THE NEW ZEALAND
MEDICAL JOURNAL
Vol 115 No 1166
ISSN 1175 8716
The emergence of amphetamine use in New Zealand:
findings from the 1998 and 2001 National Drug Surveys
Chris Wilkins, Krishna Bhatta and Sally Casswell
Abstract
Aims To examine changes in the use of amphetamines, measure current conditions of
supply, and investigate harms related to amphetamine use, in New Zealand.
Methods National Drug Surveys were conducted in 1998 and 2001. In each survey, a
sample of approximately 5500 people aged 15–45 years were asked about their
alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and other drug use, using a Computer Assisted
Telephone Interview (CATI) system. In 2001, those who had used stimulants (uppers,
speed, amphetamine, methamphetamine) within the previous year were asked a
number of new questions about harms experienced from use and present conditions of
supply.
Results Last-year use of stimulants increased from 2.9% in 1998, to 5.0% in 2001;
use of ice (crystal methamphetamine) increased from 0.1% to 0.9%, while use of
marijuana (19.9% and 20.3%) and LSD (3.8% and 3.2%) remained static. Forty one
per cent of users thought stimulants were easier to obtain in 2001 compared to a year
earlier, and 20% thought the price was lower. One fifth of stimulant users reported
harmful effects on ‘energy and vitality’, while one in ten reported harms to ‘financial
position’, ‘health’, and ‘work opportunities’.
Conclusions Stimulants moved from being the third most popular illicit drug type in
1998, to the second most popular by 2001. Additional research is required to
adequately assess the extent of harms experienced by amphetamine users in New
Zealand.
A number of countries in the Asia Pacific region, including Australia, Thailand, the
Philippines, Hong Kong and Japan experienced increased use and manufacture of
powerful amphetamines, such as methamphetamine, in the late 1990s. Similar
patterns of amphetamine use were reported in Western Europe in the early part of the
decade.1–5 Methamphetamine is an addictive psychostimulant resembling cocaine but
with a longer duration period (4–12 hours).6,7 Chronic high-dose use has effects
including hostility, violence, hallucinations, and paranoid psychosis resembling
schizophrenia, and can cause damage to cardiac, vascular and neurological systems.6–
11
It appears that New Zealand may be belatedly joining this worldwide trend in
amphetamine use. The number of clandestine laboratories detected in New Zealand
producing amphetamines increased from fewer than two per year before 1998, to nine
in 2000, to 41 by 2001* (personal correspondence, NDIB, 2002). The number of
people arrested for the possession of amphetamine-type substances (ATS) increased
from 161 in 1998, to 387 in 2001† (personal correspondence, NDIB, 2002). It has
been claimed that in some regions the use of amphetamines now exceeds the
NZMJ 22 November 2002, Vol 115 No 1166
URL: http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/115-1166/256/
Page 1 of 8
© NZMA
traditionally most widely-used illicit drug in New Zealand – marijuana.12 The
apparent rapid spread of amphetamine use in New Zealand has been highlighted by a
series of feature articles in popular magazines,12–15 newspaper articles, and a
television documentary (20/20).
Police and health statistics on amphetamine use can provide only a partial picture of
the extent of the growth in the use and supply of these drugs. The police appreciation
of the situation is limited to the population of users they have arrested or of whom
they have some investigative knowledge. The dramatic increase in arrests and seizures
of amphetamines is likely, in part, to reflect greater police awareness of these drugs,
and the allocation of additional enforcement resources to the investigation of these
types of offences. For example, in 2000, the police established the first ever unit
wholly dedicated to the detection of clandestine drug laboratories (the Clandestine
Drug Laboratory Team). Alternatively, in terms of health statistics, drug users
generally only come to the attention of medical professionals when their use has
become seriously problematic, and in the case of amphetamines this can be preceded
by months or even years of regular use and problems.16,8,9
This paper reports the population prevalence of amphetamine use in New Zealand
from data collected in the most recent National Drug Survey conducted in 2001, and
compares the findings with the previous survey carried out in 1998. A number of new
questions concerning the use and supply of amphetamines were inserted into the 2001
survey, including questions on self-reported harms from use and current conditions of
supply, and these are reported. The importance of amphetamine use is placed in the
wider context of drug use in New Zealand, through comparison with the prevalence of
two other popular illicit drugs, marijuana and LSD, from the same surveys. The
conclusion discusses the implications of the survey findings for the characteristics of
drug use in New Zealand, and speculates about likely trends in the near future.
