RECENT TRENDS IN ILLEGAL
DRUG USE IN
NEW ZEALAND, 2006-2013
Findings from the 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011,
2012 and 2013 Illicit Drug Monitoring System
(IDMS)
C. Wilkins
J. Prasad
K. Wong
M. Rychert
Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
School of Public Health
Massey University, PO Box 6137, Wellesley St,
Auckland, New Zealand
October 2014
© SHORE and Whariki Research Centre
ISBN 1 877428 24 8
Table of Contents
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................................... 10
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................... 18
Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................................... 26
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 6
1.1 Aims of IDMS ..................................................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Methodology ..................................................................................................................................... 6
1.3 Survey of frequent drug users ........................................................................................................... 7
1.4 Secondary data sources ..................................................................................................................... 8
1.5 Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 9
1.6 Weighting of the sample.................................................................................................................. 10
2. Demographics ......................................................................................................................................... 12
2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 12
2.2 Gender .............................................................................................................................................. 12
2.3 Age .................................................................................................................................................... 13
2.4 Ethnicity ............................................................................................................................................ 14
2.5 Employment status ........................................................................................................................... 16
2.6 Education .......................................................................................................................................... 17
2.7 Sexual orientation............................................................................................................................. 18
2.8 Marital status.................................................................................................................................... 19
2.9 Accommodation ............................................................................................................................... 20
2.10 Physical health ................................................................................................................................ 20
2.11 Mental health ................................................................................................................................. 22
2.12 Summary of demographic characteristics ...................................................................................... 24
3. Drug use patterns.................................................................................................................................... 27
3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 27
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | Table of Contents
3
3.2 Lifetime use of drug types by frequent methamphetamine users................................................... 28
3.3 Lifetime use of drug types by frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users ....................................................... 30
3.4 Lifetime use of drug types by frequent injecting drug users ............................................................ 33
3.5 Current drug use of the frequent methamphetamine users............................................................ 35
3.6 Current drug use of the frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users ................................................................ 39
3.7 Current drug use of the frequent injecting drug users..................................................................... 42
3.7 Summary of drug patterns................................................................................................................ 47
4. Emerging drug types ............................................................................................................................... 50
4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 50
4.2 Drug types used for first time in past six months ............................................................................. 51
4.3 Summary of emerging drugs ............................................................................................................ 66
5. Methamphetamine ................................................................................................................................. 68
5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 68
5.2 Knowledge of methamphetamine trends ........................................................................................ 69
5.3 Availability of methamphetamine .................................................................................................... 69
5.4 Price of methamphetamine .............................................................................................................. 76
5.5 Price of pseudoephedrine ................................................................................................................ 86
5.6 Strength of methamphetamine ........................................................................................................ 88
5.7 Perceptions of the number of people using methamphetamine ..................................................... 93
5.8 Purchase of methamphetamine ....................................................................................................... 97
5.9 Seizures of methamphetamine ...................................................................................................... 101
5.10 Methamphetamine laboratories .................................................................................................. 101
5.11 Pseudoephedrine and ephedrine seizures ................................................................................... 103
5.12 Summary of methamphetamine trends ....................................................................................... 104
6. Crystal methamphetamine ................................................................................................................... 106
6.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 106
6.2 Knowledge of crystal methamphetamine trends ........................................................................... 106
6.3 Availability of crystal methamphetamine....................................................................................... 107
6.4 Price of crystal methamphetamine ................................................................................................ 110
6.5 Strength of crystal methamphetamine .......................................................................................... 115
6.6 Perceptions of the number of people using crystal methamphetamine ....................................... 118
4
Table of Contents | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
6.7 Summary of crystal methamphetamine trends ............................................................................. 119
7. Ecstasy ................................................................................................................................................... 120
7.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 120
7.2 Knowledge of ecstasy trends .......................................................................................................... 121
7.3 Drug types perceived to be in ecstasy ............................................................................................ 121
7.4 Availability of ecstasy ..................................................................................................................... 122
7.5 Price of ecstasy ............................................................................................................................... 126
7.6 Strength of ecstasy ......................................................................................................................... 131
7.7 Perceptions of the number of people using ecstasy ...................................................................... 135
7.8 Purchase of ecstasy ........................................................................................................................ 137
7.9 Seizures of ecstasy .......................................................................................................................... 146
7.10 Summary of ecstasy trends .......................................................................................................... 147
8. Cannabis ................................................................................................................................................ 149
8.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 149
8.2 Knowledge of cannabis trends ....................................................................................................... 150
8.3 Availability of cannabis ................................................................................................................... 150
8.4 Price of cannabis ............................................................................................................................. 154
8.5 Strength of cannabis ....................................................................................................................... 159
8.6 Perceptions of the number of people using cannabis .................................................................... 162
8.7 Purchase of cannabis ...................................................................................................................... 164
8.8 Seizures of cannabis plants............................................................................................................. 170
8.9 Summary of cannabis trends .......................................................................................................... 171
9. LSD......................................................................................................................................................... 172
9.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 172
9.2 Knowledge of LSD trends ................................................................................................................ 172
9.3 Availability of LSD ........................................................................................................................... 172
9.4 Price of LSD ..................................................................................................................................... 177
9.5 Strength of LSD ............................................................................................................................... 180
9.6 Perceptions of the number of people using LSD ............................................................................ 182
9.7 Seizures of LSD ................................................................................................................................ 184
9.8 Summary of LSD trends .................................................................................................................. 185
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | Table of Contents
5
10. Street Morphine.................................................................................................................................. 186
10.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 186
10.2 Knowledge of street morphine ..................................................................................................... 186
10.3 Availability of street morphine ..................................................................................................... 187
10.4 Price of street morphine............................................................................................................... 190
