 128
72
POTENTIAL COMMUNICATION APPROACHES
In the qualitative research, a range of advertising was used to explore young people’s responses to the
different communications about drugs. The ads shown were from a number of countries, including UK,
USA, New Zealand and Australia, and were selected to provide a broad range of messages and
tonality. The ads shown were not in any way being endorsed by the Department.
These ads included the following:

‘Eyes’, an ad focusing on drug-driving (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dytCWrf92zc);

‘Meth Project - Junkie Den’, an ad focusing on the power of addiction
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHGTqR9cLqs);

‘That’s Illegal’, an ad focusing on choice (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q1WQKL1Yps);

‘Anti Drug Commercial Campaign’, an ad incorporating a human story
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTDXDTNooIQ);

‘Dog’, an ad incorporating a more humorous approach
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgJdVEoVbgg);

‘Anti Drug Ad’, an ad focusing on unknown ingredients in drugs
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqZ3Xvzav50);

‘They don’t just effect you’, an ad focusing on the impact drug use can have on others
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJchFzSaZgw); and

‘Frank Cannabis’, an ad focusing on the mental effects of drug taking
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-_g5Cdc0BY).
Harm minimisation
Messages revolving around harm minimisation as opposed to zero tolerance appear to be the most
credible among the majority of the audiences (with the exception of Cocooned Rejectors). Messages
that implicitly recognise that young people do take drugs are deemed to be more credible than those
which do not. This is especially so if messages provide information and guidance to help young people
take better care of themselves. This type of information is felt to be relevant, helpful and is seen to
come from a position that better understands young people and their needs.
“I like that one ... it’s not telling me what to do, it’s just telling me to do it safely.”73
Credible consequences
Messages that convey credible consequences can also be engaging. Young people do appear to be
open to hearing about the consequences of drug use and understanding consequences is widely
believed to be the best deterrent for using particular drugs. However, it seems to be important that
these consequences are grounded in the shared experience of the drug. Any consequence that feels
overblown is likely to be seen as scare mongering and therefore be less likely to be considered or have
an impact.
“God, that’s scary. The worst thing is you know that it can happen.”74
Focus group participant, GfK Blue Moon, July 2012.
Focus group participant, GfK Blue Moon, July 2012.
Page | 129
73
74
Providing tools for drug rejection
Providing tools to help young people confidently reject certain drugs may have some potential. A key
trigger to trial in many cases is the desire to ‘fit in’ and occasionally more overt peer pressure. ‘Just say
no’ is an old message that genuinely lacks credibility for many. However, the premise of giving young
people permission to make their own choices can be quite powerful. None of the ads tested truly
achieved this but there does appear to be potential in the territory.
“We all love to make choices and I think it would be helpful if an ad reinforced that it
was ok to make the choice that I want to.”75
Storytelling
Storytelling is a powerful method of capturing the attention and imagination of the youth audience. Ads
that provide genuine human stories appear to create the strongest connection with the audience.
Storytelling has a strong fit with their entertainment preferences and this alone can create engagement.
Stories appear to generate considerable empathy among young people and they can also cause them
to question how their own story might play out in similar circumstances.
“Wow, that really hit home just because you felt like you went on a journey with
him.”76
Humour
Humour is not rejected as an approach per se but it does have some limitations and barriers to
success. It requires a careful and clever execution. Young people do not appear to be overly concerned
about using humour to deliver messages about drugs. For some humour can be a way of capturing their
attention on a topic that is different and engaging. However, it can easily fall flat and any humour must
have broad appeal that is easily understood. Without such a broad appeal there is a risk that humorous
ads could create confusion and could fail to deliver the message.
“Humour in ads can catch your attention, but for this topic, for drugs, I think that
humour isn’t really that appropriate. It’s not a funny issue.”77
“You want to avoid making light of the drug question and using humour in drug ads
could make them easier to ignore or seem less important.”78
Abstract approaches
Abstract approaches tend to lose people’s attention especially if the purpose of communication is not
clearly stated up front. Some ads that were tested used an abstract approach that did not seem to make
their purpose clear. These ads tended to lose people’s attention and few were certain about what was
happening (despite being in a group talking about drugs). While it could be argued that some initial
confusion may create a level of engagement the response to such advertising is often not what was
intended. Rather than listen to the message the primary motivation for engagement is to be able to
establish the purpose of the ad. Once this is known the message can often become lost or ignored.
“It took so long to get to the point. At first I wanted to know what it was about and
then it was just annoying.”79
Focus group participant, GfK Blue Moon, July 2012.
Focus group participant, GfK Blue Moon, July 2012.
77 Focus group participant, GfK Blue Moon, July 2012.
78 Focus group participant, GfK Blue Moon, July 2012.
79 Focus group participant, GfK Blue Moon, July 2012.
Page | 130
75
76
Impact on others
Communicating the impact of drug use on other people can be a powerful motivator if the impacts are
seen as credible. Young people tend to be especially concerned about the impact of their behaviour on
others and their personal relationships are often considered to be highly important. As such
communicating about credible consequences of drug use on others may be a powerful message.
However, it is clear that these consequences must be grounded in the shared experience, be
recognisable and credible.
“It makes you think about what you’re doing, and how it affects others that’s quite
powerful.”80
Acknowledgement
Any communications that tacitly acknowledge that drug use happens for a reason tend to be more
credible. All young people know that people take drugs for a reason and that the benefits are potentially
compelling. This includes those who have never taken drugs, who also acknowledge that there must be
underlying reasons why people take drugs. Communications that implicitly acknowledge this are
perceived to be more credible than a simple ‘drugs are bad’ approach. This type of communication is
felt to demonstrate an understanding of young people’s motivations which in turn works to make the
messages more credible.
“It doesn’t just feel like old people preaching to me. It feels like it’s from someone who
understands a little bit about me.”81
Focus group participant, GfK Blue Moon, July 2012.
Focus group participant, GfK Blue Moon, July 2012.
Page | 131
80
81
CONCLUSIONS
Current perceptions of drugs
In terms of perceptions, illicit drugs appear to be clustered in four tiers (as shown in Figure 54).
Figure 54: Summary of current perceptions of specific drugs
Marijuana is perceived to be harmless on the whole, there are few if any reports of its adverse effects
and it is seen as both pure/natural and clean. Ecstasy is seen as potentially harmful but only compared
to marijuana and is a party/fun drug. Mushrooms share some of the perceived elements of both
marijuana (natural/clean) and ecstasy (party/fun). Next in perceived harm/seriousness are LSD, cocaine
and speed - all seen as both more dangerous and less fun than marijuana, ecstasy and mushrooms.
Heroin and ice are seen as the most dangerous and harmful. Consequently, they fit the ‘junkie’ user
stereotype and are simply not seen as fun. These are instead in the serious drug user category.
Current usage
Usage of some drugs appears to have declined.82 Currently, internal and external factors appear to
have damaged the drug ‘brands’ below and are limiting their use and popularity for the following
reasons:

Ecstasy – use is currently declining possibly due to the perception that pills rarely contain MDMA
and/or the National Drugs Campaign ecstasy focused communications (however, this may soon
change as global trends are indicating that MDMA may make a resurgence into Australia);

Speed - perceptions of speed have worsened, it is considered to be a dirty, downmarket drug;

Ice (the use, and desire to use) – perceptions of ice appear to have worsened and the 2007-2010
National Drugs Campaign targeting ice is likely to have had a significant impact on usage and
perceptions;

Heroin (the use, and desire to use) – continuing from the reduction in supply a decade ago;
-

on the other hand, it appears that usage of other drugs may have increased.83
Marijuana use has increased in the short term, in the context of a long term decline. Likely to be
an alternative to MDMA-free ecstasy. However, if the backlash against tobacco and smoking
continues, then marijuana usage may continue its long term decline.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2011). 2010 National Drug Strategy Household Survey report. Drug statistics series no. 25.
Cat. No. PHE 145. Canberra: AIHW. Noting that usage is not dependent only on demand but also on supply/availability.
83 Noting that usage is not dependent only on demand but also on supply/availability.
Page | 132
82

Hallucinogens (LSD and mushrooms) – used by some to obtain the mind-altering experience
that is now missing from pills/ecstasy. However, use is self-limiting and trial is unlikely to progress
to regular use;

Cocaine – perceptions of its effects are very positive and it is extremely aspirational. It is possibly
also replacing some ecstasy use. However, cost and supply are limiting use; and

Pharmaceuticals for non-medical purposes – some of which could possibly be an alternative to
MDMA-free ecstasy.
We have a hypothesis for the decline in ecstasy use and increasing use of other drugs (from 2007 to
2010).84 It is our view that the change in composition of ecstasy pills has influenced the decline in
recent usage of ecstasy between 2007 and 2010. And, furthermore, that this has led (at least in part) to
the increase in recent usage of cannabis, cocaine, hallucinogens and pharmaceuticals to fill the gap.
The patterns of drug use may differ markedly if MDMA is returned to the Australian market in greater
quantities.
Potential for increased future use
Ecstasy and cocaine have the most potential for increased usage in the future, if certain market
conditions change.
In the case of ecstasy, it is very likely that lapsed users would return to ecstasy if MDMA (or an
alternative) was reintroduced to ecstasy pills, or if MDMA capsules reduced in price. This could have a
dramatic impact on the drug landscape generally, as it may then reduce the usage of other drugs (in
particular, hallucinogens, marijuana and cocaine).
The current limitations on increasing cocaine use are limited supply and a high price. If supply
increases, price is likely to decrease. This is likely to increase frequency of use amongst current users,
and introduce new users to the drug. Furthermore, the key perceptual factor currently suppressing trial
of cocaine is that it is addictive. There is a danger that this perception could be eroded once new users
see that they are able to safely use it occasionally and/or observe safe use by others.
Implications for future communications by individual drug
The changes to the drug landscape identified from this research (both qualitative and quantitative
phases), as well as the NDSHS, the EDRS85 and law enforcement supply data, have implications for
future communications, particularly for ecstasy, cocaine and ice.
Ecstasy
Continue the ‘you don’t know what’s in it’ message in any future communications as this message is
likely to have increased in credibility in recent years with the perceptions of reduced MDMA content.
However, explore shifting (or adding) the focus from non-drug adulterants to dangerous illicit drug
ingredients (such as methamphetamine, ketamine and PMA), with the inference that most pills don’t
contain MDMA. Any communication should distance itself from the positive imagery of the ecstasy
name (particularly now that it rarely contains MDMA). Many young people are calling the drug ‘pills’ but
this could cause confusion with pharmaceuticals. Consider renaming to ‘ecstasy pills’ in
communications. A close watch would need to be placed upon the composition of ‘ecstasy’ tablets.
Once MDMA is commonly available again, this message could reduce in credibility to recent users.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2011). 2010 National Drug Strategy Household Survey report. Drug statistics series no. 25.
Cat. No. PHE 145. Canberra: AIHW.
85 National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales (2012). Australian Drug Trends 2012: Findings from the
Ecstasy and Related Drugs Reporting System (EDRS).
Page | 133
84
Furthermore, the drug perceptions map indicates that amongst the total sample of 15-24 year olds,
ecstasy profiles in a similar way to three others - LSD, mushrooms and speed. Consequently, the
negative perceptions of LSD and speed could possibly be leveraged to reduce ecstasy use.
Cocaine

Cocaine remains a scary drug to non-trialists (particularly regarding addiction). However, once it is
experienced, users may not perceive any negatives to occasional use. Explore communication
options further if supply increases and price declines.
Heroin, Ice and Speed

There doesn’t seem to be any current need to communicate to young people specifically about
these drugs. However, there are early warning indicators (from the EDRS) that use of ice may
have rebounded in 2011 and 2012. This needs to be monitored carefully and if usage continues to
increase, the ice campaign could be revisited.
Marijuana

