RECENT TRENDS IN ILLEGAL DRUG USE IN NEW ZEALAND,

Transcription

1 RECENT TRENDS IN ILLEGAL DRUG USE IN NEW ZEALAND, Findings from the 2005, 2006 and 2007 Illicit Drug Monitoring System (IDMS) C.Wilkins M. Girling P. Sweetsur Massey University, P O Box 6137, Wellesley St February 2008

2 ISBN

3 Table of Contents Acknowledgements... 8 Executive Summary... 9 Summary Introduction...11 Method...11 Demographic characteristics of the frequent drug...12 Drug use patterns of the frequent methamphetamine...13 Drug use patterns of the frequent ecstasy...14 Drug use patterns of the frequent injecting drug...14 New drug types...15 New types of drug...15 Increase in drug use by some...15 Different means of administering drugs...16 Current availability of different drug types...16 Current purity of different drug types...19 Change in the availability of different drug types...20 Perceptions of the change in the number of people using different drugs...23 Current prices for drugs...26 Change in prices for drugs in past six months...27 Drug related harm...30 Accessing health services Introduction Aims of IDMS Methodology Survey of frequent drug Survey of key experts (KE) Secondary data sources Analysis Demographics of sample Introduction Gender Age Ethnicity Employment status Accommodation Education Sexual orientation Marital status Income Location Drug treatment Previously interviewed for the IDMS Summary of the demographics of the frequent drug Drug use patterns

4 3.1 Introduction Extent of poly drug use Drug use patterns of the frequent methamphetamine Drug use patterns of the frequent ecstasy (MDMA) Drug use patterns of the frequent injecting drug Drug of choice Concurrent use of drugs Drug types used to recover from drug use Binging on drugs New drug types New types of drug Increase in drug use by some Different means of administering drugs Different ways of selling drugs Summary of drug use patterns Introduction Knowledge of methamphetamine trends Availability of methamphetamine Price of methamphetamine Purity of methamphetamine Perceptions of the number of people using methamphetamine Seizures of methamphetamine Clandestine methamphetamine laboratories dismantled Pseudoephedrine and ephedrine seizures Amphetamine use in the general population Summary of methamphetamine trends Crystal methamphetamine Introduction Knowledge of crystal methamphetamine trends Availability of crystal methamphetamine Price of crystal methamphetamine Purity of crystal methamphetamine Perceptions of the number of people using crystal methamphetamine Seizures of crystal methamphetamine Crystal methamphetamine use in the general population Summary of crystal methamphetamine trends Ecstasy (MDMA) Introduction Knowledge of ecstasy (MDMA) trends Availability of ecstasy (MDMA) Price of ecstasy (MDMA) Purity of ecstasy (MDMA) Perceptions of the number of people using ecstasy (MDMA) Seizures of ecstasy (MDMA) Ecstasy (MDMA) use in the general population Summary of ecstasy (MDMA) trends Cannabis

5 7.1 Introduction Knowledge of cannabis trends Availability of cannabis Price of cannabis Purity of cannabis Perceptions of the number of people using cannabis Seizures of cannabis plants Cannabis use in the general population Summary of cannabis trends LSD Introduction Knowledge of LSD trends Availability of LSD Price of LSD Purity of LSD Perceptions of the number of people using LSD Seizures of LSD LSD use in the general population Summary of LSD trends Opiates Introduction Knowledge of opiate trends Availability of opiates Price of opiates Purity of opiates Perceptions of the number of people using opiates Seizures of Heroin Opiate use in the general population Summary of opiate trends Cocaine Introduction Knowledge of cocaine trends Availability of cocaine Price of cocaine Purity of cocaine Perceptions of the number of people using cocaine Seizures of cocaine Cocaine use in the general population Summary of cocaine trends Ketamine Introduction Knowledge of ketamine trends Availability of ketamine Price of ketamine Purity of ketamine Perceptions of the number of people using ketamine Ketamine use in the general population Summary of ketamine trends

6 12. GHB Introduction Knowledge of GHB trends Availability of GHB Price of GHB Purity of GHB Perceptions of the number of people using GHB Seizures of GHB GHB use in the general population Summary of GHB trends Drug related harm Introduction Drug related physical problems Drug related psychological problems Life impacts Perceptions of the health risk of different drugs Accessing health services Help seeking for drug problems Alcohol and driving Drug use and driving Summary of drug related harm Drug dependency Introduction Extent drug use out of control Anxious about missing a dose Worry about your drug use Wish you could stop How difficult find it to stop Short Dependency Scale (SDS) scores Summary of drug dependency Injecting behaviour Introduction Location where needles were obtained Places where drugs were injected Times used a needle after someone else Injecting equipment used after someone else Frequency used a new sterile needle Summary of injecting behaviour Sexual health Introduction Number of sexual partners Safe sexual practices with regular partners Safe sexual practices with casual partners Summary of sexual health Blood borne virus vaccination and testing Introduction

7 17.2 Vaccination for Hepatitis B Tested for Hepatitis B Tested for Hepatitis C HIV Summary of blood borne virus vaccination and testing Secondary data sources on drug use Introduction Alcohol and Drug Help-line Odyssey house drug treatment services Community Alcohol and Drug Services (CADS) Summary of secondary data sources on drug use References

