Cautioning Cannabis Offenders Instead of Arresting Them Costs Half as Much with No Difference in Use

Purpose-built nationwide online survey of detected cannabis offenders in Australia. Propensity score weighting and doubly robust regression addressed differences between groups. Cost data included policing, court, penalties, assessment, treatment, and educational sessions.

This study provides economic evidence for cannabis diversion programs. If cautioning produces the same outcomes as arrest at half the cost, the policy argument for diversion becomes straightforward: it saves public resources without increasing cannabis use. This evidence is relevant to the global debate about decriminalization and alternatives to criminal penalties.

Australia has been a pioneer in cannabis diversion programs, and this study validates those approaches from a cost-effectiveness standpoint. The finding aligns with broader evidence that criminal penalties for minor cannabis possession do not reduce use but do impose substantial costs on both offenders and the justice system.

Self-selected online survey of detected offenders, which may not represent all cannabis offenders. Self-reported cannabis use is subject to bias. The study could not account for deterrence effects on the broader population (people who were never detected). Cost estimates did not include long-term consequences of criminal records on employment and housing.