1. Ludmila Carapinha, Catarina Guerreiro
Portuguese Commissions for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction: perspectives of indicted drug users on their role in drug use
2nd European Conference on Addictive Behaviours and Dependencies
STRUCTURED SESSION: The Portuguese decriminalization model – a comprehensive approach
Ludmila Carapinha, Catarina Guerreiro
SICAD Serviço de Intervenção nos Comportamentos Aditivos e nas Dependências
|TELEF: |

2. The research team works in the Portuguese governmental organization dedicated to the monitoring and intervention in addictive behaviours: General – Directorate for the Intervention in Addictive Behaviours and Dependencies.
20/11/18

3. What effects do the Commissions have on indicted drug users?
AIMS
What effects do the Commissions have on indicted drug users?
2 important dimensions of intervention
Drug use
Information on drugs (risks)
Expected effects
20/11/18

4. METHOD Older than 18 Portuguese residents Not imprisoned
TARGET-POPULATION
Older than 18
Portuguese residents
Not imprisoned
Capable of reading/writing Portuguese
Visiting the Commission for the 1st time under a new administrative proceeding, in the last trimester of 2014, and with proceeding closed until the end of the 1st trimester 2016
Not absolved under this proceeding
N = 1 653
18 Commissions
20/11/18

5. METHOD T0 N=892 participants T1 N=336 participants
Questionnaire about the work
done with the offender
(filled by the Commissions)
Self-report questionnaire
Addicted/Non-Addicted T1
N=336 participants
N=297 participants non-addicted
20/11/18

6. N=297 participants non-addicted
RESULTS
Intervention of the Commission
N=297 participants non-addicted
Information about drugs’ risks (general procedure)
Brief Interventions: 73%
Referral to services related with addictive behaviours: 17%
Referral for other types of services: 7%
Proceeding length (T0  T1) = 6 months (median)
20/11/18

7. N=297 participants non-addicted
RESULTS
Descriptive (T0)
N=297 participants non-addicted
Almost all males (90%)
Half (55%) with more than 9. grade;
a third (38%) with 9. grade
Young
(68% with 18-24; 22% with 25-34)
Sociodemographic features
20/11/18

8. N=297 participants non-addicted
RESULTS
Descriptive (T0)
N=297 participants non-addicted
Drug use in the 30D before (%)
Cannabis frequency in the 30D before (%)
≥ 1 time/week
≥ 1 time/day
< 1 time/week
Didn’t use
Others*
Just Cannabis
* May include, or not, cannabis. Other illicit substances are: amphetamines (n=7), cocaine cl (n=4), ecstasy (n=4), hallucinogenic mushrooms (n=2), heroin (n=2), crack cocaine (n=1), np benzodiazepines (n=1)
20/11/18

9. N=297 participants non-addicted
RESULTS
Descriptive (T0)
N=297 participants non-addicted
20/11/18

10. Cannabis use: T0  T1 RESULTS
Reported reduction in drug use  reduction in cannabis use
N = 123
N = 4
McNemar test for related samples: p<0,001
Other drugs use in T1: cocaine (n=1); amphetamines (n=2); LSD (n=4); ecstasy (n=1); hallucinogenic mushrooms (n=2)
20/11/18

11. Frequency of cannabis use (among users): T0  T1
RESULTS
Frequency of cannabis use (among users): T0  T1
N = 42
N = 21
McNemar test for related samples: p<0,005
20/11/18

12. RESULTS
T1: Do you think the contact with the CDT had some effect in your illicit substance use? (n=284)
YES: 76%
When I smoke (rarely), never on the side walk
I’ve got more aware
It made me see what is drug
My approach and opinion about drugs
What changed?
n=277
20/11/18

13. Regular use of cannabis does not lead to major problems: T0  T1
RESULTS
Agreement with:
Regular use of cannabis does not lead to major problems: T0  T1
N = 93
N = 67
McNemar test for related samples: p<0,005
20/11/18

14. RESULTS
Agreement with:
Along it is sporadic, cannabis use does not lead to major problems: T0  T1
N = 95
N = 56
McNemar test for related samples: p<0,005
20/11/18

15. RESULTS
T0  T1
Cannabis use is more harming than alcohol (T0/T1: p>0,05)
Cannabis use is more harming than tobacco (T0/T1: p>0,05)
Along it is sporadic, cocaine use does not lead to major problems (T0/T1: p>0,05)
Along it is sporadic, heroin use does not lead to major problems (T0/T1: p>0,05)
Smart drugs, previously sol in shops, are safer than the other drugs (T0/T1: p>0,05)
NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN T0 AND T1
20/11/18

16. RESULTS
T1: Do you think the contact with the CDT changed some of the ideas you had about illicit drugs? (n=286)
YES: 62%
I’m more responsible
Some people worry with a more liberal future
Perspective of the law %
What changed?
n=281
20/11/18

17. Non-addicted drug users
CONCLUSION
Information on drugs (risks)
Non-addicted drug users
Agreement with sentences devaluating the risk of regular/sporadic cannabis use
- Agreement with sentences comparing the risk of cannabis with licit drugs
- Agreement with sentences devaluating the risk of other drugs
Frequency of cannabis use
Frequency of other drugs
76% report that CDT had
some effect on their drug use: quit/decrease
62% report that CDT had some effect on their ideas on drugs: risks/effects
Drug use
20/11/18

18. Thank you for your attention
Research Team
Coordination: Carla Ribeiro
Ludmila Carapinha, Catarina Guerreiro, Lúcia Dias
The research team wishes to thank to:
Former and present coordination of Dissuasion
Members and staff form the Commissions
Colleagues from SICAD
Thank you for your attention ;
20/11/18