8 Acknowledgements The Illicit Drug Monitoring System (IDMS) is conducted as part of the National Drug Policy. We gratefully acknowledge the support of a number of government agencies including the New Zealand Police, Ministry of Health, New Zealand Customs Service, Ministry of Justice, Department of Corrections, Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs and Te Puni Kōkiri. We would like to thank Associate Professor Louisa Degenhardt and other researchers at the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC) in Australia for their assistance and materials provided during the development of the IDMS. We acknowledge the New Zealand Needle Exchange who assisted us with the recruitment of frequent drug for the project. We would like to thank a number of drug treatment organisations who allowed us to recruit frequent drug from among their clients including Odyssey House, the Salvation Army Bridge Programme, Community Alcohol and Drug Services (CADS) and Higher Ground. We would like to thank all the key experts (KE) who offered their insights for the project and who received no compensation for their time. We would also like to thank the following agencies and organisations who provided secondary data sources on drug use and drug related harm in New Zealand for this report: Alcohol Drug Association New Zealand (ADANZ) Community Alcohol and Drug Services (CADS) New Zealand Ministry of Health National Drug Intelligence Bureau (NDIB) New Zealand Police New Zealand Customs Service Odyssey House The 1998 and 2001 National Drug Surveys were funded by contestable research grants from the Health Research Council (HRC) and partially by direct funding from the Ministry of Health. The 2003 Health Behaviour Survey-Drug Use (2003 HBS-Drug Use) was directly funded by the New Zealand Ministry of Health. The 2006 national survey of legal party pill use was funded from the National Drug Policy Discretionary Fund which is a contestable research pool jointly managed by the New Zealand Inter-Agency Committee of Drugs (IACD) and the New Zealand Ministerial Committee on Drug Policy (MCDP). We acknowledge the ongoing support of the New Zealand Drug Foundation. Last, but by no means least, we would like to thank all the interviewers who worked with us on the project and the frequent drug who agreed to be interviewed for the study. Correspondence Dr Chris Wilkins, (SHORE), Massey University, PO Box 6137, Wellesley Street, Auckland, New Zealand, tel , c.wilkins@massey.ac.nz 8

9 Executive Summary Introduction The Illicit Drug Monitoring System (IDMS) is conducted annually to provide ongoing and timely information on changes in drug use and drug related harm in New Zealand. The IDMS was first established in The 2007 IDMS interviewed 324 frequent drug (similar to the 318 interviewed in 2006) in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch using purposive sampling and snowballing. ( P ) Availability remained easy/very easy in 2005, 2006 and Price and purity has not changed. Seizures of precursors and detection of clandestine laboratories have remained high in recent years. Crystal methamphetamine (Ice) Availability was reported to have become more difficult in both 2006 and 2007 compared to Disruptions in availability are likely to reflect the impact of some very large seizures made at the border in 2006 and Ecstasy (MDMA) Availability was easy in 2006 and Price may be declining. More people were considered to be using in 2006 than in National household survey results indicate increasing use. The situation is somewhat confused by the high availability of BZP party pills which are sometimes sold as ecstasy by drug dealers. Chemical analysis of alleged ecstasy tablets has discovered a range of substances including BZP. LSD Availability reported to be difficult/easy in 2006 and Price and purity stable. Some increase in use among those in the dance party community. Use among other drug stable or declining. Cocaine Availability was described as more difficult in both 2006 and Less people were reported to be using in both 2007 and Purity was low in 2006 and Price was reported to be increasing in Cannabis Availability described as very easy/easy in 2006 and Some considered strength and price to be increasing. This has been attributed to more high potency hydroponic cannabis cultivation. Opiates Availability was reported to be easy/very easy in 2007 and Price and purity has increased. Lower proportions of reported recent use of heroin in 2007 compared to Seizures of heroin at the border 9

10 have remained low level. The main source of opiates are opiates illicitly diverted from the medical and drug treatment systems, including morphine, morphine sulphate tablets (MST) and methadone. GHB (Fantasy) Availability was easy in 2006 and Price was increasing. Number of was the same/more. Ketamine Availability was difficult in 2006 and Purity was high. Number of was declining. Nitrous oxide (Nos) Lower proportions of all three groups of frequent drug reported recent use in 2007 compared to This appears to be due to the pressure put on retailers to stop selling nitrous oxide and related prosecutions conducted by the Ministry of Health. BZP party pills Reports of increased use and injection of BZP party pills by frequent injecting drug. Ritalin More of the frequent injecting drug named Ritalin as their drug of choice in 2007 compared to The frequent methamphetamine used Ritalin on a greater number of days in 2007 compared to Drug related harm The frequent methamphetamine were more likely to report financial problems and legal/police problems in relation to their drug use in 2007 compared to 2006 and The frequent injecting drug were more likely to report legal/police problems related to their drug use in 2007 compared to Accessing health services The frequent methamphetamine were more likely to have accessed an ambulance and an Accident and Emergency Department in relation to their drug use in 2007 compared to The frequent methamphetamine were also more likely to have accessed a drug and alcohol worker, counsellor and General Practitioner in relation to their drug use in 2007 compared to Greater utilisation of medical and emergency services suggests heavier use of methamphetamine and other drugs by some methamphetamine. A higher proportion of the frequent methamphetamine had also used opiates in 2007 compared to 2006, and this may have contributed to a greater risk of drug overdose and subsequent demand for emergency medical services. 10