Using marijuana is perceived by young people to be very low risk, with widespread positive
personal experience. Any messages to the contrary are not likely to be credible. A campaign such
as the 2010 National Drugs Campaign (Phase four Stage two) ‘What A Waste’ campaign is likely to
primarily impact heavier users.
Hallucinogens (mushrooms and LSD)

While trial of these drugs is increasing, usage is self-limiting and there is little risk of conversion to
regular use.
Implications: Which segment to target?
One of the aims of the National Drugs Campaign is to ‘reduce young Australians’ motivation to take up
illicit drugs by increasing their knowledge about the potential negative consequences of drug use’.
Therefore, the primary target of ongoing communications should clearly be the Risky Rejector segment.
While this segment currently rejects illicit drugs, they are open to other people taking drugs. They are
also not conservative in their attitudes but are open to additional excitement in their lives. They are also
more influenced by friends than other segments. Therefore, if their friends start experimenting with
drugs, they are likely trialists. Their attitudes to life are very similar to the Fun Seeker segment. As they
get older, they may start to trial drugs by moving to the Fun Seeker segment (directly or via the
Occasionals segment). It is likely that a younger Risky Rejector is more likely to switch segments (i.e.
trial drugs and move to the Occasionals or Fun Seekers segment) than an older Risky Rejector.
Therefore, if prevention of trial of any drug is the campaign objective, younger Risky Rejectors should
be targeted (i.e. 12-17 year olds).
Figure 55: Implications: Which segment to target?
Page | 134
If a secondary target is required or if an intervention strategy is planned, then the Fun Seekers should
be considered as this segment is one of the segments at greatest risk of future illicit drug use (the
Reality Swappers is the other but they are best reached via community based intervention/treatment).
While the Occasionals are also drug users, their use is more occasional and generally very controlled.
Implications: Ideal segment response to communications activities
While it is difficult to predict how each segment will respond to particular communications activities
without testing the future materials within each segment, below is an outline of the ideal response to
communication activities by segment.
Conservative Rejectors – This group doesn’t need to be targeted directly (apart from continued school
based programs) as they are unlikely to trial drugs or take risks in the short to medium term (although
long term, a minority may eventually move to the Occasionals and/or Reality Swappers segments).
Risky Rejectors – Ideally, any communications to this segment (on top of continuing school based
programs) would prevent them from trialling illicit drugs. If successful, the majority of this segment will
stay where they are or transition to the Neutrals segment (they are unlikely to ever become
Conservative Rejectors as their outlook on life is adventurous).
Neutrals – This segment need not be targeted directly. They are either ambivalent toward drugs or they
belong to one of the other drug using segments (but didn’t want to admit it). Therefore, they will be
covered by the approaches targeting other segments.
Occasionals – The majority of this segment is likely to remain as Occasionals (with some moving to the
Neutrals segment), but with harm minimisation messages and tools, ideally they won’t experiment with
more harmful drugs or increase their frequency of use.
Fun Seekers – A successful campaign would see a substantial minority of this segment moving to the
Occasionals segment (with a few even transitioning back down to the Risky Rejectors or Neutrals
segments). With harm minimisation messages and tools, ideally those who remain in the Fun Seekers
segment won’t move onto regular use of more harmful drugs or increase their frequency of drug use.
Reality Swappers – This segment is likely to ignore any mainstream campaign activity. The Reality
Swappers will need to be reached via community based intervention/treatment.
Effective communication approaches
The qualitative research identified some key communications pointers, and together with the
quantitative research results provides guidance as to which approaches would work with each segment:

harm minimisation messages appear to be most credible among the majority of audiences;
-

storytelling is a powerful method of capturing the attention and imagination of a youth audience;
-

particularly amongst the Risky Rejectors (and to a lesser extent amongst the Occasionals and
Fun Seekers), if the story is credible it would help inform them to make positive choices
regarding future drug use
messages that convey credible consequences can also be engaging;
-

except Conservative Rejectors
particularly among those segments with experience of taking drugs
providing tools to help young people confidently reject certain drugs can have potential, giving
them permission to make their own choices;
Page | 135
-

communicating the impact of drug use on other people can be a powerful motivator if the impacts
are credible;
-

if used, humour would be more successful for those segments with a positive attitude to life
(i.e. the Risky Rejectors and Fun Seekers)
any communications that tacitly acknowledge that drug use happens, and happens for a reason,
tends to be more credible providing impartial information to help young people make their own
decisions;86
-

this can work across all segments, with the exception of very heavy illicit drug users
humour is not rejected as an approach but it is risky and does seem to require a careful and clever
execution, perhaps to give youth a way to reject drugs;
-