Methods
The National Drug Survey interviews a sample of approximately 5500 people aged 15–45 years about
their alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and other drug use, using a Computer Assisted Telephone Interview
(CATI) system. Telephone numbers are selected using a stratified random digit dialling method so that
each household nationwide has an equal chance of being called. Within each household, one person is
randomly selected for an interview. Interviewers receive intensive training at the beginning of the
survey, and a supervisor is present at each shift to monitor the quality and consistency of interviewing,
and to handle any special problems. Each telephone number is called up to at least ten times in an effort
to reach households that are not responding. The 1998 and 2001 surveys achieved response rates of
79% and 80% respectively.
During the interview, respondents are asked whether they have ever used substances from a list of
twenty ‘other drugs’ for recreational purposes; this list includes two types of amphetamines:
‘stimulants’ and ‘ice’. The interviewer reads out the street names and technical names for each type of
drug to ensure a high level of recognition by the respondent. For stimulants they read, ‘uppers, speed,
amphetamine, methamphetamine’, and for ice they read ‘crystal methamphetamine’.
In 2001, those who had used stimulants in the last 12 months were asked a range of additional
questions about their experience of use and supply. These included questions about whether use had
harmed eight areas of their lives in the previous 12 months, and how price and availability compared to
a year earlier.
The findings of the two surveys were analysed for differences between the two samples as a whole, and
for differences between the subgroups of the two samples. All comparisons were tested at a 1% level
for statistical significance, adjusting for design effects. Only changes that are significant are reported.
All analysis was conducted using SAS software.
NZMJ 22 November 2002, Vol 115 No 1166
URL: http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/115-1166/256/
Page 2 of 8
© NZMA
Results
Prevalence of use The last-year use of stimulants increased from 2.9% in 1998, to
5.0% in 2001. Increases were found for 15–17 year olds (from 1.6% in 1998, to 5.3%
in 2001) and 20–24 year olds (from 5.8% to 10.5%). Use by men aged 15–17
increased from 1.5% in 1998, to 5.7% in 2001 (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Last-year use of stimulants by age group, 1998 and 2001
% of last-year users
15
10
5
0
15 - 17
18 - 19
20 - 24
25 - 29
30 - 34
35 - 39
40 - 45
age group
1998
2001
The last-year use of ice increased from 0.1% in 1998, to 0.9% in 2001. Increases were
found for 20–24 year olds (from no use in 1998, to 2.2% in 2001), and men aged 20–
24 years (from no use to 2.9%).
Between 1998 and 2001, stimulant use increased from 2.9% to 5.0%, while use of
marijuana (19.9% and 20.3%) and LSD (3.8% and 3.2%) remained static (Figure 2).
Conditions of supply in 2001 Those who had used stimulants in the last 12 months in
2001 were asked how the availability of the drug compared that of a year ago. Forty
one per cent of users thought it was ‘easier’ to get stimulants, 35% said it was ‘about
the same’, 12% thought it was ‘harder’, and 12% ‘did not know’.
Last-year stimulant users were also asked how the price of the drug compared to that
of a year ago. Forty six per cent of users thought the price was about the same, 20%
thought it was lower, 23% didn’t know, and 12% said the price was higher.
Self-reported harms from amphetamine use in 2001 Those who had used
stimulants in the previous 12 months were asked whether their use had harmed eight
areas of their life in that year. One fifth of stimulant users reported harmful effects on
‘energy and vitality’, while about one in ten reported harms related to ‘financial
position’, ‘health’ and ‘work opportunities’ (Table 1). Very few users reported
harmful effects on ‘children’s health or wellbeing’.