11 Summary Introduction The aim of the IDMS is to provide timely information on illegal drug use and drug related harm to inform appropriate responses to drug problems in New Zealand. This is the third year that the IDMS has been conducted, and the second year it has been conducted with the expanded methodology. The 2006 and 2007 IDMS each interviewed three groups of frequent drug (i.e. frequent methamphetamine, frequent injecting drug and frequent injecting drug ). The first IDMS, conducted in 2005, did not include interviews with frequent injecting drug. The IDMS consists of three sources of information: (1) face-to-face interviews with frequent drug from the community; (2) interviews with key experts (KE) who have regular contact with drug through their work; and (3) the collation of secondary data sources on drug related statistics. Frequent drug are considered a sentinel group who can provide accurate information on trends in drug use and drug related harm (see Hando et al., 1997; Breen et al., 2002, Wilkins et al., 2004). A unique feature of the IDMS is that it simultaneously interviews three groups of frequent drug. The validity of the IDMS comes from the knowledge and experience of the frequent drug and KE interviewed, rather than from the representative nature of the sampling methodology. The sample of frequent drug interviewed is not intended to be statistically representative of drug use in the general population. Method A total of 324 frequent drug were interviewed for the 2007 IDMS, including 110 frequent methamphetamine, 105 frequent ecstasy (MDMA) and 109 frequent injecting drug. The frequent drug were recruited from the three main centres (i.e. Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch) using purposive sampling and snowballing (Biernacki and Waldorf, 1981, Watters and Biernacki, 1989). Three separate promotional campaigns were carried to recruit the three groups of frequent drugs of interest, using posters, flyers and business cards. To be eligible to be interviewed for the study, a respondent had to be 16 years or older, to have used one of three drugs of central interest at least monthly in the past six months, and to have resided in the site location for the past 12 months. The methodological design of the IDMS (i.e. the simultaneous interview of three groups of frequent drug ) allows aspects of drug use to be examined from a number of perspectives. The findings can be presented and compared by the specific drug user group (i.e. frequent methamphetamine, frequent ecstasy and frequent injecting drug ) or as a combined group of all the frequent drug. As 11

12 further annual waves of the IDMS are completed, findings from the specific drug user groups and the combined group of frequent drug can also be compared through time. In this year s report we compare the findings from the frequent methamphetamine, frequent ecstasy and frequent injecting drug for 2007 and We also compare the findings from the frequent methamphetamine for 2005, 2006 and Demographic characteristics of the frequent drug In 2007, 69% of the frequent drug were male. There was no statistically significant difference in the gender of the frequent drug in 2007 compared to There was also no statistically significant difference in the gender of the frequent methamphetamine in 2007 compared to 2006 and In 2007, the median age of the sample was 28 years (mean 30 years old, range years old). The frequent ecstasy (MDMA) were younger than either the frequent methamphetamine (23 years old vs. 31 years old, p<0.0001) or the frequent injecting drug (23 years old vs. 36 years old, p<0.0001). The frequent injecting drug were older in 2007 compared to 2006 (36 years old vs. 32 years old, p=0.0046). There was no statistically significant difference in the mean age of the frequent methamphetamine in 2007 compared to 2006 and In 2007, 80% of the frequent drug were European and 15% were Maori. The frequent methamphetamine were less likely to be European than the frequent ecstasy (67% vs. 90%, p=0.0003) or the frequent injecting drug (67% vs. 83%, p=0.0148). There was no statistically significant difference in the ethnic characteristics of the frequent drug in 2007 compared to There was no statistically significant change in the proportion of the frequent methamphetamine who were non-european in 2007 compared to 2006 and In 2007, 46% of the frequent drug were unemployed, sick or invalid, 27% were employed (part time or full time) and 20% were high school or tertiary students. The frequent methamphetamine (64% vs. 17%, p<0.0001) and frequent injecting drug (75% vs. 17%, p<0.0001) were more likely to be unemployed/sick or invalid than the frequent ecstasy (MDMA). The frequent ecstasy were more likely to be students and to be unemployed in 2007 compared to The frequent methamphetamine were more likely to be employed and students in 2005 compared to 2006 and In 2007, 27% of the frequent drug had no educational qualifications. The frequent methamphetamine (33% vs. 7%, p<0.0001) and frequent injecting drug (41% vs. 7%, p<0.0001) were more likely to have no educational qualifications than the frequent ecstasy (MDMA). There was no statistically significant difference in the educational achievement of the sample in 2007 compared to There was no 12

13 difference in the proportion of the frequent methamphetamine who had no educational qualifications in 2007 compared to 2006 and In 2007, the frequent drug had a median gross annual income of $22,500. The frequent methamphetamine had a higher mean annual income than either the frequent injecting drug ($43,438 vs. 26,589, p=0.0355) or the frequent ecstasy ($43,438 vs. 23,939, p=0.0111). The frequent drug had lower mean gross annual incomes in 2007 compared to 2006 ($31,246 vs. $40,942, p<0.0001). Low incomes were found among all the frequent drug in 2007 compared to 2006, but were particularly lower among the frequent ecstasy ($32,500 vs. $23,939, p<0.0001). The frequent ecstasy were more likely to be students and unemployed in 2007 compared to 2006 and this is likely to have negatively impacted on their income levels. There was no difference in the mean income of the frequent methamphetamine in 2007 compared to 2006 and Drug use patterns of the frequent methamphetamine In 2007, the drug types most commonly used by the frequent methamphetamine in the previous six months were methamphetamine (97%), cannabis (87%), tobacco (84%), alcohol (79%), crystal methamphetamine (66%), ecstasy (MDMA) (52%), BZP party pills (43%) and LSD (34%). A lower proportion of the frequent methamphetamine had used BZP party pills in 2006 compared to 2005 (31% vs. 58%, p=0.0009). A higher proportion of frequent methamphetamine had used other opiates in 2007 compared to 2006 (32% vs. 18%) and this was close to being statistically significant (p=0.0582). A higher proportion of the frequent methamphetamine had used methadone in 2007 compared to 2005 (26% vs. 12%, p=0.048). A lower proportion of the frequent methamphetamine had used nitrous oxide in 2006 compared to 2005 (15% vs. 47%, p<0.0001) and in 2007 compared to 2005 (24% vs. 47%, p=0.0018). The frequent methamphetamine had, on average, used methamphetamine on a greater number of days in 2007 compared to 2005 (68 days vs. 46 days, p=0.006) and in 2006 compared to 2005 (59 days vs. 46 days, p=0.0364). The frequent methamphetamine had, on average, smoked tobacco on more days in 2007 than in 2006 (175 days vs. 162 days, p=0.0344) and compared to 2005 (175 days vs. 160 days, p<0.0001). The frequent methamphetamine had, on average, used crystal methamphetamine on more days in 2007 than in 2005 (46 days vs. 30 days, p=0.044) and on more days in 2006 compared to 2005 (56 days vs. 30 days, p=0.0333). The frequent methamphetamine had, on average, used Ritalin (methylphenidate) on a greater number of days in 2007 compared to 2006 (31 days vs. 12 days, p=0.0369). In 2007, the drug types most commonly injected by the frequent methamphetamine in the past six months were heroin (100%), other opiates (77%), Ritalin (62%), methadone (59%), methamphetamine 13