particularly to help the Rejector segments reject drugs altogether, and to assist the
Occasionals and Fun Seekers to reject increasing frequency of drug use and use of more
harmful drugs
particularly for those with prior drug use experience
abstract approaches tend to lose people’s attention and ideally, the purpose of communications
should be stated upfront.
Regarding channels of communication, the quantitative research showed that the internet is the first
port of call if young people wanted help or advice on illicit drugs (62% would search the internet or go to
an online forum). Therefore, the campaign should incorporate a strong online component. One option,
which would cover off many of the points above, would be to introduce an online information tool to
provide a long term source of objective, credible and detailed information on illicit drugs, their use and
effects. Obviously the information would need to be balanced very carefully, providing enough impartial
information to enable the harm minimisation messages to be accepted, but that drugs don’t appear so
appealing that more young people would be encouraged to experiment.
Parents are one of the last sources of advice or help regarding illicit drugs (23%), however, it is still
important that they are kept informed of the campaign issues. This could either be achieved via a
specific sub-campaign for parents, or through the youth campaign and online materials.
An example of this is the UK Talk to Frank campaign (http://www.talktofrank.com/) and website which provides objective information on
drugs and drug use, increasing the credibility of the campaign.
Page | 136
86
APPENDIX A: 2012 QUANTITATIVE SEGMENT CHARACTERISTICS
Conservative Rejectors
Who are they?
‘NOT FOR ME’
Conservative, don’t need/want excitement, less satisfied with life, negative attitudes to drugs and very
low drug use.
DRUGS AND DEMOGRAPHICS:
Youngest segment, 57% still at school, very low drug experience (9% ever used illicit drugs). Very low
risk of taking drugs if offered (18% would not definitely say no to illicit drugs if offered by a friend).
Low risk of drug use
Page | 137
ATTITUDES TO LIFE:
Conservative, worry about the future, risk averse, don’t want new experiences, less influenced by
friends, don’t like to take risks or party. Less satisfied with life than Risky Rejectors (have more
problems and less likely to ‘like my life’).
Figure 56: Conservative Rejectors Attitudes to Life
ATTITUDES TO DRUGS:
Very negative. Have little experience with drugs, friends don’t take drugs, no illegal drugs are OK, all
are harmful, frightened of drugs, lower than Risky Rejectors for ‘if people want to take illegal drugs it’s
their decision’.
Figure 57: Conservative Rejectors Attitudes to Drugs
Page | 138
Risky Rejectors
Who are they?
‘NOT FOR ME (YET!)’
Positive about life and open to new experiences/fun/excitement but currently not interested in drugs
(yet).
DRUGS AND DEMOGRAPHICS:
Second youngest segment, 46% still at school, slightly greater drug experience than the Conservative
Rejector segment (10% ever used marijuana). Although 55% have ever used alcohol (fourth highest
segment). Quite low risk of taking drugs if offered, but higher than Conservative Rejectors (25% would
not definitely say no to illicit drugs if offered by a friend).
Likely to be at risk of future drug use
Page | 139
ATTITUDES TO LIFE:
Positive about life and less conservative than Conservative Rejectors and want more excitement in their
life (less worried about the future and want to live for today, more willing to take risks, want new
experiences, like to party, want to escape the real world, do what it takes to have a good time,
interested in ways to enhance their experiences). They are also more influenced by friends. Their
attitudes to life are very similar to the Fun Seeker segment.
Figure 58: Risky Rejectors Attitudes to Life
ATTITUDES TO DRUGS:
Just as negative about illegal drugs as the Conservative Rejector segment with one key exception: they
are less judgemental, more likely to agree that ‘if people want to take illegal drugs, it’s their decision’.
Figure 59: Risky Rejectors Attitudes to Drugs
Page | 140
Neutrals
Who are they?
‘MIGHT BE FOR ME (BUT I’M NOT TELLING)’
Primarily neutral for both life and drug attitudes – could be attitudinal and/or scale neutrality (i.e. they
are secretive and don’t want to disclose).
DRUGS AND DEMOGRAPHICS:
Third youngest segment, 39% still at school, slightly greater drug experience than the Rejector
segments (13% ever used marijuana), male skew (64%). The drug use for this segment is likely to be
under-reported as they are reluctant to even report on their attitudes to drugs. Some in this segment
could be from the three drug using segments.
Mixed segment of low risk neutrals and higher risk drug users
Page | 141
ATTITUDES TO LIFE:
They are in the middle of the sample for most of the Attitudes to Life.
Figure 60: Neutrals Attitudes to Life
ATTITUDES TO DRUGS:
This segment really is ambivalent about illegal drugs. They are just as likely to agree as disagree to
most drug attitudinal statements (with the majority stating ‘neither agree nor disagree’, ‘don’t know’ or
‘prefer not to say’). They just don’t care, or they don’t want to disclose.
Figure 61: Neutrals Attitudes to Drugs
Page | 142
Occasionals
Who are they?
‘OCCASIONALLY FOR ME’
Occasionally use a limited number of drugs, controlling their risk.
DRUGS AND DEMOGRAPHICS:
Oldest segment, only 16% still at school, male skew (58%). Third greatest drug experience (strong
marijuana use with 52% ever used marijuana and 19% ever used ecstasy, tobacco is relatively low).
Quite open to trying marijuana if offered (74% would not definitely say no to illicit drugs if offered by a
friend), and one third at risk of trying ecstasy, mushrooms and cocaine.
Low to medium risk – limited controlled drug use
Page | 143
ATTITUDES TO LIFE:
They do have some problems but like their life and new experiences. They are reasonably conservative (don’t
want to just live for today, don’t like to take risks, don’t like to party a lot). However, the third most likely to want to
escape the real world.
Figure 62: Occasionals Attitudes to Life
ATTITUDES TO DRUGS:
This segment is the third most positive about illegal drugs. And the least likely to agree that ‘all illegal drugs are
harmful’. However, they would control their drug use risk – they are the segment ‘most likely to agree that ‘if I
were to use a specific illegal drug, I would first have to find out all of its effects’. While 44% agree that most of
their friends take illegal drugs, only 24% perceive that ‘using illegal drugs at my age is just normal these days’.
They don’t experiment with drugs (0%), indicating that they are single drug users.
Figure 63: Occasionals Attitudes to Drugs
Page | 144
Fun Seekers
Who are they?
‘FUN FOR ME’
Happy, secure, very open to new experiences and have many motivators to take drugs.
DRUGS AND DEMOGRAPHICS:
Third youngest segment, 31% still at school, slightly greater drug experience than the Rejector
segments (13% ever used marijuana). The drug use for this segment is likely to be under-reported as
they are reluctant to even report on their attitudes to drugs. Some in this segment could be from the
three drug using segments.
Medium to high risk of drug use
Page | 145
ATTITUDES TO LIFE:
They are very positive about life. In particular, they don’t really have any problems and they like their life.
They are very open to new experiences and interested in enhancing experiences. They want to live for today,
rather than worry about the future; do what it takes to have a good time, like to take risks and party a lot. They do
perceive that they are in control.
Figure 64: Fun Seekers Attitudes to Life
ATTITUDES TO DRUGS
The most positive about illegal drugs (the most interested, friends most likely to use, think that drug use is
normal, most likely to think drugs are OK and less likely than the Reality Swapper segment to think that they are
harmful) and the most likely to say they would experiment with different illegal drugs. They have many drug use
motivators - they are the most likely to perceive drugs to be fun, to use drugs to keep them going, to get things
done and to improve their reality.
Figure 65: Fun Seekers Attitudes to Drugs
Page | 146
Reality Swappers
Who are they?
‘NECESSARY FOR ME’
Open to drug use, unhappy and want to escape. Need to use drugs to cope with life.
DRUGS AND DEMOGRAPHICS:
Second oldest segment, 27% still at school, female skew (57%), second greatest drug experience (77%
ever used marijuana, 40% ever used ecstasy and use of second widest variety of drugs).
Over half wouldn’t reject marijuana, ecstasy, mushrooms, LSD and cocaine if offered. More likely (than
the Fun segment) to take LSD, mushrooms and ice if offered. The segment most likely to be taking
drugs by themselves.
Medium to high risk of drug use
Page | 147
ATTITUDES TO LIFE:
They are very negative about life. In particular, most have problems in their life and they don’t like their life. They
also don’t feel in control of their life (66%) and are the most likely to want to escape the real world (89%).
They are less likely than the Fun Seeker segment to need to be in control of their situation, to do what it takes to
have a good time and to party a lot.
Figure 66: Reality Swappers Attitudes to Life
ATTITUDES TO DRUGS:
Less positive about illegal drugs than the Fun Seeker segment (less likely to think drugs are OK and more likely
to think that they are harmful and more likely to perceive that illegal drugs just make your problems worse –
probably because they have had personal experience in this area). Also less likely than the Fun Seeker segment
to say they would experiment with different illegal drugs.
Importantly, they are the most likely to ‘use illegal drugs to help me cope with life’ (33%). They are using drugs to
cope and escape.
Figure 67: Reality Swappers Attitudes to Drugs
Page | 148
APPENDIX B: ADDITIONAL DATA
Drug Use
The table below details the proportion of 15-24 year olds who have used different drugs ever, in the last
12 months and in the last four weeks.
Table 32: Drugs personally ever used, by recency of illicit drug use
Total Sample
(n=1300)
Ever used illicit
drugs
(n=385)
Used illicit drugs
in last 12 months
(n=233)
Used illicit drug
in last 4 weeks
(n=100)
28
56
20
7
4
4
4
6
2
1
8
1
77+
92+
86+
32+
13+
14+
14+
21+
8+
2+
27+
4+
82+
93+
88+
38+
17+
20+
20+
31+
12+
3+
33+
4+
83+
92+
91+
55+
29+
32+
27+
46+
21+
6+
44+
10+
Tobacco
Alcohol
Marijuana
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
LSD/acid
Mushrooms
Cocaine
Speed
Ice
Heroin
Medicines (when you’re not sick)
Any other illegal drug
Base: Total 15-24 year olds.
The table below details the drugs ever used by age and shows the increase in prevalence by each year
from 12-24 years.
Table 33: Drugs personally used by age
AGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Tobacco
1-
6-
8-
19
21
19
37
28
30
36+
39+
48+
50+
Alcohol
12-
13-
32-
39-
58
52
71+
67
69+
68+
70+
79+
78+
Marijuana
1-
2-
5-
7-
14
18
27
25
22
27
31+
38+
32+
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
0
1-
0
1-
3
5
9
9
8
15+
12
15+
13
LSD/acid
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
3
5
5
7
6
Mushrooms
0
0
0
2
1
0
3
7
4
5
4
5
7
Cocaine
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
5
8+
6
8
6
Speed
0
0
0
1
1-
2
3
8
5
9
10
9
10
Ice
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
4
1
4
4
2
3
Heroin
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
1
Medicines (when
you’re not sick)
0
0
0
2-
2
4
8
12
9
8
11
8
12
Base: 12-24 year olds (n=1600).
Note that 12-14 year olds were only asked about tobacco, alcohol, marijuana and ecstasy.
Page | 149
The table below details the drugs used in the past year by age. For most drugs, drugs used in the past
year appear to peak at around 19 years of age.
Table 34: Drugs used in the last year by age
AGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Tobacco
1-
6-
8-
19
211
19
37 6 28
308
36+
19
39+
48+ 21 50+
Alcohol
12-
13-
32-
39-
58
52
71+
67
69+
68+
70+
79+
78+
Marijuana
1-
2-
5-
7-
14
18
27
25
22
27+
31+
38+
32+
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
0
1-
0
1-
3
5
9
9
8
15+
12
15+
13
LSD/acid
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
3
5
5
7
6
Mushrooms
0
0
0
2
1
0
3
7
4
5
4
5
7
Cocaine
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
5
8+
6
8
6
Speed
0
0
0
1
1-
2
3
8
5
9
10
9
10
Ice
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
4
1
4
4
2
3
Heroin
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
0
1
Medicines (when
you’re not sick)
0
0
0
2-
2
4
8
12
9
8
11
8
12
Base: 12-24 year olds (n=1600).
Note that 12-14 year olds were only asked about tobacco, alcohol, marijuana and ecstasy.
The sample sizes are very small, but amongst this sample speed was most likely to be smoked or
snorted, ice was smoked, cocaine was snorted and heroin was smoked.
Table 35: Mode of drug ingestion
Speed
(n=11)
Ice
(n=4)
Cocaine
(n=8)
Heroin
(n=2)
Smoke it
51
71
0-
100
Sniff/snort it
60
0
71
0
Inject it
0
29
16
0
Eat it/take orally
21
0
21
0
Other (specify)
0
0
0
0
Don’t know
0
0
0
0
Base: Used each drug in the past 4 weeks (n=2 to n=11).
Use with caution, very small sample sizes.
Page | 150
19
3
Dangerous and fun perceptions of drugs
Heroin and ice are the most likely to be perceived as dangerous drugs (76% and 74% very dangerous,
respectively). These were followed by cocaine (64% very dangerous), LSD/acid (63% very dangerous),
speed (63% very dangerous) and ecstasy (61% very dangerous). Mushrooms and marijuana trailed
behind somewhat with less than a third (31%) classifying marijuana as ‘very dangerous’, and less than
a half (47%) perceiving mushrooms to be very dangerous.
Table 36: Perceived dangerousness of drugs – 15-24 year olds
Very
dangerous
Quite
dangerous
Neither
Not very
dangerous
Not at all
dangerous
Don't know
Tobacco
23-
40+
14+
17+
2
5-
Alcohol
16-
29+
23+
26+
3+
4-
Marijuana
27-
26
15+
22+
4+
5-
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
57+
28+
5-
3-
1-
7
Mushrooms
47-
26
8
4-
1
14+
LSD/ acid
63+
18-
5-
2-
1
10+
Cocaine
64+
22
4-
3-
1
7
Speed
63+
22
5-
2-
1-
8
Ice
74+
13-
3-
1-
1-
8
Heroin
76+
13-
3-
1-
1-
7
Row %
Base: 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
As shown in the table below, 12-14 year olds were more likely than 15-24 year olds to perceive that all
four drugs measured were very dangerous.
Table 37: Perceived dangerousness of drugs – 12-14 year olds
Row %
Very
dangerous
Quite
dangerous
Neither
Not very
dangerous
Not at all
dangerous
Don't know
Alcohol
24
36
13
17
1
9
Tobacco
34
45
8
7
0
5
Marijuana
43
31
6
7
1
12
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
75
12
0
1
0
11
Base: 12-14 year olds (n=300).
Note that 12-14 year olds were only asked about these four substances.
Page | 151
As shown in the table below, not surprisingly, amongst 15-24 year olds, tobacco is considered to be the
least fun (no fun at all/not very fun). Alcohol and then marijuana are perceived to be the most fun
followed by ecstasy and mushrooms.
Table 38: Perception of how fun individual drugs are (15-24 year olds)
Row %
No Fun at
all
Not very
fun
Neither
Quite Fun