NZMJ 22 November 2002, Vol 115 No 1166
URL: http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/115-1166/256/
Page 3 of 8
© NZMA
Figure 2. Last-year use of stimulants, marijuana and LSD, 1998 and 2001
25
marijuana
marijuana
% of last-year users
20
15
10
stimulants
5
stimulants
LSD
LSD
0
1998
2001
Table 1. Identified areas of life that were harmfully affected by the use of
stimulants in the last year, 2001
Area of life
Energy and vitality
Financial position
Health
Work or work opportunities
Friendship and social life
Outlook on life
Home life
Children’s health or wellbeing
Last-year users
(%)
19.2
12.2
9.6
9.9
7.0
5.8
3.5
0.2
Discussion
Comparison of the findings of the National Drug Survey in 2001 and 1998 suggests
changes in the nature of drug use in New Zealand. Although marijuana remains by far
New Zealand’s most widely-used illicit drug, its last-year prevalence did not change
between 1998 and 2001. In contrast, the use of amphetamines increased rapidly
during this time, particularly among young people and men. Stimulants moved from
being the third most popular illicit drug type in 1998 to the second most popular by
2001. In a regional drug survey conducted in 1990,17 stimulants were the fourth most
popular illicit drug type, behind marijuana, LSD and hallucinogenic mushrooms.
Although well designed CATI surveys have been found to achieve similar results to
other survey methodologies,18 the difficulties of surveying illicit drug users, and in
particular heavy drug users,19 mean the findings reported here are likely to
NZMJ 22 November 2002, Vol 115 No 1166
URL: http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/115-1166/256/
Page 4 of 8
© NZMA
underestimate the true number of amphetamine users to some extent. However, the
consistency of the survey methodology between the survey waves suggests the trends
in amphetamine use identified are likely to be fairly accurate.
A number of users reported harmful effects from amphetamine use on a range of areas
of their lives. The high proportion of users reporting problems related to ‘energy and
vitality’ (20%) is consistent with the effects of amphetamine, which permit users to
sustain long periods of physical activity while under the influence of the drug, but are
followed by a physical and mental ‘crash’ characterised by exhaustion and
depression.7 The relatively high number of users reporting problems related to ‘work
and work opportunities’ (10%) may reflect the fact that amphetamines are often used
to increase performance and endurance at work and this can eventually cause
problems.1
The questions about harms asked in the survey can provide only a preliminary
assessment of the health risks of amphetamines. Respondents were asked to provide
simple yes/no responses to dichotomous questions about harm related to their
stimulant use in general areas of their life. They were not able to express the type, or
seriousness, of harm experienced. Australian studies of amphetamine users that have
employed more diagnostic questioning about harms have found users experiencing a
range of physical and psychological problems.9,20,21 For example, Hando et al20 found
users commonly reporting physical symptoms such as poor appetite (63% of
respondents), fatigue (58%), racing heart (56%), and trouble sleeping (55%), and
psychological symptoms such as depression (64%), anxiety (63%), paranoia (47%)
and hallucinations (28%). The Australian studies all drew on purposive samples rather
than representative population samples and recruited frequent users (eg, once a
month) rather than merely last-year users. A high proportion of participants in these
studies were also intravenous drug users who reported high levels of poly-drug use
and this may have contributed to the harms reported.
The relatively recent popularity of amphetamines in New Zealand may be concealing
the level of harm from these drugs to some extent. A time lag of ‘several years’ before
users of methamphetamine powder reported serious problems has been noted by key
informants in the Australian Illicit Drug Reporting System (IDRS) (compared with
only a few months for ice).16 Gawin and Ellinwood8 observe users of psychomotor
stimulants commonly progress to addiction only after two to five years of use. More
comprehensive and detailed diagnostic questioning, with ongoing monitoring, is
required to adequately evaluate the harm of amphetamine use in New Zealand.
Given that the large-scale domestic production of amphetamines has only recently
been established in New Zealand, it is possible that amphetamine use will continue to
increase. However, there are several reasons to believe that use may stabilise in the
near future.
First, the health risks associated with amphetamine use are serious, particularly when
compared with other popular illicit drugs in New Zealand, such as marijuana and
LSD. As more new users experience problems, or know someone who has
experienced problems, the initial enthusiasm for the drug may wane.