14 (35%) and crystal methamphetamine (34%). There was no statistically significant change among the frequent methamphetamine with respect to the level of injection of drug types in 2007 compared to Drug use patterns of the frequent ecstasy In 2007, the drug types most commonly used by the frequent ecstasy in the past six months were ecstasy (100%), alcohol (96%), cannabis (89%), tobacco (67%), BZP party pills (45%) and LSD (40%). The drug types which a lower proportion of the frequent ecstasy had used in 2007 compared to 2006 were BZP party pills (45% vs. 65%, p=0.004) and nitrous oxide (32% vs. 49%, p=0.0185). The drug type which the frequent ecstasy had, on average, used on a greater number of days in the past six months in 2007 compared to 2006 was alcohol (66 vs. 50 days, p=0.0029). The drug types which the frequent ecstasy had, on average, used on a fewer number of days in the past six months in 2007 compared 2006 were magic mushrooms (psilocybin) (3 vs. 6 days, p=0.0169) and crystal methamphetamine (4 days vs. 31 days, p=0.011). In 2007, the drug types most commonly injected by the frequent ecstasy in the past six months were methadone (33%), other opiates (25%), anti-depressants (20%), and MDA (18%) (Table 3.2). There was no statistically significant change among the frequent ecstasy with respect to the level of injection of drug types in 2007 compared to Drug use patterns of the frequent injecting drug In 2007, the drug types most commonly used by the frequent injecting drug in the past six months were tobacco (90%), cannabis (85%), alcohol (72%), methadone (72%), other opiates (71%), benzodiazepines (54%), methamphetamine (45%) and Ritalin (42%). The drug types which a lower proportion of the frequent injecting drug had used in 2007 compared to 2006 were heroin (12% vs. 24%, p=0.0394) and MDA (1% vs. 8%, p=0.0253). A lower proportion of the frequent injecting drug had used nitrous oxide in 2007 compared to 2006, and this was close to being statistically significant (22% vs. 11%, p=0.053). The drug types which the frequent injecting drug had, on average, used on a greater number of days in the past six months in 2007 compared to 2006 were BZP party pills (23 vs. 6 days, p=0.0275) and methadone (133 days vs. 92 days, p=0.0033). The drug types which the frequent injecting drug had, on average, used on a fewer number of days in the past six months in 2007 compared 2006 were crystal methamphetamine (16 vs. 42 days, p=0.0419) and methamphetamine (12 days vs. 43 days, p=0.0064). 14

15 In 2007, the drug types most commonly injected by the frequent injecting drug in the past six months were other opiates (99%), Ritalin (93%), heroin (92%), crystal methamphetamine (80%), ketamine (67%), methamphetamine (65%) and methadone (64%). The frequent injecting drug were statistically significantly more likely to have injected BZP party pills in 2007 compared to 2006 (74% vs. 32%, p=0.0019). There were changes in the drug types which the frequent injecting drug named as their drug of choice in 2007 compared to A lower proportion of the frequent injecting drug named heroin (4% vs. 12%, p=0.0295) and amphetamine sulphate (5% vs. 13%, p=0.0393) as their drug of choice in 2007 compared to A higher proportion of frequent injecting drug named methadone (19% vs. 8%, p=0.0246) and Ritalin (11% vs. 0%, p<0.0001) as their drug of choice in 2007 compared to New drug types The frequent drug were asked if they had heard about any new drug types in the past six months. Six frequent drug reported new types of BZP free party pills. Five frequent drug reported an increase in the number of people injecting BZP party pills. Five frequent drug reported a new type of slow release Ritalin available in new quantities. Three frequent drug reported an increase in ecstasy use and new types of ecstasy. New types of drug The frequent drug were asked if they had seen any new types of drug in the previous six months. Thirty-five frequent drug said they had noticed more younger drug in the past six months. Twenty-three frequent drug said there was now a wider range of people using drugs including older people, middle class people and professionals. Six frequent drug reported increased intravenous drug use. Three frequent drug reported that more people were injecting BZP party pills. Increase in drug use by some The frequent drug were asked if there had been any increase in drug use by some drug in the previous six months. Twenty-one frequent drug said they were seeing more people using methamphetamine over the past six months. Related to this theme, a further 11 frequent drug reported existing methamphetamine using more methamphetamine. Sixteen frequent drug said they were seeing more younger drug. Eight frequent drug reported they had seen an increase in ecstasy use over the past six months. Related to this theme, a further six frequent drug said that ecstasy were using ecstasy more often and were also using more of other drugs. Five frequent drug said they had observed greater use of Ritalin over the previous six months. 15