Lots of Fun
Don't know
Alcohol
15-
7-
16+
34+
16+
12-
Marijuana
31-
8
12+
19+
7+
23-
Mushrooms
36
9
7-
9
4-
35+
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
37
8-
8-
11
6
30
LSD/acid
39
10
6-
8-
4
34+
Speed
40+
10
8-
7-
3-
32+
Tobacco
40+
16+
19+
5-
2-
18-
Cocaine
40+
9
7-
7-
4
32+
Ice
43+
10
8
3-
1-
34+
Heroin
46+
10
7-
3-
1-
34+
Base: 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
Amongst the four drugs asked of 12-14 year olds, tobacco is considered to be the least fun and alcohol
the most fun.
Table 39: Perception of how fun individual drugs are (12-14 year olds)
Row %
No Fun at
all
Not very
fun
Neither
Quite Fun
Lots of Fun
Don't know
Alcohol
35
8
17
19
3
18
Marijuana
49
8
8
5
3
28
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
54
6
5
4
1
30
Tobacco
56
13
8
3
1
18
Base: 12-14 year olds (n=300).
Page | 152
Drug perceptions
The table below details the relative perceptions of different drugs amongst 15-24 year olds.
Table 40: Drug perceptions (15-24 year olds)
%
Can cause problems with
friends or family
Can make a person lazy
Is addictive
Can lead to long-term health
problems
Can cause mental health
problems
Can help a person to relax
Helps a person escape from
reality
Effects are unpredictable
Makes a person lose control
of their life
Can make some people
aggressive
Makes the world seem
better
Is natural
Makes people freak out
Makes people overconfident
You don’t know what’s in it
Makes things seem more
intense
Has bad
comedowns/hangovers
Is a party drug
Can cause immediate
serious harm when taken
Is expensive
Is not a problem if you just
use it occasionally
Is a good drug to have with
friends
Makes people feel more
connected
Is a fun drug
Can help manage drug
comedowns/hangovers
Is a clean drug
Alcohol
Marijuana
Ecstasy
(MDMA)
/pills
Mushrooms
LSD/
acid
Cocaine
Ice
Heroin
83
74-
77
69
78
81
79
81
82
58
65-
71+
70
2763
34
36-
35
60
37
82+
2574
32
79+
37
86+
80
70-
73
58
73
79
78
77
86+
65-
69
73
68
73
75
77+
79+
84+
77+
65+
23-
29
15-
26
10-
13-
24-
71
62
54+
55+
50
53
50
50
61+
62-
61-
68
62-
73+
72
72
71
73
65-
59-
64
47
65
70
72
75+
83+
89+
52-
59
34-
55
67
71+
64
64
48
52+
40
34
26
32
23-
24-
30
29+
3883+
23-
50+
494542-
2
66
54+
76+
36+
61
3249
768+
44
74+
865
58+
71
670+
53
75+
569+
47
76+
664
4070
46-
41-
54
34
52+
55+
55+
45
47
77+
41-
50
34-
47
57
56
58
67+
70+
41-
59+
29-
43
56+
51
49
25-
35-
41-
65
43
62
70+
64
67+
74+
58
33-
52
28-
41
65+
47
51
59+
72+
32+
11-
14
11-
11-
12-
10-
2-
66+
30+
21
16
15
14-
12-
9-
4-
61+
30
25
21
17
18-
18
17-
14-
58+
28+
23
19
16
17
11-
10-
5-
14
26+
12
8
9
9
9
12
10
43+
22+
3-
12
8
9
5-
7
2-
Base: 15-24 year olds.
Note that each respondent was randomly allocated three of the drugs and half the statements.
The base size for each statement and each drug ranges from n=191 to n=253.
Page | 153
Speed
The drug perceptions among 12-24 year olds are detailed in the table below. Broadly, 12-14 year olds
were more negative than 15-24 year olds about alcohol, marijuana and ecstasy (higher ratings for the
negative attributes of alcohol and marijuana and lower ratings for the positive attributes of all three
drugs).
Table 41: Drug perceptions (12-14 year olds)
% Agree (ranked by marijuana)
Alcohol
Marijuana
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
Can cause problems with friends or family
80-
80
80
Is addictive
68-
75
68
Can lead to long-term health problems
73
74
70
Makes people freak out
55-
68
70+
Can cause mental health problems
58-
67
68
Effects are unpredictable
59
63
62
Makes a person lose control of their life
68
59
62
Can make a person lazy
57
58
40
Can make some people aggressive
72
55
55
You don’t know what’s in it
43-
54
69+
Can cause immediate serious harm when
taken
45-
54
62
Is expensive
62
51
51
Helps a person escape from reality
54
51
48
Is a party drug
68
48
63
Can help a person to relax
58
45
22-
Has bad comedowns/hangovers
74+
39-
44
Makes people overconfident
66
39
47
Makes things seem more intense
29
33
39
Is natural
15
28+
Makes the world seem better
35
27
23
Makes people feel more connected
36+
16
15
Can help manage drug
comedowns/hangovers
9
13
9
Is a fun drug
28+
12
8
Is not a problem if you just use it
occasionally
51+
9-
6-
Is a good drug to have with friends
25+
7
6
Is a clean drug
21+
5
2-
Base: 12-14 year olds.
Note that each respondent was randomly allocated half the statements.
The base for each statement ranges from n=132 to n=173.
Page | 154
2-
Perceptions of the drug users were examined by asking a series of statements for each drug user. The
table below details the drug user imagery for 15-24 year olds.
Table 42: Drug user imagery (15-24 year olds)
% Strongly
agree/agree
Alcohol
(n=471)
Marijuana
(n-440)
Ecstasy
(MDMA)/pills
(n-416)
LSD/acid
(n=459)
Mushrooms
(n=429)
Cocaine
(n=479)
Speed
(n=441)
Ice
(n=476)
Heroin
(n=447)
Junkies
9-
36
47
54+
41
62+
57+
68+
76+
Independent
5
7
2
4
2
3
1
1
3
Boring
8
9
7
6
7
8
6
7
9
Open-minded
12
19+
8
12+
17+
3-
3-
3-
2-
Anti-social
6-
21
13-
18
11
19
14
20
31
Psycho
4-
14-
28+
37+
26+
29+
33+
43+
41+
Cool
19+
7
3
2
1
4
2
3
2
Adventurous
14
12
17
15
21
6
11
5-
6-
Party animals
57+
20
42+
21
18+
25
29
19
14
Normal
46+
10+
3-
1-
2-
2-
2-
1-
0-
Laid back
22+
41+
5-
5-
18
4
3
2
4
Losers
13-
35+
30
32
33
39+
36+
43+
48+
Intense
6-
8-
19
21+
10
20+
24+
22+
19
Friendly
25+
12
4-
2-
6-
1-
2-
1-
1-
Interesting
12+
6
5
5
7
3
1-
2-
2-
Popular
26+
4
5
1
1
5
3
1
3
Creative
6
8+
3
9+
8+
2
1
0
1
Sophisticated
6+
2
1
1
1
5+
1
1
1
Base: 15-24 year olds.
Note that each respondent was asked randomly about three drugs.
Page | 155
The table below details attitudes to drugs by recency of illicit drug use.
Not surprisingly, the recent drug users are more likely to be positive about illicit drugs and to think illicit
drug use is normal for people their age. Furthermore, most of their friends have taken illicit drugs.
It is important to note that even those who have used illicit drugs in the past four weeks, are likely to
consider some illicit drugs in a negative light.
Table 43: Attitudes to drugs, by recency of drug use
Total Sample
(n=1300)
Ever used
illicit drugs
(n=385)
Used illicit
drugs in last
12 months
(n=233)
Used illicit
drug in last 4
weeks
(n=100)
I'm not interested in illegal drugs
73
46-
33-
18-
Illegal drugs just make your problems
worse
69
49-
42-
35-
All illegal drugs are harmful
69
52-
46-
40-
Illegal drugs frighten me
62
42-
33-
26-
If I were to use a specific illegal drug, I
would first have to find out all of its effects
50
63+
64+
61+
If people want to take illegal drugs, it’s
their decision
50
73+
80+
87+
I don’t really know much about illegal
drugs
42
27-
21-
17-
I can control my use of illegal drugs
24
57+
72+
80+
Most of my close friends have taken illegal
drugs
23
64+
73+
81+
Illegal drugs are only a problem if you let
them be
21
42+
53+
65+
Illegal drugs can be fun
19
55+
65+
79+
Some illegal drugs are OK
18
47+
60+
72+
Using illegal drugs at my age is just normal
these days
16
40+
48+
61+
I use illegal drugs to improve my reality
6
15+
19+
30+
I sometimes use illegal drugs to keep me
going
5
15+
18+
27+
I use illegal drugs to help me cope with life
5
14+
18+
24+
I like to experiment with a range of
different illegal drugs
5
13+
20+
31+
I take illegal drugs to help me get things
done
4
10+
13+
19+
% Strongly agree/agree
Base: Total 12-24 year olds.
Page | 156
Additional data by segment
The table below presents the general attitudes to life by segment. The Risky Rejector and Fun Seeker
segments are the most open to new experiences and happiest with their lives. The Conservative
Rejectors are very conservative and don’t like change or risk. The Reality Swappers are very unhappy
with their lives and have a lot of problems in life.
Table 44: Attitudes to life by segment
% Nett agree
Total
Sample
(n=1600)
Conservative
Rejectors
(n=558)
Risky
Rejectors
(n=510)
Neutrals
(n=188)
Occasionals
(n=156)
Fun
Seekers
(n=103)
Reality
Swappers
(n=69)
I like new
experiences
77
63-
96+
57-
81
94+
78
I like my life
72
69
86+
49-
76
94+
6-
I always like to be in
control of the
situations I’m in
72
67-
85+
46-
74
79
68
I’m interested in new
ways to enhance my
experiences
64
38-
91+
49-
66
88+
76
I like to escape the
real world
49
37-
54+
36-
56
73+
89+
I’ll do what it takes to
make sure I have a
great time
46
8-
85+
41
37-
83+
57
I’m often influenced
by my friends
39
27-
45+
36
41
63+
72+
You have to live for
today, rather than
worry about the
future
37
15-
56+
40
21-
79+
55+
I don’t really have
any problems in my
life
35
32
43+
35
23-
47+
2-
I like to take risks
32
6-
48+
35
25
75+
76+
I like to party a lot
28
7-
35+
34
20
85+
59+
I'm not really in
control of my life
20
17
18
25
17
17
66+
Base: Total Sample (n=1600).
Page | 157
The table below details attitudes to drugs by segment. Broadly, the segments which are more likely to
have used illicit drugs (Occasionals, Fun Seekers and Reality Swappers) are much more positive about
drugs than the segments unlikely to have used drugs (Conservative Rejectors and Risky Rejectors).
Table 45: Attitudes to drugs by segment
% Nett agree
I'm not interested in
illegal drugs
Illegal drugs just make
your problems worse
All illegal drugs are
harmful
Illegal drugs frighten me
If people want to take
illegal drugs, it’s their
decision
If I were to use a specific
illegal drug, I would first
have to find out all of its
effects
I don’t really know much
about illegal drugs
I can control my use of
illegal drugs
Most of my close friends
have taken illegal drugs
Illegal drugs are only a
problem if you let them
be
Illegal drugs can be fun
Some illegal drugs are
OK
Using illegal drugs at my
age is just normal these
days
I use illegal drugs to
improve my reality
I like to experiment with
a range of different
illegal drugs
I use illegal drugs to help
me cope with life
I sometimes use illegal
drugs to keep me going
I take illegal drugs to
help me get things done
Base: Total Sample (n=1600).
Page | 158
Total
Sample
(1600)
Conservative
Rejectors
(558)
Risky
Rejectors
(510)
72
96+
92+
9-
51-
21-
32-
69
88+
90+
5-
30-
42-
51-
68
90+
87+
6-
28-
37-
59
62
82+
80+
4-
35-
26-
31-
49
36-
56+
9-
82+
94+
88+
49
45-
53
5-
82+
74+
70+
41
55+
50+
6-
29-
19-
23-
23
9-
17-
4-
63+
84+
70+
22
9-
17-
3-
44+
81+
75+
21
9-
15-
5-
41+
85+
57+
19
4-
7-
6-
54+
88+
84+
17
2-
5-
2-
60+
83+
69+
15
5-
11-
5-
24+
75+
61+
5
1-
1-
3
6
35+
17+
4
1-
1-
3
0-
40+
13+
4
0-
2-
3
4
23+
33+
4
0-
1-
5
6
32+
21+
3
1-
1-
2
2
26+
10+
Neutrals
(188)
Occasionals
(156)
Fun
Seekers
(103)
Reality
Swappers
(69)
The table below shows that the Fun Seeker and Reality Swapper segments have had the greatest
opportunity to use all drugs. They were followed by the Neutrals segment, indicating that this segment
is exposed to drugs (particularly marijuana) and is likely to have under-reported their drug usage. The
two Rejector segments are the least likely to have had the opportunity to use illicit drugs.
Table 46: Offered drug by segment
% Yes
Total
Sample
(n=1300)
Conservative
Rejectors
(n=431)
Risky
Rejectors
(n=396)
Neutrals
(n=156)
Occasionals
(n=142)
Fun
Seekers
(n=95)
Reality
Swappers
(n=64)
Marijuana
32
17-
23-
53+
20-
86+
83+
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
15
5-
11-
21
8-
55+
59+
Mushrooms
6
0-
2-
14+
2-
31+
18+
LSD/acid
5
1-
1-
6
2-
37+
19+
Cocaine
6
1-
3-
12+
6
32+
19+
Speed
8
3-
4-
9
7
37+
29+
Ice
5
1-
4
5
2
24+
18+
Heroin
2
0
2
2
2
4
2
Medicines (when
you’re not sick)
10
6-
6-
14
5-
34+
37+
Other
2
1
1
2
1
8+
4
Base: 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
Page | 159
The trend of each segment is repeated for drugs used in the past year.
Table 47: Drugs used in the past year
Column n
Total
Sample
(n=1300)
Conservative
Rejectors
(n=431)
Risky
Rejectors
(n=396)
Neutrals
(n=156)
Occasionals
(n=142)
Fun
Seekers
(n=95)
Reality
Swappers
(n=64)
22
59
14
4
1
1
2
3
1
0
74620000000
1763
30000000
15
43700
1
0
1
1
1
42+
76+
32+
10+
1
2
3
3
2
0
61+
81+
61+
28+
11+
9+
14+
19+
10+
1+
66+
94+
61+
19+
6+
4
5+
13+
5+
1
4
1-
2
2
9+
14+
13+
0
0
0
0
0
4+
3+
Tobacco
Alcohol
Marijuana
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
LSD/acid
Mushrooms
Cocaine
Speed
Ice
Heroin
Medicines (when
you’re not sick)
Any other illegal drug
Base: 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
And for drugs used in the past four weeks.
Table 48: Drugs used in the past 4 weeks
Column
Total
Sample
(n=1300)
Conservative
Rejectors
(n=431)
Risky
Rejectors
(n=396)
Neutral
(n=156)
Occasionals
(n=142)
Fun
Seekers
(n=95)
Reality
Swappers
(n=64)
14
43
5
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
529000
0
0
0
0
0
944
000
0
0
0
0
0
10
312
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
24+
61+
10+
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
46+
70+
32+
15+
4+
1+
5+
7
1
0
41+
80+
23+
5
1
0
2
2
2+
0
1
0
1
1
2
6+
10+
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tobacco
Alcohol
Marijuana
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
LSD/acid
Mushrooms
Cocaine
Speed
Ice
Heroin
Medicines (when
you’re not sick)
Any other illegal drug
Base: 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
Page | 160
Males were more likely than females to be in the Neutrals segment. Females were more likely to be
Conservative Rejectors. Those aged 12-17 were more likely than those aged 18-24 to be in the
Conservative Rejectors segment. And the Risky Rejectors were over-represented in the 12-14 year old
group. The Occasionals were over-represented in the 18-24 year old group.
Table 49: Segments by gender and age
Total
Sample
Male
Female
12-14
15-17
18-20
21-24
Conservative Rejectors
36
33
40
43
51
29
28
Risky Rejectors
32
30
33
38
27
34
30
Neutrals
12
15
9
10
11
10
15
Occasionals
10
11
8
5
3
13
14
Fun Seekers
7
7
6
3
6
8
8
Reality Swappers
4
4
5
2
3
7
5
Column %
Base: 12-24 year olds (n=1600).
The Neutrals, Occasionals and Fun Seekers skewed towards males. The Reality Swappers were overrepresented by females.
Table 50: Child gender
Column %
Male
Female
Total
sample
Conservative
Rejectors
Risky
Rejectors
Neutrals
Occasionals
Fun
Seekers
Reality
Swappers
51
49
46
54
49
51
64
36
58
42
57
43
43
57
Base: Total sample (n=1600).
The non-using drug segments were the most likely to be at school. The Conservative Rejectors were
the most likely to be at school (57%), following by the Risk Rejectors (46%). The Occasionals, as the
oldest segment, were the least likely to still be at school (16%). Almost one third of each of the Fun
Seekers and Reality Swappers segments were still at school.
Table 51: Are you still attending school or have you left school?
Column %
Still attending
Left School
Rather not say
Total
sample
Conservative
Rejectors
Risky
Rejectors
Neutrals
Occasionals
Fun
Seekers
Reality
Swappers
44
55
1
57
43
0
46
54
0
39
59
2
16
84
1
31
69
1
27
73
0
Base: Total sample (n=1600).
Page | 161
ADDITIONAL TABLES CONTAINING DATA FROM GRAPHS IN MAIN BODY OF REPORT
Unprompted awareness of illicit drugs
Below is the data table for Figure 3: Unprompted awareness of illicit drugs (12-24 year olds).
Table 52: Unprompted awareness of illicit drugs (12-24 year olds)
Q2 And now some questions on drugs. Thinking about illegal drugs, what drugs can you name?
UNPROMPTED.
Drugs
NETT Marijuana etc.
NETT Meth/amphetamines
Cocaine/coke
NETT Ecstasy/E/eckies/MDMA
Heroin