Second, the price of amphetamines in New Zealand is still high relative to other
popular illicit drugs. At street level, methamphetamine sells for about $100–180 per
gram22 and more pure amphetamine (Pure) sells for about $1000 per gram.15 In
NZMJ 22 November 2002, Vol 115 No 1166
URL: http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/115-1166/256/
Page 5 of 8
© NZMA
comparison, a tab of LSD can be purchased for approximately $30–40, and 1.5 grams
of marijuana can be bought for $20.23 The high prices paid for amphetamine are
exacerbated by difficulties in verifying the quality of purchases before payment is
made.24 With marijuana, quality can be established through physical inspection before
money is handed over,25,26 whereas the generic pharmaceutical characteristics of
amphetamine (ie, chemical powder) means that purchasers face a greater risk of
receiving low quality or fraudulent drugs.
Third, there is likely to be a stiffening of the enforcement response to amphetamine
use and manufacture in New Zealand. The police are seeking to reclassify
methamphetamine to the most serious level of offence under the Misuse of Drugs Act
1975 (ie, Class A), and to expedite the specification of explicit quantities for
presumption of supply, additional powers of search, the creation of a special offence
of amphetamine manufacture, and legislation to control precursor chemicals used in
domestic manufacture.22 Experience in Australia and the United States indicates
stricter control of precursors can have an impact on domestic production.27,28
Finally, the prevalence of amphetamine use in New Zealand already appears high
compared to other countries in the Asia Pacific region, including Australia (3.4%),29
with only Thailand (5.9%)2 reporting a higher last-year prevalence level.‡ Many
countries in Western Europe that experienced rapid growth in amphetamine use in the
mid 1990s, are now experiencing reductions in use, including the United Kingdom
(from 2.9% in 1996, to 1.9% in 2000), the Netherlands (from 5.1% in 1996, to 2.8%
in 1999), and Spain (from 4.1% in 1996, to 2.5% in 1998).2,§ The Asia Pacific region
may well experience a similar downward phase of the ‘new’ drug cycle.
Author information: Chris Wilkins, Economist; Krishna Bhatta, Statistician; Sally
Casswell, Professor and Director, Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research
and Evaluation (SHORE), Massey University, Auckland
Acknowledgements: The national drug comparison survey was a project of the
Alcohol & Public Health Research Unit (APHRU), and was funded as a programme
of the Health Research Council and the Alcohol Advisory Council. The funding for
the survey was provided by the Health Research Council as an investigator-initiated
grant to Professor Sally Casswell. The project was managed by Dr Chris Wilkins with
Rachael Lane, Mary Blade and Heather Seal. The data management and statistical
analysis were carried out by Dr Krishna Bhatta and Dr Megan Pledger, assisted by
Michael Ford and Alistair Stewart. We acknowledge the time and willingness of
participants to respond to the survey, without which the project could not have taken
place.
Correspondence: Dr Chris Wilkins, Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research
and Evaluation (SHORE), Massey University, PO Box 6137, Auckland. Fax: 09 366
5149; email: [email protected]
References:
1.
United Nations Drug Control Programme. World Drug Report 2001: United Nations Office
for Drug Control and Crime Prevention. New York: Oxford, 2001.
2.
United Nations Drug Control Programme. World Drug Report 2002: United Nations Office
for Drug Control and Crime Prevention. New York: Oxford, 2002.
3.
Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. Australian Illicit Drug Report 2000–01. Canberra:
Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence; 2002.
NZMJ 22 November 2002, Vol 115 No 1166
URL: http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/115-1166/256/
Page 6 of 8
© NZMA
4.
Matsumoto T, Kamijo A, Miyakawa T, et al. Methamphetamine in Japan: the consequences of
methamphetamine abuse as a function of route of administration. Addiction 2002;97:809–17.
5.
Sattah MV, Supawitkul S, Dondero TJ, et al. Prevalence of and risk factors for
methamphetamine use in northern Thai youth: results of an audio-computer-assisted selfinterviewing survey with urine testing. Addiction 2002;97:801–8.
6.
Shearer J, Sherman J, Wodak A, van Beek I. Substitution therapy for amphetamine users.
Drug Alcohol Rev 2002;21:179–85.
7.