16 Different means of administering drugs The frequent drug were asked if they had seen people administering drugs in new ways in the past six months. Eleven frequent drug reported more injection of drugs. One frequent drug user specifically reported an increase in the injection of ecstasy. Another frequent drug user mentioned an increase in the injection of BZP and two frequent drug had observed an increase in the injection of methamphetamine. Eleven frequent drug reported more powder ecstasy and more snorting of ecstasy. Current availability of different drug types In 2007, the average score for the current availability of methamphetamine for all the frequent drug was 1.8 which indicates that overall the current availability of methamphetamine was easy/very easy (Table 1a). The average score for the current availability of crystal methamphetamine for all the frequent drug was 2.1 which indicates that overall the current level of availability of crystal methamphetamine was easy. The average score for the current availability of ecstasy (MDMA) for all the frequent drug was 2.0 which indicates that overall the current level of availability of ecstasy (MDMA) was easy. The average score for the current availability of LSD for all the frequent drug was 2.4 which indicates that overall the current level of availability of LSD was easy/difficult. The average score for the current availability of cannabis for all the frequent drug was 1.4 which indicates that overall the current level of availability of cannabis was very easy/ easy (Table 1b). The average score for the current availability of opiates for all the frequent drug was 1.9 which indicates that overall the current availability of opiates was easy/very easy. The average score for the current availability of cocaine for all the frequent drug was 3.0 which indicates that overall the current level of availability of cocaine was difficult. There was no statistically significant change in the current availability of these drug types in 2007 compared to The frequent methamphetamine considered the availability of methamphetamine to be easy/very easy in 2005, 2006 and The frequent methamphetamine considered the availability of crystal methamphetamine to be easy in 2005, 2006 and

17 Table 1a: Current availability of different drug types, CURRENT AVAILABILITY Number with knowledge Very easy [1] Easy [2] Difficult [3] Very difficult (%) [4] Average availability score (1=very easy 4=very difficult) Overall current status Crystal Meth amphetamine Crystal Meth amphetamine Ecstasy (MDMA) Ecstasy (MDMA) n=176 n=176 n=107 n=71 n=200 n=157 n=124 n=102 Easy/ very easy 38% 38% 24% 25% 20% 25% 8% 17% 44% 47% 48% 41% 54% 55% 47% 33% 16% 13% 23% 31% 27% 19% 38% 42% 1% 2% 5% 3% 0% 2% 7% 8% Easy/ very easy Easy Easy Easy Easy LSD Easy/ difficult LSD Difficult/ easy 17

18 Table 1b: Current availability of different drug types, CURRENT AVAILABILITY Number with knowledge Very easy [1] Easy [2] Difficult [3] Very difficult (%) [4] Average availability score (1=very easy 4=very difficult) Overall current status Cannabis Cannabis Opiates Opiates Cocaine Cocaine n=276 n=263 n=114 n=132 n=29 n=29 Very easy/ easy 41% 35% 60% 64% 10% 3% 36% 30% 45% 43% 17% 17% 4% 5% 10% 18% 48% 52% 0% 1% 4% 4% 24% 28% Very easy/ easy Easy/ very easy Easy/ very easy Difficult Difficult 18

19 Current purity of different drug types In 2007, the average score for the current purity of methamphetamine for all the frequent drug was 2.3 which indicates that overall the purity of methamphetamine was medium/high. The average score for the current purity of crystal methamphetamine for all the frequent drug was 2.5 which indicates that overall the purity of crystal methamphetamine was high/medium. The average score for the current purity of ecstasy (MDMA) for all the frequent drug was 2.2 which indicates that overall the purity of ecstasy (MDMA) was medium/high. The average score for the current strength of LSD for all the frequent drug was 2.2 which indicates that overall the strength of LSD was medium/high. The average score for the current strength of cannabis for all the frequent drug was 2.5 which indicates that overall the strength of cannabis was high/medium. The frequent methamphetamine were more likely than the frequent ecstasy to describe the current strength of cannabis as high (2.6 vs. 2.3, p=0.0046). The average score for the current purity of opiates for all the frequent drug was 2.6 which indicates that overall the purity of opiates was high. The average score for the current purity of cocaine for all the frequent drug was 2.0 which indicates that overall the purity of cocaine was medium. The purity of opiates was considered to be higher in 2007 than in 2006 (2.6 vs. 2.3, p=0.0006). Otherwise, there was no statistically significant change in the current purity of these drug types in 2007 compared to The frequent methamphetamine described the purity of methamphetamine as medium/high in 2005, 2006 and The frequent methamphetamine described the purity of crystal methamphetamine as high/medium in 2005, 2006 and

20 Change in the availability of different drug types In 2007, the average score for the change in availability of methamphetamine for all the frequent drug was 1.9 which indicates that overall the availability of methamphetamine was stable over the past six months (Table 2a). The average score for the change in availability of crystal methamphetamine for all the frequent drug was 2.1 which indicates that overall the availability of crystal methamphetamine was stable/more difficult over the past six months. The average score for the change in the availability of ecstasy (MDMA) for all the frequent drug was 1.9 which indicates that overall the availability of ecstasy (MDMA) was stable over the previous six months. The average score for the change in availability of LSD for all the frequent drug was 2.0 which indicates that overall the availability of LSD was stable/fluctuating over the last six months. The frequent methamphetamine were more likely than the frequent ecstasy to say the availability of LSD had become more difficult over the past six months (2.2 vs. 1.9, p=0.0327). The average score for the change in the availability of cannabis for all the frequent drug was 2.0 which indicates that overall the availability of cannabis was stable over the past six months (Table 2b). The average score for the change in availability of opiates for all the frequent drug was 2.0 which indicates that overall the availability of opiates was stable over the past six months. The average score for the change in the availability of cocaine for all the frequent drug was 2.2 which indicates that overall the availability of cocaine was stable/more difficult over the past six months. There was no statistically significant change in the availability of these drug types in 2007 compared to The frequent methamphetamine were more likely to report the availability of crystal methamphetamine as becoming more difficult in 2007 than in