NETT Ice/Crystal meth
Speed
NETT LSD/Acid
Methamphetamine/meth
Crack cocaine/crack
Magic mushrooms/shrooms
GHB
Amphetamines
Ketamine/Special K
Opium
PCP/phencyclidine
Tobacco/cigarettes
Alcohol
Steroids
Bath salts
Morphine
Other answers
Don't know
None
Base: 12-24 year olds (n=1600).
Page | 162
%
73
58
50
45
41
36
26
18
14
5
5
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
10
4
5
Drugs use summary – ever used, used in last year, used in last four weeks
Below is the data table for Figure 5: Drugs use summary – 15-24 year olds.
Table 53: Drug use summary – 15-24 year olds
Q9 Which, if any, of the following drugs have you personally ever used?
Q10 Which have you used in the last year?
Q11 And which have you used in the last four weeks?87
Used in last
four weeks
43
Used in last
year
59
Ever used
66
Tobacco
14
22
33
Marijuana
5
14
24
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
2
4
9
Medicines (when you’re not sick)
2
4
8
Speed
1
3
6
Cocaine
1
2
4
Mushrooms
0
1
4
LSD/acid
0
1
4
Ice
0
1
2
Heroin
0
0
1
Column %
Alcohol
Base: 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
Below is the data table for Figure 6: Drugs use summary – 12-14 year olds.
Table 54: Drug use summary – 12-14 year olds
Q9 Which, if any, of the following drugs have you personally ever used?
Q10 Which have you used in the last year?
Q11 And which have you used in the last four weeks?
Used in last
four weeks
Used in last
year
Ever used
Alcohol
4
17
19
Tobacco
2
4
5
Marijuana
1
2
3
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
0
1
1
Column %
Base: 12-14 year olds (n=300).
Note that less than 0.5% have used heroin in the last year or last 4 weeks.
Page | 163
87
Drug use in the past four weeks
Below is the data table for Figure 7: Number of days used each drug in past four weeks (among recent
users).
Table 55: Number of days used each drug in past four weeks (among recent users)
Q12 On how many days have you used (DRUG) in the last four weeks?
Mean days
used drug
in past 4
weeks
Marijuana
(n=69)
Cocaine
(n=8)
Alcohol
(n=589)
Medicines
(when you're
not sick
(n=22)
8.6
5.8
4.8
4.1
Ice
(n=4)
Heroin
(n=2)
3.7
3.1
Speed
(n=11)
Ecstasy
(MDMA)
/pills
(n=20)
Mushrooms
(n=3)
LSD/
acid
(n=6)
3.1
2.6
2.3
1.7
Base: 15-24 year olds who had used each drug in the past four weeks (sample size shown in brackets above).
Note: use with caution as very low sample sizes are indicated above in some instances.
Drug usage alone or with others
Below is the data table for Figure 8: Drug usage alone or with others.
Table 56: Drug usage alone or with others
Q13 Do you mostly use each of these drugs by yourself or with others?
Heroin
(n=5)
Cocaine
(n=22)
Ice
(n=16)
Marijuana
(n=182)
Speed
(n=36)
LSD/acid
(n=18)
Mushrooms
(n=18)
Ecstasy
(MDMA)/pills
(n=59)
Mostly by myself
26
17
21
8
11
9
6
2
Equally by myself and
with others
12
13
13
5
5
Mostly with others
61
70
79
84
85
Column %
79
Base: Used each drug in the past year (n=5 to n=182).
Note: Most drugs have very small sample sizes, use with caution.
Page | 164
4
94
94
Perceived drug use norms
Below is the data table for Figure 9: Estimate of percentage of peers who have tried each drug.
Table 57: Estimate of percentage of peers who have tried each drug
Q3 What percentage of people your age do you think have tried each of the following drugs at least
once? TYPE IN %.
Row %
0-20%
21-40%
41-60%
61-80%
81-100%
Average %
estimate of
peers
Heroin
80+
11-
5-
2-
1-
15
1
Ice
73+
14
8-
3-
1-
18
2
LSD/acid
72+
17
8-
2-
1-
18
4
Cocaine
69+
17
9-
3-
1-
20
4
Mushrooms
69+
18+
9-
2-
2-
20
4
Speed
64+
19+
10
5-
2-
22
6
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
50
21+
19+
7
2-
29
9
Marijuana
26-
21+
28+
21+
5-
44
24
Tobacco
12-
12-
20+
29+
26+
63
33
Alcohol
6-
4-
8-
15+
67+
82
66
Base: 15-24 year olds, excluding don’t know (n=782- n=1156 per drug).
Page | 165
% Ever
used drugs
Below is the data table for Figure 10: Estimate percentage of peer drug usage (‘Ever used’ vs. ‘Never
used’) vs Reported usage by drug.
Table 58: Estimated percentage of peer drug usage (‘Ever used’ vs. ‘Never used’) vs Reported
usage by drug
Q3 What percentage of people your age do you think have tried each of the following drugs at least
once?
Q9 Now, which, if any, of the following drugs have you personally ever used?
NEVER used' illegal
drugs- Estimate of % of
peers tried drug
Ever used' illegal drugs Estimate of % of peers
tried drug
% Ever tried drug
Alcohol
79
88
66
Tobacco
58
73
33
Marijuana
29
55
24
Ecstasy
25
37
9
Speed
20
25
6
Cocaine
19
21
4
LSD/Acid
17
20
4
Mushrooms
18
23
4
Ice
18
18
2
Heroin
16
13
1
Column %
Base: Total Sample of 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
Page | 166
Perceived increase or decrease in peer drug use
Below is the data table for Figure 11: Perceived increase or decrease in peer drug use (15-24 year
olds).
Table 59: Perceived increase or decrease in peer drug use (15-24 year olds)
Q4 Since this time last year, do you think that more, the same, or less people your age are.
More
people
The same
Less people
Don't know
NETT (More
people minus
less people)
Drinking alcohol
52
37
3
9
-5
Using marijuana
28
39
8
25
-4
Smoking tobacco
29
40
21
10
-4
Using ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
18
33
11
38
0
Using speed
13
30
13
43
7
Using ice
14
28
14
44
20
Using cocaine
13
32
13
42
0
Using LSD/acid
10
30
14
46
0
Using heroin
10
30
14
46
8
Using mushrooms
9
30
14
47
49
Row %
Base: 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
Page | 167
Below is the data table for Figure 12: Perceived increase or decrease in peer drug use (12-14 year
olds).
Table 60: Perceived increase or decrease in peer drug use (12-14 year olds)
Q4 Since this time last year, do you think that more, the same, or less people your age are.
Row %
More
people
The same
Less
people
Don't know
NETT
32+
15+
24+
11
28+
24+
27+
19+
5
5
15+
4
35
56
34
66
+27
+10
+9
+7
Drinking alcohol
Using marijuana
Smoking tobacco
Using ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
Base: 12-14 year olds (n=300).
Drug Availability
Below is the data table for Figure 13: Offered/had opportunity to use illicit drug in last year.
Table 61: Offered/had opportunity to use illicit drugs in last year
Q6 Have you been offered or had the opportunity to use any illegal drug in the last 12 months?
Yes
Total
Sample
36
Male
39+
Female
33
15-17
35
18-20
37
21-24
36
Base: 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
Below is the data table for Figure 14: Offered/had opportunity to use specific illicit drugs.
Table 62: Offered/had opportunity to use specific illicit drugs
Q7 In the last twelve months, have you been offered, or had the opportunity to use, any of the following
drugs?
Marijuana
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
Medicines (when you’re not sick)
Speed
Cocaine
Ice
LSD/acid
Mushrooms
Heroin
Other (please specify drug/s)
Base: 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
Page | 168
Yes
32+
16+
11
9
766622-
Below is the data table for Figure 15: Offered vs. tried conversion by specific illicit drug.
Table 63: Offered vs. tried conversion by specific illicit drug
Q7 In the last twelve months, have you been offered, or had the opportunity to use, any of the following
drugs?
Offered drug in last 12
months
32
16
11
9
7
6
6
6
2
Column %
Marijuana
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
Medicines (when you’re not sick)
Speed
Cocaine
Mushrooms
LSD/acid
Ice
Heroin
Tried drug in last 12
months
14
5
4
3
2
1
1
1
1
Base: 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
Below is the data table for Figure 16: Likelihood of taking drug if offered by a friend by drug type.
Table 64: Likelihood of taking drug if offered by a friend by drug type
Q8 If a friend offered you each of the drugs below in a situation where they were using it, would you
definitely say yes and take it, probably say yes, probably say no, or definitely say no?
Definitely say
yes and take it
Probably say
yes
Probably say
no
Definitely say
no
Don't know
Marijuana
5+
14+
18+
59-
4
Mushrooms
1-
5
12+
78-
4
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
2
6+
10
78
3
Cocaine
3
4
8
83
3
LSD/acid
1
3-
9
84+
3
Speed
2
3-
7
85+
3
Ice
1-
2-
5-
89+
3
Heroin
1-
1-
5-
91+
3
Row %
Base: 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
Page | 169
Below is the data table for Figure 17: Risk of drug taking if offered by a friend vs. drugs used in the past
year.
Table 65: Risk of drug taking if offered by a friend vs. drugs used in the past year
Q8 If a friend offered you each of the drugs below in a situation where they were using it, would you
definitely say yes and take it, probably say yes, probably say no, or definitely say no?
Q10 Which have you used in the last year?
Column %
Used in the last year
Definitely yes/probably
yes/probably no
Gap between usage and
risk of usage
Marijuana
14+
37
23
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
Mushrooms
Cocaine
LSD/acid
Speed
Ice
Heroin
4+
1
2
1
3+
1
0
19
18
15
13
12
8
7
15
17
13
12
9
7
7
Base: 15-24 year olds (n=1300).
Below is the data table for Figure 18: Know anyone who has a problem with illicit drug use.
Table 66: Know anyone who has a problem with illicit drug use
Q23 Do you know anyone who has had a problem with illegal drug use?
Column %
No
Total Sample
64
Yes, friend
15
Yes, immediate family
8
Yes, extended family
8
Don't know
6
Yes, other
4
Base: 12-24 year olds (n=1600).
Page | 170
Below is the data table for Figure 19: Sources of advice/help regarding use of illicit drugs.
Table 67: Sources of advice/help regarding use of illicit drugs
Q26 Where would you go to if you wanted help or advice about your use of illegal drugs?
Column %
Internet search
Friends
Local doctor/GP
Online forums/communities
Other counsellors
Parents
School/university counsellor
Siblings
Library
Nowhere
Other
Don't know
Total Sample
54
53
47
34
26
23
14
14
4
3
3
4
Base: 12-24 year olds (n=1600).
Perceived dangerousness of individual drugs
Below is the data table for Figure 20: See drug as ‘very dangerous’ by drug type.
Table 68: See drug as ‘very dangerous’ by drug type
Q20 Now a question on how dangerous you think different drugs are. For each drug, please select how
dangerous you think using this drug would be (ROTATE DRUGS).
% Very dangerous
Heroin
Ice
Cocaine
Speed
LSD/acid
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
Mushrooms
Marijuana
Tobacco
Alcohol
Total Sample
76
74
64
63
63
61
47
31
25
17
Base: 12-24 year olds (n=1600).
Note that 12-14 year olds were only asked about tobacco, alcohol, marijuana and ecstasy.
Page | 171
Below is the data table for Figure 21: Perceived dangerousness of drugs – 2000 vs. 2007 vs. 2012
surveys (% very dangerous).
Table 69: Perceived dangerousness of drugs – 2000 vs. 2007 vs. 2012 surveys (% very
dangerous)
Q20 This time I’d like to know how dangerous you think different drugs are. For each one, please tell
me if you think it is dangerous to use this drug or not. Firstly, do you consider it dangerous or not
dangerous to use.
Column %
2000 survey
2007 survey
2012 survey
Alcohol
8
8
16+
Tobacco
16
21
23
Marijuana
13
25
27
Ecstasy
53
63
57-
Cocaine
67
N/A
64
Speed
55
63
63
Ice
N/A
85
74-
Heroin
84
84
76-
LSD/acid
56
N/A
63+
Mushrooms
N/A
N/A
47
Base: Total Sample of 15-24 year olds (2000 survey n=2306, 2007 survey n=1700, 2012 survey n=1300).
Note that in the 2007 survey, cocaine and LSD/Acid weren’t measured and mushrooms weren’t measured in 2000 or 2007.
Page | 172
Perceptions that individual drugs are fun
Below is the data table for Figure 22: Perception of how ‘fun’ individual drugs are.
Table 70: Perception of how ‘fun’ individual drugs are
Q21 And now a question on how fun you think different drugs are. For each drug, please select how fun
you think using this drug would be.
% Lots of fun/Quite fun
Alcohol
Marijuana
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
Mushrooms
Cocaine
LSD/acid
Speed
Tobacco
Heroin
Ice
Total Sample
44
22
15
13
11
11
10
7
4
4
Base: 12-24 year olds. (n=1600).
Note that 12-14 year olds were only asked about tobacco, alcohol, marijuana and ecstasy.
Attitudes to life
Below is the data table for Figure 30: Attitudes to life – 2000 vs 2007 vs 2012 surveys (15-24 year olds).
Table 71: Attitudes to life - 2000 vs 2007 vs 2012 surveys (15-24 year olds)
% Strongly agree/Agree
I'm not really in control of my life
I don't really have any problems in life
You have to live for today, rather than worry
about the future
I like my life
I'm not interested in drugs
2000 survey
(n=2306)
9
37
2007 survey
(n=1700)
14
33
2012 survey
(n=1300)
20+
32
44
46
37-
89
68
92
77
7071-
Base: 15-24 year olds (2000 survey n=2306, 2007 survey n=1700, 2012 survey n=1300).
Page | 173
Age by segment
Below is the data table for Figure 39: Segment by age.
Table 72: Segments by age
Column %
Total
sample
Conservative
Rejectors
Risky
Rejectors
Neutrals
Occasionals
Fun
Seekers
Reality
Swappers
12-14 yrs
21
25
25
18
10
10
9
15-17 yrs
22
31
19
20
7
19
15
18-24 yrs
57
44
56
62
83
72
76
Base: 12-24 year olds (n=1600).
Page | 174
APPENDIX C: QUALITATIVE RECRUITMENT SCREENER
5105_SCREENER
We are conducting research that looks into issues affecting teens and young adults. All responses are
completely confidential.
1
2
3
4
5
Record age and school year where relevant:
Record gender:
Record SEG:
Record living arrangements (e.g. with parents, sharing)
Record educational/employment status
We would like to find out a little bit about you. Remember, all of your answers are totally confidential.
ASK 12-13 yr olds
6
Which of the following have you ever tried, even once? Yes or no
Smoking cigarettes or other type of tobacco
Drinking alcohol
ASK 14-15 year olds
7
Which of the following have you ever tried, even once? Yes or no.
Smoking cigarettes or other type of tobacco
Drinking alcohol
Marijuana/cannabis or any other type of drug?
ASK YEAR 14-15 year olds STUDENTS WHO ANSWER YES TO Q7 (DO NOT ASK ANY FURTHER
QUESTIONS FOR THIS GROUP)
8
And how often would you say you use marijuana/cannabis or other drugs? Occasional or
regular.
I have only tried it, really
I use it once a month or less
I use it at least twice a month
ASK ONLY THOSE AGED 16 AND ABOVE
9
Page | 175
Which of the following have you ever tried? Yes or no
Tobacco/cigarettes
Alcohol
Marijuana/cannabis
Ecstasy/pills
Speed/Whizz/Goey
LSD/Acid
Base
Cocaine
Ice/Crystal/Tina/Amphet/Shabu
G/GBH/GHB
Ketamine
Heroin
Other (please capture)
10
And how often, on average, over the year would you use (name of drug)? Once/twice a year,
Less than once a month, About once every couple of weeks, Once a week or more, Every day
Tobacco/cigarettes
Alcohol
Marijuana/cannabis
Ecstasy/pills
Speed/Whizz/Goey
LSD/Acid
Base
Cocaine
Ice/Crystal/Tina/Amphet/Shabu
G/GBH/GHB
Ketamine
Heroin
Other (please capture)
11
And of these, which would you say is your drug of choice?
12
For those drugs that you do use, how have you consumed them? For this question, answer
yes for any method you have used more than once in the past. Yes or no
Smoking
Swallowing
Snorting
Injecting
13
Have you ever used prescription drugs in a recreational way? RECORD
Yes
No
14
If yes, how often have you done this in the previous 12 months?
DETERMINING USER STATUS BASED ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE
12-13