Kuhn C, Swartzwelder S, Wilson W. Buzzed: the straight facts about the most used and
abused drugs from alcohol to ecstacy. New York: W.W.Norton & Co., 1998.
8.
Gawin FH, Ellinwood EH. Cocaine and other stimulants. Actions, abuse and treatment. N
Engl J Med 1988;318:1173–82.
9.
Hall W, Hando J. Route of administration and adverse effects of amphetamine use among
young adults in Sydney, Australia. Drug Alcohol Rev 1994;13:277–84.
10. Chesher G. Pharmacology of the sympathomimetic psychostimulants. In: Burrows D, Flaherty
B, MacAvoy M, editors. Illicit psychostimulant use in Australia. Canberra: Australian
Government Publishing Service, 1993. p. 9–30.
11. Wickes W. Medical aspects of psychostimulant use. In: Burrows D, Flaherty B, MacAvoy M,
editors. Illicit psychostimulant use in Australia. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing
Services, 1993. p. 31–52.
12. Zander B. Speed freaks. In: Listener, 6–12 April, 2002, 14–19.
13. Schmidt V. The energy and ecstasy. In: Metro, January 2001, 76–81.
14. Matthews P. The lost war on drugs. In: Listener, 19 May, 2001, 18–24.
15. Philp M. Gangland rising. In: Metro, June 2002, 34–45.
16. Darke S, Kaye S, Topp L. New South Wales drug trends 2001: findings from the Illicit Drug
Reporting System (IDRS). Sydney: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University
of New South Wales, 2002.
17. Black, S, Casswell, S. Drugs in New Zealand. Auckland: Alcohol and Public Health Research
Unit, University of Auckland, 1993.
18. McAuliffe W, Geller S, La Brie R, et al. Are telephone surveys suitable for studying substance
abuse? Cost, administration, coverage and response rate issues. J Drug Issues 1998;28:455–
82.
19. MacCoun R, Reuter P. Drug war heresies : learning from other vices, times, and places. New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
20. Hando J, Topp L, Hall W. Amphetamine-related harms and treatment preferences of regular
amphetamine users in Sydney, Australia. Drug Alcohol Depend 1997;46:105–13.
21. Baker A, Boggs T, Lewin T. Characteristics of regular amphetamine users and implications
for treatment. Drug Alcohol Rev 2001;20:49–56.
22. New Zealand Police. Preliminary assessment of substance proposed for classification or
reclassification under sections 4-4B of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 (“the Act”)
(Confidential). Wellington: New Zealand Police, 2002.
23. Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. Australian Illicit Drug Report 1999–2000.
Canberra: Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence, 2001.
24. Newbold G. Crime in New Zealand. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press, 2000.
25. Wilkins CD. Cheating in retail drug transactions: theory and evidence. Department of
Economics. Hamilton: University of Waikato, 1999.
26. Wilkins C, Casswell S. The cannabis black market and the case for the legalisation of
cannabis in New Zealand. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand. 2002;18:31–43.
NZMJ 22 November 2002, Vol 115 No 1166
URL: http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/115-1166/256/
Page 7 of 8
© NZMA
27. Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence. Australian Illicit Drug Report 1996–97. Canberra:
Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence; 1997.
28. United Nations Drug Control Programme. World Drug Report 2000: United Nations Office
for Drug Control and Crime Prevention. New York: Oxford, 2000.
29. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 2001 National Drug Strategy Household Survey:
first results. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2002.
Endnotes:
*
These detections of amphetamine laboratories refer to the production of all types of amphetamine
drugs, including ecstasy. However, there has been only one reported case of ecstasy manufacture
in New Zealand to date (in 2001).
†
Arrest data for amphetamine offences include offences involving all types of amphetamines,
including ecstasy. At present the police do not specify what type of amphetamine was involved in
an arrest (personal correspondence, NDIB, 2002).
‡
Precise comparisons are not possible due to differences in the age range of surveys and different
survey methodologies.
§
Again, comparisons cannot be precise due to the differences in the age range and methodologies
of the surveys.
NZMJ 22 November 2002, Vol 115 No 1166
URL: http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/115-1166/256/
Page 8 of 8
© NZMA