21 Table 2a: Change in availability of different drug types in the past six months, CHANGE IN AVAILABILITY Number with knowledge Easier [1] Stable [2] Fluctuates [2] More difficult [3] Average change in availability score (1=easier 3=more difficult) Overall current status Crystal Meth amphetamine Crystal Meth amphetamine Ecstasy (MDMA) Ecstasy (MDMA) n=175 n=174 n=106 n=69 n=194 n=154 n=119 n=96 20% 28% 10% 16% 19% 28% 16% 20% 53% 51% 50% 52% 45% 47% 34% 40% 9% 6% 10% 6% 23% 6% 31% 20% 19% 16% 29% 26% 13% 18% 18% 21% Stable Stable Stable/ Stable/ Stable Stable more difficult more difficult LSD Stable/ fluctuating LSD Stable/ fluctuating 21

22 Table 2b: Change in availability of different drug types in the past six months, CHANGE IN AVAILABILITY Number with knowledge Easier [1] Stable [2] Fluctuates [2] More difficult [3] Average change in availability score (1=easier 3=more difficult) Overall current status Cannabis Cannabis Opiates Opiates Cocaine Cocaine n=274 n=261 n=114 n=128 n=29 n=28 7% 11% 10% 15% 7% 0% 69% 71% 73% 61% 57% 64% 15% 8% 8% 8% 13% 14% 9% 9% 10% 16% 23% 21% Stable Stable Stable Stable Stable/ more difficult Stable/ more difficult 22

23 Perceptions of the change in the number of people using different drugs In 2007, the average score for all the frequent drug in regard to the change in the number of methamphetamine was 2.3 indicating that overall the same/more people were using methamphetamine (Table 3a). The average score for all the frequent drug in regard to the change in the number of crystal methamphetamine was 2.1 indicating that overall the same/more people were using crystal methamphetamine. The average score for all the frequent drug in regard to the change in the number of ecstasy (MDMA) was 2.5 indicating that overall the more/same people were using ecstasy (MDMA). The frequent ecstasy were statistically significantly more likely than the frequent methamphetamine to say that more people they know were using ecstasy in 2007 (2.5 vs. 2.3, p=0.0459). The average score for all the frequent drug in regard to the change in the number of LSD was 2.0 indicating that overall about the same number of people were using LSD. The frequent ecstasy were statistically significantly more likely than the frequent methamphetamine to say that more people they know were using LSD compared to six months ago in 2007 (2.3 vs. 1.8, p=0.0036). The average score for all the frequent drug in regard to the change in the number of cannabis was 2.1 indicating that overall the same/more people were using cannabis (Table 3b). The average score for all the frequent drug in regard to the change in the number of opiate was 2.1 indicating that overall the same/more people were using opiates. The frequent injecting drug were statistically significantly more likely than the frequent methamphetamine to say that more people they know were using opiates over the past six months (2.2 vs. 1.8, p=0.0256). The average score for all the frequent drug in regard to the change in the number of cocaine was 1.9 indicating that overall the same/less people were using cocaine. The average score of the number of people using ecstasy was statistically significantly higher in 2007 compared to 2006 (2.5 vs. 2.3, p=0.0111) indicating that more people were using ecstasy in 2007 compared to Otherwise there was no statistically significant change in perceptions of the number of people using these drug types in 2007 compared to The frequent methamphetamine described the number of people using methamphetamine as more/the same in 2005, 2006 and The frequent methamphetamine described the number of people using crystal methamphetamine as same/more in 2005, 2006 and

24 Table 3a: Users perceptions of the change in the number of people using different drugs in the past six months, CHANGE IN NUMBER PEOPLE USING Number with knowledge Less [1] Same [2] More [3] Average change in number of people using score (1=less 3=more) Overall current status Crystal Meth amphetamine Same/ more Crystal Meth amphetamine Same/ more Ecstasy (MDMA) Ecstasy (MDMA) n=175 n=178 n=108 n=71 n=196 n=159 n=125 n=101 23% 17% 25% 29% 11% 6% 27% 24% 34% 31% 37% 35% 51% 42% 51% 50% 43% 48% 38% 36% 39% 52% 22% 22% Same/ more Same/ more Same/ more More/ same LSD Same LSD Same 24

25 Table 3b: Users perceptions of the change in the number of people using different drugs in the past six months, CHANGE IN Cannabis Cannabis Opiates Opiates Cocaine Cocaine NUMBER PEOPLE USING Number with knowledge n=279 n=262 n=114 n=127 n=27 n=26 Less [1] 10% 12% 19% 28% 30% 28% Same [2] More [3] Average change in number of people using score (1=less 3=more) Overall current status % 66% 46% 38% 48% 56% 17% 22% 34% 35% 22% 16% Same/ more Same/ more Same/ more Same/ more Same/ less Same/ less 25