None = To answer no to both at Q6

Alcohol or Tobacco = To answer yes to either at Q6
14-15

None = To answer no to all items at Q7

Alcohol or Tobacco = To answer yes to either at Q7

Some cannabis/other drugs = To answer yes to this item at Q7 (could also answer to
alcohol/tobacco)
16+

None = To answer no to all items at Q9

Alcohol or Tobacco = To answer yes to ONLY these items at Q9

Occasional users = To use cannabis less than once a week on average AND other drugs less than
once a month at Q10
Page | 176

Regular cannabis users = Those who use cannabis at least weekly or more frequently with other
drugs used less frequently (up to once a fortnight or monthly). They may use other drugs, but
cannabis would be their drug of choice at Q11.

Regular users of other drugs = Those who use other drugs, on average, every two to three weeks
(or even once a month for younger age groups).They may use cannabis, but should nominate a
different drug of choice at Q11.

Injectors = To use injecting as a means of administration at Q12.
OTHER SPECIFICATIONS


Please ensure a mix of the following across all groups where relevant
-
A range of living situations (with parents, sharing etc)
-
A range of educational attainment (school, TAFE, university etc)
-
A range of employment status and types (employed, unemployed etc)
For 16-19 groups, it will be okay to include 2 per group who are no longer at school but are 18 or
under. This is not necessary (or desirable) for all groups but in groups where these are included,
please include at least 2 to ensure that group dynamics are not unduly impacted.
Page | 177
APPENDIX D: QUALITATIVE DISCUSSION GUIDE
5105 –DISCUSSION GUIDE
1


Introduction 10 minutes
Explain research
-
Conducting research looking at young people, very large study
-
Going to be talking about attitudes towards various drugs as well as look at some materials
-
Everything they tell us is completely confidential – no police, parents etc
Respondents intros - name, age, who they live with
2
Spontaneous associations with drugs 10 minutes
Self complete: When you think about ‘drugs’, what immediately springs to mind? Repeat for tobacco,
alcohol, cannabis, ecstasy, speed, ice, cocaine, heroin, LSD. (Mod to use discretion)

What have they come up with?

How much do they feel like they know about drugs?

How do you know what you know about drugs?

Are all drugs the same, or are there differences?

What do they see as being the differences between the drugs?

Are some drugs taken in different ways?

Do different people use different drugs?

How visible/common are each of these drugs in their friendship groups?

Are there any other drugs that we haven’t included in the list? Which ones?
3
Exploration of the drugs landscape 15 minutes
Put cards with drug names on the table (include any other drugs identified in previous section). Ask
them to work as a group to show us how they see the ‘drug landscape’. How are they similar, different?
Do some group together?

Why have they mapped these the way they have?

What are the factors that make drugs different from one another?

Are there some drugs that group together? Which ones, why?

Are there some that would never group together? Probe fully.

Would they have mapped any of these differently a few years ago? Why?
Self complete: Map drugs (tobacco, alcohol, ecstasy, speed, ice and cannabis) on the positioning map
(fun vs not fun, safe vs dangerous). Then map the different modes of administration: smoking,
swallowing, snorting, injecting).
Page | 178
4
Exploration of specific drugs 20 minutes
Explain that we are interested in talking about each of the different drugs in detail. Explore cannabis,
ecstasy, speed, ice, cocaine, heroin.

For each:

What do they know about this drug?

What types of occasions do they think this drug is used in?

What type of people do they think use this drug?

How common do they think it is?

Explore the ‘world’ of each drug

-
What is the world like?
-
What does it look like there?
-
What are the people like?
-
What are the good things about this world?
-
What are the main problems of this world?
-
How do you feel about the world?
-
Would you like to live there? Why/why not?
Repeat the ‘world’ exercise for the ‘world of no drugs’
5
Drug use scenarios 20 minutes
Introduce Sally/Josh. They are XX age (according to respondent ages). Last weekend, they took
(cannabis, ecstasy, speed, ice, cocaine, heroin).

For each drug:
-
What situation was Sally/Josh in?
-
Who was Sally/Josh with?
-
What made Sally/Josh decide to take XX?
-
How did Sally/Josh feel when they took it?
-
What might have stopped Sally/Josh from taking it?
-
Did Sally/Josh experience any consequences? What were they?
-
What would people think/say about Sally/Josh if they knew they took x?
-
Would Sally/Josh do it again? What would people think if they did?
-
Tell me about Sally and Josh – what are they like?
Page | 179
6
Responses to existing advertising 15 minutes
Explore international and Australian ads.

For each
-
Spontaneous responses?
-
How effective is this?
-
How credible is this message? Why?

Which of these ads will stay with you?

What types of approach do you tend to listen to/pay attention to?

What other ads do these remind you of?