26 Current prices for drugs Table 4a and 4b present the mean and median prices paid for common retail quantities of different illegal drugs for 2007 and In 2007, the frequent methamphetamine paid a lower mean price for a gram of methamphetamine than the frequent injecting drug ($583 vs. $861, p=0.0004). There was no statistically significant difference in the mean price paid for a point (p=0.4443) or gram (p=0.1763) of methamphetamine in 2007 compared to There was no statistically significant change in the mean price of a point of crystal methamphetamine in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.1914). The mean price paid for a pill of ecstasy by the frequent drug was lower in 2007 than in 2006 ($55 vs. $59, p=0.0243). There was no statistically significant difference in the mean price paid for a tab of LSD in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.486). The mean price paid for an ounce of cannabis was higher in 2007 than in 2006 ($313 vs. $300, p=0.0168). The mean price paid for a milligram of opiates was slightly higher in 2007 compared to 2006 ($1.01 vs. $0.95, p=0.0433). There was no statistically significant change in the mean price paid for a gram of cocaine in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.4132). Table 4a: Mean and median price paid for different drug types by frequent drug, CURRENT PRICE Meth amphet amine Meth amphet amine Crystal Meth amphet amine Crystal Meth amphet amine Ecstasy (MDMA) Ecstasy (MDMA) Number with n=144 n=130 n=76 n=45 n=190 n=122 n=117 n=75 knowledge Mean price ($) $96 $97 $100 point $106 point $59 pill $55 pill $35 tab $36 tab point point Median $100 $100 $100 point $100 point $60 pill $60 pill $35 tab $40 tab price ($) point point Mean price $606 $663 - $ ($) gram gram gram Median $600 $600 - $ price ($) gram gram gram Table 4b: Mean and median price paid for different drug types by frequent drug, CURRENT Cannabis Cannabis Opiates Opiates Cocaine Cocaine PRICE Number with n=229 n=207 n=87 n=96 n=25 n=20 knowledge Mean price ($) $20 foil $20 foil $0.95 per milligram $1.01 per milligram $353 gram $431 gram Median price ($) $20 foil $20 foil $1.00 per milligram $1.00 per milligram $300 gram $350 gram Mean price $300 $ ($) ounce ounce Median $300 $ price ($) ounce ounce LSD LSD 26

27 Change in prices for drugs in past six months In 2007, the average score for the change in the price of methamphetamine for all the frequent drug was 2.0 which indicates that overall the price was stable over the previous six months (Table 5a). The average score for the change in the price of crystal methamphetamine for all the frequent drug was 2.1 which indicates that overall the price was stable over the previous six months. The average score for the change in the price of ecstasy (MDMA) for all the frequent drug was 1.9 which indicates that the price was stable/decreasing over the previous six months. The average score for the change in the price of LSD for all the frequent drug was 2.1 which indicates that overall the price of LSD was stable over the past six months. The average score for the change in the price of cannabis for all the frequent drug was 2.0 which indicates that overall the price of cannabis was stable over the previous six months (Table 5b). The average score for the change in the price of opiates for all the frequent drug was 2.1 which indicates that overall the price of opiates was stable over the previous six months. The average score for the change in the price of cocaine for all the frequent drug was 2.1 which indicates that overall the price of cocaine was stable/increasing over the past six months. The average score for the change in the price of opiates was statistically significantly higher in 2007 compared to 2006 (2.1 vs. 1.9, p=0.0137) indicating that the price of opiates has increased over the past two years. Otherwise there was no statistically significant change in the price of these drug types in 2007 compared to The frequent methamphetamine reported no change in the price of methamphetamine or crystal methamphetamine in 2007 compared to 2006 and

28 Table 5a: Change in price paid for different drug types in the past six months, CHANGE IN PRICE Number with knowledge Decreasing [1] Stable [2] Fluctuating [2] Increasing [3] Average change in price score (1=decreasing 3=increasing) Overall current status Crystal Meth amphetamine Stable Crystal Meth amphetamine Stable Ecstasy (MDMA) Stable/ decreasing Ecstasy (MDMA) n=155 n=167 n=98 n=69 n=187 n=158 n=117 n=96 23% 16% 11% 9% 22% 14% 10% 5% 48% 60% 61% 59% 58% 64% 70% 70% 12% 10% 10% 12% 12% 15% 9% 11% 17% 14% 17% 20% 7% 8% 10% 14% Stable Stable Stable/ decreasing LSD Stable LSD Stable 28

29 Table 5b: Change in price paid for different drug types in the past six months, CHANGE IN PRICE Number with knowledge Decreasing [1] Stable [2] Fluctuating [2] Increasing [3] Average change in price score (1=decreasing 3=increasing) Overall current status Cannabis Cannabis Opiates Opiates Cocaine Cocaine n=269 n=253 n=106 n=121 n=24 n=22 4% 4% 19% 6% 19% 5% 74% 82% 65% 75% 63% 68% 10% 5% 5% 4% 21% 9% 11% 9% 11% 15% 8% 18% Stable Stable Stable Stable/ increasing Stable/ decreasing Stable/ increasing 29