How do these ads compare to anything you have seen before?
Page | 180
APPENDIX E: QUALITATIVE SELF COMPLETE EXERCISES
Q1.
When you think about ‘drugs’, what immediately springs to mind?
Q2.
Why is this?
Q3.
When you think about (DRUG), what immediately springs to mind?
Q4.
When you think about (DRUG), what immediately springs to mind?
Q5.
When you think about (DRUG), what immediately springs to mind?
Q6.
When you think about (DRUG), what immediately springs to mind?
Q7.
When you think about (DRUG), what immediately springs to mind?
Q8.
When you think about (DRUG), what immediately springs to mind?
Page | 181
Figure 68: Respondent self-completion drug map
Page | 182
APPENDIX F: QUANTITATIVE QUESTIONNAIRE
ILLICIT DRUGS QUESTIONNAIRE 12-24 YEAR OLDS (JN 6934)
Questions/codes highlighted in yellow are not asked of 12-14 year olds.
QUOTAS
Age
Male
Female
Total
12-14 years
150
150
300
15-17 years
150
150
300
18-24 years
500
500
1,000
Total
800
800
1,600
And broad nationally representative quota will also be set by State.
INTRODUCTION AND SCREENING
CONSENT RECORD RECRUITMENT SOURCE
1. 12-17 year olds, approached through parents (GO TO INTRO 1 AND THEN INTRO 2)
2. Direct to 18-24 year old panelists (GO TO INTRO 3)
SCREENING & INTRODUCTION FOR PARENTS
INTRO1 (PARENTAL CONSENT OF 12-17 YEAR OLDS)
Hello and thank you for taking the time to complete our survey.
The survey will only take 2-3 minutes to complete and is being conducted by GfK Blue Moon, an independent market
research company.
Your answers will be held in the strictest confidence and under the Privacy Act. All information provided will only be used for
research purposes. The responses of everyone who participates in this survey will be combined for analysis.
PC1
Are you:
Male
Female
PC2
Do you have any children of your own living at home?
Yes
No (TERMINATE)
Rather not answer (TERMINATE)
PC3
Page | 183
IF HAVE CHILDREN LIVING AT HOME, ASK:
What age are your children that are currently living at home with you? MR
Under 5 years (TERMINATE)
5 to 11 years (TERMINATE)
12 to 14 years (GO TO PC4)
15 to 17 years (GO TO PC4)
18 to 20 years (TERMINATE)
21 years and over (TERMINATE)
Rather not answer (TERMINATE)
PC4
PC5
HAVE 12-17 YEAR OLDS AT HOME (PC3=3 or 4)
Would you be willing to allow your child aged [XXX – PIPED FROM PC3. IF HAVE BOTH 12-13 AND 14-17
YEAR OLD CHILDREN, RANDOMLY SELECT UNTIL QUOTAS FILL] years to take part in a once off survey?
The survey is part of an important study being conducted by GfK Blue Moon on behalf of the Australian
Government Department of Health and Ageing. The results from this study will be used to gain a better
understanding of community views about drugs.
The research will be used to inform the next phase of the National Drugs Campaign which aims to reduce the
use of illicit drugs. We are interested in the perceptions and attitudes towards tobacco, alcohol and illicit drugs
among all 12-24 year olds, not just users of drugs.
The questionnaire has been tested among children and is appropriate for this age group. Their answers will be
held in the strictest confidence and under the Privacy Act all information provided will only be used for research
purposes. All participants can choose not to answer any question they do not want to.
The children’s survey will take about 15-20 minutes to complete.
Yes
No (TERMINATE)
IF GIVES CONSENT FOR 12-17 YEAR OLD TO TAKE PART (PC4=1):
Thanks for that!
Is it more convenient for your child to complete the survey using your panel member’s page or for you to email
them a link to the survey?
My panel member’s page
Email a link to them
IF EMAIL LINK TO THEM (PC5=2)
PC5b
PC6
PC7
Page | 184
IF MEMBERS PAGE (PC5=1)
Is your child aged 12-17 years able to do the survey now?
Yes (GO TO PC7)
No (Selecting this option will suspend the survey until they are ready to start the survey) (GO TO PC6)
IF 12-17 YEAR OLD NOT AROUND NOW TO DO SURVEY [PC5 = 2]
When your child is ready to start the survey, please log-on to your member’s page and select the link under
survey invitations.
With your consent, we would also appreciate it if your child could be given some privacy while completing the
survey. Thanks again for allowing your child to take part.
IF 12-17 YEAR OLD READY TO START SURVEY [PC5 = 1]
Thanks again for allowing your child to take part. They can click next once they are ready to start the survey.
With your consent, we would also appreciate it if your child could be given some privacy while completing the
survey.
SCREENING & INTRODUCTION FOR 12 TO 17 YEAR OLDS (IE RECRUITED VIA PARENTS)
INTRO2 (12-17 YEAR OLD RESPONDENTS)
Hello and thank you for taking the time to complete our survey.
Some of the questions in this survey are of a personal nature but all information provided will only be used for
research purposes and your answers will be combined with other people’s responses. You don’t have to answer
any questions you don’t want to.
Your parent will have no access to your responses. Even if you don’t complete the whole survey, your parent
won’t be able to see any of your responses (as they are unable to ‘go back’ to previous questions in the survey).
The survey will take about 15 to 20 minutes to complete.
SCREENING & INTRODUCTION FOR 18 TO 24 YEAR OLDS (IE RECRUITED DIRECTLY FROM PANEL)
INTRO3 (18-24 YEAR OLD RESPONDENTS)
Hello and thank you for taking the time to complete our survey.
The results from this important study will be used to gain a better understanding of community views about
health issues impacting young people. The survey is being conducted by GfK Blue Moon, an independent
market research agency, on behalf of the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing.
Some of the questions in this survey are of a personal nature. However, your answers will be held in the strictest
confidence and under the Privacy Act, all information provided will only be used for research purposes. You don’t
have to answer any questions you don’t want to.
The survey will take about 15 to 20 minutes to complete.
S1
S2
S3
Q1
Page | 185
SCREENING OF RESPONDENTS (AGED 12-24 YEARS)
ASK ALL
Are you: [SR]
Male
Female
ASK ALL
How old are you?
ENTER NUMBER ________
(IF DIRECT SAMPLE - 18 -24 CONTINUE, OTHERWISE TERMINATE)
(IF INDIRECT SAMPLE FROM PARENTS - 12-17 CONTINUE, OTHERWISE TERMINATE)
Where do you live? (SR)
Australian Capital Territory
New South Wales
Northern Territory
Queensland
South Australia
Tasmania
Victoria
Western Australia
GENERAL LIFE ATTITUDINAL STATEMENTS FOR SEGMENTATION
ASK ALL
Below are some things that people have said about their attitudes to life. For each statement, please select
whether you personally strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, or strongly disagree.
RANDOMISE ROWS
COLUMNS
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Don’t know
Rather not say
ROWS
I don’t really have any problems in my life
I like new experiences
I like my life
I'm not really in control of my life
You have to live for today, rather than worry about the future
I like to escape the real world
I’ll do what it takes to make sure I have a great time
I’m interested in new ways to enhance my experiences
I’m often influenced by my friends
I always like to be in control of the situations I’m in
I like to take risks
I like to party a lot
Q2
BACKGROUND TO DRUGS
ASK ALL
And now some questions on drugs. Thinking about illegal drugs, what drugs can you name? Please type in all
the illegal drugs that you can think of. UNPROMPTED
Q3
What percentage of people your age do you think have tried each of the following drugs at least once? For each
drug, type in a number between 0 and 100 (or don’t know)
Tobacco
Alcohol
Marijuana
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
Mushrooms
LSD/acid
Cocaine
Speed
Ice
Heroin
Q4
Since this time last year, do you think that more, the same, or less people your age are DO NOT ROTATE
Smoking tobacco
Drinking alcohol
Using marijuana
Using ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
Using mushrooms
Using LSD/acid
Using cocaine
Using speed
Page | 186
Using ice
Using heroin
Q5a
PERCEPTIONS AND EFFECTS OF SPECIFIC DRUGS
ASK ALL
And now a question on your views of three drugs. The following are some statements other people have made
about [FIRST DRUG].
It doesn’t matter whether you’ve ever tried each drug or not, it’s your impressions that are important. Do you
personally agree or disagree that generally [FIRST DRUG]
ASK EACH RESPONDENT ABOUT THREE RANDOMLY SELECTED DRUGS. ROTATE DRUGS
MENTIONED WITHIN EACH ROTATION. RANDOMLY SPLIT STATEMENTS IN HALF AND ASK EACH
RESPONDENT ABOUT ONE HALF OF THE STATEMENTS FOR EACH OF THREE DRUGS. ROTATE
STATEMENTS
DRUGS – Alcohol, Marijuana, Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills, LSD/acid, Mushrooms, Cocaine, Speed, Ice, Heroin
FOR 12-14 YEAR OLDS, ONLY ASK ABOUT Alcohol, Marijuana, Ecstasy (MDMA)/ pills
COLUMNS
Agree
Disagree
Don’t know/ Not sure
ROWS
Helps a person escape from reality
Can make some people aggressive
Has bad comedowns/hangovers
Can help manage drug comedowns/hangovers
Makes people overconfident
Makes a person lose control of their life
Makes things seem more intense
Can cause immediate serious harm when taken
Can help a person to relax
Can make a person lazy
Is addictive
Makes the world seem better
Makes people feel more connected
Makes people freak out
Can lead to long-term health problems
Can cause mental health problems
Can cause problems with friends or family
Is a fun drug
Is a clean drug
Is a party drug
Is a good drug to have with friends
Is not a problem if you just use it occasionally
Is expensive
You don’t know what’s in it
Is natural
Effects are unpredictable
Page | 187
Q5b
And now some questions about (SECOND DRUG). Do you personally agree or disagree that generally
[SECOND DRUG] [STATEMENTS IN SAME ORDER AS FIRST DRUG]
Q5c
And now some questions about (THIRD DRUG). Do you personally agree or disagree that generally [THIRD
DRUG] [STATEMENTS IN SAME ORDER AS FIRST DRUG]
DRUG USAGE
ASK ALL
The next few questions are about drug usage. Remember that your responses are completely confidential and
are used for research purposes only. You are also free to not answer any of the questions (by selected ‘don’t
know’ or ‘rather not say’).
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Page | 188
Have you been offered or had the opportunity to use any illegal drug in the last 12 months? (Yes, No, don’t
know)
IF USED OR BEEN OFFERED ANY ILLEGAL DRUG (Q6=1), ASK:
In the last twelve months, have you been offered or had the opportunity to use any of the following drugs? Select
one response per row (Yes, No, Don’t know).
Marijuana
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
Mushrooms
LSD/acid
Cocaine
Speed
Ice
Heroin
Medicines (when you’re not sick)
Other (please specify drug/s)
ASK ALL
If a friend offered you each of the drugs below in a situation where they were using it, would you definitely say
yes and take it, probably say yes, probably say no, or definitely say no? Select one response per row (or don’t
know)
Marijuana
Ecstasy (MDMA/pills)
Mushrooms
LSD/acid
Cocaine
Speed
Ice
Heroin
NOTE: EACH OF Q9-Q12 IS ON A SEPARATE SCREEN
ASK ALL
Which, if any, of the following drugs have you personally ever used?
DO NOT ROTATE. IF NONE, GO TO Q19
Tobacco
Alcohol
Marijuana
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
LSD/acid
Mushrooms
Cocaine
Speed
Ice
Heroin
Medicines (when you’re not sick)
Any other illegal drug/s
None of the above
Rather not say
Q10
Q10a
Which have you used in the last year?
DISPLAY DRUGS EVER USED AT Q9. DO NOT ROTATE. IF NONE, GO TO Q19
IF USED ANY OTHER ILLEGAL DRUGS IN THE LAST YEAR (Q10=10), ASK:
Which other illegal drugs have you used in the last year? VERBATIM
Q11
And which have you used in the last four weeks?
DISPLAY DRUGS USED IN LAST YEAR AT Q10. IF NONE, GO TO Q13
Q12
On how many days have you used (DRUG) in the last four weeks?
DISPLAY DRUGS USED IN LAST 4 WEEKS AT Q11. FOR TOBACCO, DISPLAY FREQUENCY OPTIONS.
FOR OTHERS TYPE IN THE NUMBER OF DAYS IN THE LAST FOUR WEEKS.
Q13
IF USED ANY ILLEGAL DRUG (QX10 C. TO L) IN THE PAST YEAR, ASK:
Do you mostly use each of these drugs by yourself or with others? DISPLAY THE DRUGS USED IN THE PAST
YEAR SR
COLUMNS
Mostly by myself
Mostly with others
Equally by myself and with others
ROWS
Marijuana
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
Mushrooms
LSD/acid
Cocaine
Speed
Ice
Heroin
IF USED ANY ILLEGAL DRUG (Q10 C. TO L) IN THE PAST YEAR, ASK:
Q14
Where did you last use each of these drugs? DISPLAY THE DRUGS USED IN THE PAST YEAR SR ROTATE
COLUMNS
COLUMNS
At my home
At a friend’s home
At the pub, bar
At a nightclub
Page | 189
At a dance party
At a music festival
In a car
Outside e.g. Park, Beach
At TAFE/College/University
At a house party
At school or school event
Work
Other (specify)
Don’t know
ROWS
Marijuana
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
Mushrooms
LSD/acid
Cocaine
Speed
Ice
Heroin
IF USED ANY ILLEGAL DRUG (Q10 C. TO L) IN THE PAST YEAR, ASK:
Q15
Select all of the substances you took the last time you took illegal drugs? DISPLAY THE DRUGS USED IN THE
PAST YEAR AT LEAST ONE ILLEGAL DRUG SHOULD BE SELECTED MR It may be just one or more than
one (e.g. ecstasy and alcohol)
Tobacco
Alcohol
Marijuana
Ecstasy (MDMA)/PILLS
Mushrooms
LSD/acid
Cocaine
Speed
Ice
Heroin
Medicines (when you’re not sick)
Other (specify)
Don’t know
IF SPEED, ICE, COCAINE OR HEROIN USED IN THE LAST FOUR WEEKS AT Q11, ASK:
Q17
How do you usually use each of the following drugs? ONLY DISPLAY THOSE DRUGS USED IN LAST FOUR
WEEKS ROTATE COLUMNS 1-4
COLUMNS
Smoke it
Sniff/snort it
Inject it
Eat it/take orally
Other (specify)
Don’t know
Page | 190
ROWS
Speed
Ice
Cocaine
Heroin
Q19
DRUG ATTITUDINAL STATEMENTS FOR DRUG SEGMENTATION
ASK ALL
Below are some things that people have said about illegal drugs and their use. Even if you’ve never used illegal
drugs, we’re interested in your impressions. For each one, please select whether you personally strongly agree,
agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, or strongly disagree with each of these statements.
RANDOMISE ROWS
COLUMNS
5. Strongly agree
4. Agree
3. Neither agree nor disagree
2. Disagree
1. Strongly disagree
6. Don’t know
7. Prefer not to answer
ROWS
Most of my close friends have taken illegal drugs
Illegal drugs are only a problem if you let them be
Some illegal drugs are OK
I'm not interested in illegal drugs
I can control my use of illegal drugs [ADD A ‘NOT APPLICABLE’ OPTION HERE]
All illegal drugs are harmful
Illegal drugs frighten me
I don’t really know much about illegal drugs
Illegal drugs can be fun
Illegal drugs just make your problems worse
If people want to take illegal drugs, it’s their decision
If I were to use a specific illegal drug, I would first have to find out all of its effects
I like to experiment with a range of different illegal drugs [ADD A ‘NOT APPLICABLE’ OPTION HERE]
I use illegal drugs to help me cope with life [ADD A ‘NOT APPLICABLE’ OPTION HERE]
Using illegal drugs at my age is just normal these days [ADD A ‘NOT APPLICABLE’ OPTION HERE]
I sometimes use illegal drugs to keep me going [ADD A ‘NOT APPLICABLE’ OPTION HERE]
I take illegal drugs to help me get things done [ADD A ‘NOT APPLICABLE’ OPTION HERE]
I use illegal drugs to improve my reality [ADD A ‘NOT APPLICABLE’ OPTION HERE]
Page | 191
Q20
DRUG DANGER/FUN
ASK ALL
And now a question on how dangerous you think different drugs are. For each drug, please select how
dangerous you think using this drug would be. ROTATE DRUGS
COLUMNS
Not at all dangerous
Not very dangerous
Neither
Quite dangerous
Very dangerous
Don’t know
ROWS
Tobacco
Alcohol
Marijuana
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
Mushrooms
LSD/acid
Cocaine
Speed
Ice
Heroin
Q21
ASK ALL
And now a question on how fun you think different drugs are. For each drug, please select how fun you think
using this drug would be. ROTATE DRUGS
COLUMNS
No fun at all
Not very fun
Neither
Quite fun
Lots of fun
Don’t know
ROWS
Tobacco
Alcohol
Marijuana
Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills
Mushrooms
LSD/acid
Cocaine
Speed
Ice
Heroin
Page | 192
Q22
ASK ALL
Some of the things below are said about people who use different drugs. It doesn’t matter if you have never used
the drug yourself, or if you don’t know anyone who has used the drug, it’s just your impressions that are
important. You will be asked about three different drugs. Which words do you associate with people who use
[DRUG 1]?
EACH RESPONDENT SHOULD BE SHOWN THREE DRUGS. SHOW EACH DRUG ON A SEPARATE
SCREEN ROTATE DRUGS MENTIONED. ROTATE STATEMENTS.
DRUGS – Alcohol, Marijuana, Ecstasy (MDMA)/pills, LSD/acid, Mushrooms, Cocaine, Speed, Ice, Heroin
FOR 12-14 YEAR OLDS, ONLY ASK ABOUT Alcohol, Marijuana, Ecstasy (MDMA)/ pills
Select as many or as few words as you want.
Junkies
Independent
Boring
Open-minded
Anti-social
Psycho
Cool
Adventurous
Party animals
Normal
Laid back
Losers
Intense
Friendly
Interesting
Popular
Creative
Sophisticated
Don’t know
None of the above
Q23
Page | 193
FAMILY BACKGROUND/DRUG INFORMATION AND ADVICE
ASK ALL
Do you know anyone who has had a problem with illegal drug use? MR
Yes, immediate family
Yes, extended family
Friend
Other
No [SR]
Don’t know [SR]
Q24
Q26
IF SOMEONE IN FAMILY HAS HAD A DRUG PROBLEM [Q23=1], ASK:
Has having someone who has had a drug problem made you more cautious about using drugs? SR
Yes
No
Don’t know
IF USED ILLEGAL DRUGS IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS (Q10=C TO L), ASK:
Where would you go to if you wanted help or advice about your use of illegal drugs? MR
School/university counsellor
Local doctor/GP
Other counsellors
Internet search
Online forums/communities
Parents
Siblings
Friends
Library
Other (specify) [SR]
Don’t know [SR]
Nowhere [SR]
DEMOGRAPHICS
ASK ALL
To make sure we have spoken with a good range of people, I’d like to ask you a final few questions.
D2
D3
Page | 194
IF AGED 12 TO 19 YEARS CONTINUE ELSE GO TO D4
Are you still attending school or have you left school? SR
Still attending
Left School (GO TO D4)
Rather not say (GO TO D4)
IF AGED 12-19 AND STILL ATTENDING SCHOOL, ASK:
What year of secondary school are you currently attending? SR
Year 7 or below
Year 8
Year 9
Year 10
Year 11
Year 12
Rather not say
D4
D5
D5a
D6
(NOW GO TO D5)
IF AGED 20-24, OR 15-19 AND LEFT SCHOOL (AT D2), ASK:
What is the highest level of formal education you have completed? SR
Primary School
Year 10 or below
Year 11
Year 12
Trade/apprenticeship qualification
Other TAFE/ Technical
Certificate or Diploma
Degree
Post Graduate
Other (SPECIFY)
Don’t Know
Rather not say
IF AGED 20-24, OR 15-19 AND LEFT SCHOOL (AT D2), ASK:
Which one of the following best describes your main activity at the moment? Are you mainly doing SR
Paid full-time work
Paid part-time or casual work
Studying or training
Looking for work
Unpaid voluntary work
Retired
Home duties, or
Something else (SPECIFY)
Don’t Know/Can’t Say
Rather not say
IF AGED 15-19 AND STILL AT SCHOOL (AT D2), ASK:
Are you doing any paid work?
Yes
No
ASK ALL
Are you from an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background? SR
Yes
No
Don’t know
Rather not say
ASK ALL
D7
Page | 195
Is a language other than English regularly spoken in your household? SR
Yes
No (GO TO D9)
Rather not say (GO TO D9)
D8
D9
D10
IF LANGUAGE OTHER THAN ENGLISH SPOKEN AT HOME, ASK:
What language other than English is regularly spoken at home? SR
Arabic
Cantonese
Mandarin
Greek
Italian
Vietnamese
Spanish
Turkish
Serbian
Croatian
Macedonian
Other (SPECIFY)
Don’t Know/Can’t Say
Rather not say
ASK ALL
What are your current household living arrangements? SR
I live with my parent(s) or guardian(s)
I live with my parents or guardians and other family members
I share with other adults I’m not related to
I live alone
I live with my spouse or partner
I live with my spouse or partner and our child or children
I’m a sole parent or guardian living with my child or children
Other (SPECIFY)
Rather not say
ASK ALL
And finally, did you complete this survey in private or was someone watching your computer screen when you
answered the questions? SR
In private
Someone was watching
Rather not say
Thank you for taking the time to answer these questions. The survey was conducted by GfK Blue Moon on behalf of the
Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. If you would like more information on where to get advice or help
on your use of illegal drugs (http://www.drugs.health.gov.au/internet/drugs/publishing.nsf/content/needhelp)
Page | 196
APPENDIX G: USING THIS RESEARCH
It is important that clients should be aware of the limitations of survey research.
Qualitative Research
Qualitative research deals with relatively small numbers of respondents and attempts to explore in–
depth motivations, attitudes and feelings. This places a considerable interpretative burden on the
researcher. For example, often what respondents do not say is as important as what they do. Similarly,
body language and tone of voice can be important contributors to understanding respondents’ deeper
feelings.
Client should therefore recognise:

that despite the efforts made in recruitment, respondents may not always be totally representative
of the target audience concerned

that findings are interpretative in nature, based on the experience and expertise of the researchers
concerned
Quantitative Research
Even though quantitative research typically deals with larger numbers of respondents, users of survey
results should be conscious of the limitations of all sample survey techniques.
Sampling techniques, the level of refusals, and problems with non-contacts all impact on the statistical
reliability that can be attached to results.
Similarly quantitative research is often limited in the number of variables it covers, with important
variables beyond the scope of the survey.
Hence the results of sample surveys are usually best treated as a means of looking at the relative
merits of different approaches as opposed to absolute measures of expected outcomes.
The Role of Researcher and Client
Blue Moon believes that the researchers’ task is not only to present the findings of the research but also
to utilise our experience and expertise to interpret these findings for clients and to make our
recommendations (based on that interpretation and our knowledge of the market) as to what we believe
to be the optimum actions to be taken in the circumstances: indeed this is what we believe clients seek
when they hire our services. Such interpretations and recommendations are presented in good faith, but
we make no claim to be infallible.
Clients should, therefore, review the findings and recommendations in the light of their own experience
and knowledge of the market and base their actions accordingly.
Quality Control and Data Retention
GfK Blue Moon is a member of the Australian Market and Social Research Organisations (AMSRO) and
complies in full with the Market Research Privacy Principles. In addition all researchers at GfK Blue
Moon are AMSRS members and are bound by the market research Code of Professional Behaviour.
GfK Blue Moon is an ISO 20252 accredited company and undertakes all research activities in
compliance with the ISO 20252 quality assurance standard
Raw data relating to this project shall be kept as per the requirements outlined in the market research
Code of Professional Behaviour.
Page | 197