30 Drug related harm The frequent drug were asked if their drug use had had any harmful impact on different areas of their lives in the past six months. The frequent methamphetamine were statistically significantly more likely to report financial problems in 2007 compared to 2006 (75% vs. 54%, p=0.0039) and compared to 2005 (75% vs. 57%, p=0.0222) (Table 6). The frequent methamphetamine were also more likely to report legal/police problems in 2007 compared to 2006 (54% vs. 33%, p=0.0058) and compared to 2005 (54% vs. 22%, p<0.0001). The frequent injecting drug (45% vs. 28%, p=0.019) were more likely to report legal/police problems in 2007 than in Table 6: Drug related harms by frequent methamphetamine, Different areas of life (n=77) (n=114) (n=110) Financial problems 57% 54% 75% Relationship/social problems Work/study problems Legal/police problems 63% 72% 71% 43% 54% 55% 22% 33% 54% In 2007, the frequent drug were asked if they had experienced any of a list of specific harmful incidents in relation to their drug use in the past six months. In 2007, the drug related incidents most commonly reported by the frequent methamphetamine were argued with others (77%), lost temper (73%) and had reduced work/study performance (67%) (Table 7). The drug related incidents most commonly reported by the frequent ecstasy were couldn t remember what happened the night before (75%), did something under the influence of drugs and later regretted it (63%) and had reduced work/study performance (59%). The drug related incidents most commonly reported by the frequent injecting drug were no money for luxuries (71%), got into debt/owing money (69%) and argued with others (68%). 30

31 Table 7: Drug related incidents by frequent drug user group, 2007 Drug related incident (n=110) Ecstasy (MDMA) (n=105) Intravenous drug (IDU) (n=109) (n=324) Argued with others 77% 38% 68% 61% Lost your temper 73% 41% 61% 59% Had reduced work/study 67% 59% 42% 56% performance No money for luxuries 66% 41% 71% 59% Damaged a friendship 66% 25% 50% 47% Did something under the influence of 65% 63% 48% 59% drugs and later regretted it Got into debt/owing money 63% 36% 69% 56% Took sick leave/did not attend 61% 51% 32% 48% classes Upset a family relationship 60% 14% 48% 41% Ended a personal relationship 58% 10% 37% 35% Couldn t remember what happened 55% 75% 42% 57% the night before Damaged property (you) 55% 33% 27% 38% No money for food or rent 53% 21% 50% 42% Got arrested 46% 12% 31% 30% Had unprotected sex 45% 39% 39% 41% Passed out 44% 39% 38% 40% Stole property (you) 44% 21% 31% 32% Physically hurt someone else 40% 9% 24% 24% Spent some nights sleeping rough 39% 10% 27% 26% (i.e living on the streets) Got a traffic ticket 37% 7% 28% 24% Had sex and later regretted it 32% 29% 23% 28% Was kicked out of where I was living 31% 7% 27% 22% Sacked/lose business/quit study 31% 3% 15% 16% course Physically hurt yourself 29% 32% 29% 30% Charged with a driving offence (eg. 23% 4% 12% 14% DIC) Overdosed on drugs 20% 10% 17% 16% Had a car crash 17% 5% 13% 12% Were sexually harassed 11% 10% 11% 11% Were sexually assaulted 8% 3% 5% 5% Accessing health services The frequent drug were asked if they had accessed any of a list of health services in relation to their drug use in the previous six months. The frequent methamphetamine were statistically significantly more likely to have accessed an ambulance (15% vs. 3%, p=0.0014) and accident and emergency (17% vs. 6%, p=0.0351) in relation to their drug use in 2007 compared to 2006 (Table 8). The frequent 31

32 methamphetamine were also statistically significantly more likely to have accessed a drug and alcohol worker (37% vs. 18%, p=0.015), counsellor (42% vs. 18%, p=0.0021) and General Practitioner (38% vs. 18%, p=0.0096) in relation to their drug use in 2007 compared to Table 8: Health services accessed in relation to drug use in the past six months by frequent methamphetamine, Health service (n=73) (n=114) (n=110) Counsellor 18% 33% 42% General Practitioner 18% 27% 38% Drug and Alcohol worker Accident and Emergency 18% 38% 37% 14% 6% 17% Ambulance 10% 3% 15% Psychologist 7% 10% 15% Social worker 10% 7% 14% Psychiatrist 11% 10% 10% Hospital (admitted) 8% 4% 12% First Aid 3% 2% 6% 32

33 1. Introduction The IDMS is intended to serve as a strategic drug monitoring system to inform policy and strategic response to illegal drug use and drug related harm in New Zealand. It is designed to be sensitive to new trends in illegal drug use and drug related harm, and to provide ongoing monitoring of existing drug use and drug related harm. The IDMS provides detailed data on the harms and problems experienced by frequent drug, and the extent to which they access health, medical and emergency services in relation to their drug use. The IDMS also collates a range of leading statistical indicators of changes in illegal drug use and drug related harm, such as national household drug survey data, drug seizure data, calls to the alcohol and drug help-line and admissions to drug treatment programmes. The information provided by the IDMS is intended to be used by a wide range of people and organisations concerned with drug related harm and drug policy. The value of the IDMS will grow with the completion of each successive annual wave as trends in illegal drug use and drug related harm are able to be viewed over a number of years. The data collected in the IDMS is not intended to be representative of drug use in the general population in New Zealand; rather the information is intended to be indicative of emerging trends in drug use and drug related harm in New Zealand. The IDMS is not intended to be a definitive study of drug use in New Zealand, but rather to identify trends and characteristics of drug use which merit further research attention and investigation. In this way it is hoped that the IDMS will stimulate best practice and further research as much as it informs drug policy and drug strategy. The IDMS is a collaborative project drawing on the knowledge and goodwill of people from a range of sectors including central government agencies, drug treatment organisations, drug health services, drug user groups and drug researchers. The success of the IDMS is a testimony to the commitment and cooperation of these people and organisations. 1.1 Aims of IDMS The principal aims of the IDMS are to: Track trends in illegal drug use; Detect the emergence of new illegal drug types; Document the availability, price, and purity of illegal drugs of greatest concern; Document the harms and problems experience from the use of illegal drugs; Document social disruption related to illegal drug use. 33