10.5 Strength of street morphine ......................................................................................................... 194
10.6 Perceptions of the number of people using street morphine ...................................................... 197
10.7 Purchase of street morphine ........................................................................................................ 198
10.8 Seizures of opioids ........................................................................................................................ 204
10.9 Summary of street morphine trends ............................................................................................ 205
11. Cocaine................................................................................................................................................ 207
11.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 207
11.2 Knowledge of cocaine trends ....................................................................................................... 207
11.3 Availability of cocaine ................................................................................................................... 207
11.4 Price of cocaine............................................................................................................................. 211
11.5 Purity of cocaine ........................................................................................................................... 214
11.6 Perceptions of the number of people using cocaine .................................................................... 216
11.7 Seizures of cocaine ....................................................................................................................... 217
Source: NDIB, 2014 ................................................................................................................................... 218
11.8 Summary of cocaine trends .......................................................................................................... 219
12. Heroin.................................................................................................................................................. 220
12.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 220
12.2 Knowledge of heroin trends ......................................................................................................... 220
12.3 Availability of heroin ..................................................................................................................... 220
12.4 Price of heroin .............................................................................................................................. 222
12.5 Purity of heroin ............................................................................................................................. 223
12.6 Perceptions of the number of people using heroin ..................................................................... 224
12.7 Summary of heroin trends ............................................................................................................ 225
13. Homebake morphine/heroin .............................................................................................................. 226
13.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 226
13.2 Knowledge of homebake morphine/heroin trends...................................................................... 226
6
Table of Contents | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
13.3 Availability of homebake morphine/heroin ................................................................................. 226
13.4 Perceptions of the number of people using homebake morphine/ heroin ................................. 228
Summary of homebake morphine/heroin trends ................................................................................ 229
14. Street methadone ............................................................................................................................... 230
14.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 230
14.2 Knowledge of street methadone trends ...................................................................................... 230
14.3 Availability of street methadone .................................................................................................. 231
14.4 Perceptions of the number of people using street methadone ................................................... 233
14.5 Summary of street methadone trends ......................................................................................... 233
15. Street BZP............................................................................................................................................ 234
15.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 234
15.2 Knowledge of street BZP trends ................................................................................................... 234
15.3 Availability of street BZP ............................................................................................................... 235
15.4 Perceptions of the number of people using street BZP ............................................................... 237
15.5 Summary of street BZP trends ...................................................................................................... 238
16. Health risks and the social harm of drug use ...................................................................................... 239
16.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 239
16.2 Drug-related life impacts .............................................................................................................. 239
16.3 Drug type responsible for drug-related life impacts .................................................................... 245
16.4 Medical and health services ......................................................................................................... 246
16.5 Reasons for using drugs ................................................................................................................ 254
16.6 Drug Dependency ......................................................................................................................... 260
16.7 Mental illness................................................................................................................................ 261
16.8 Summary of health risks and social harm from drug use ............................................................. 265
17. Drug and alcohol treatment................................................................................................................ 268
17.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 268
17.2 Extent needed help to reduce drug use ....................................................................................... 268
17.3 Wanted help to reduce drug use but did not get it ...................................................................... 270
17.4 Barriers encountered when looking for help to reduce drug use ................................................ 271
17.5 Drug treatment history ................................................................................................................. 276
17.7 Drug type responsible for drug treatment ................................................................................... 277
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | Table of Contents
7
17.8 Calls to the Alcohol and Drug Help-line ........................................................................................ 279
Source: ADANZ (ADANZ, 2014) ................................................................................................................. 280
17.9 Community Alcohol and Drug Services (CADS) ............................................................................ 280
Source: CADS (CADS, 2014)....................................................................................................................... 281
17.10 Summary of drug treatment ....................................................................................................... 282
18. Crime ................................................................................................................................................... 284
18.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 284
18.2 Property crime .............................................................................................................................. 284
18.3 Drug dealing.................................................................................................................................. 286
18.4 Fraud ............................................................................................................................................. 287
18.5 Crime involving violence ............................................................................................................... 288
18.6 Means used to pay for drug use ................................................................................................... 290
18.7 Summary of crime ........................................................................................................................ 298
19. Drug enforcement ............................................................................................................................... 299
19.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 299
19.2 History of arrest, conviction and imprisonment .......................................................................... 299
19.3 Drug treatment as part of sentencing .......................................................................................... 303
19.4 Recent arrest and imprisonment.................................................................................................. 304
19.5 Offences arrested for in past 12 months ...................................................................................... 306
19.6 Perceptions of the current level of drug enforcement................................................................. 309
19.7 Perceptions of the impact of drug enforcement .......................................................................... 312
19.8 Number of friends arrested .......................................................................................................... 314
19.9 Summary of drug enforcement .................................................................................................... 317
20. Synthetic Cannabinoids....................................................................................................................... 320
20.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 320
20.2 Knowledge of synthetic cannabinoids trends............................................................................... 320
20.3 Availability of synthetic cannabinoids .......................................................................................... 321
20.4 Price of synthetic cannabinoids .................................................................................................... 323
20.5 Strength of synthetic cannabinoids .............................................................................................. 325
20.6 Perceptions of the number of people using synthetic cannabinoids ........................................... 326
20.7 Purchase of synthetic cannabinoids ............................................................................................. 327
8
Table of Contents | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
20.8 Summary of synthetic cannabinoid trends................................................................................... 330
21. Party Pills ............................................................................................................................................. 331
21.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 331
21.2 Knowledge of party pills trends .................................................................................................... 331
21.3 Availability of party pills ............................................................................................................... 331
21.4 Price of party pills ......................................................................................................................... 332
21.5 Strength of party pills ................................................................................................................... 333
21.6 Perceptions of the number of people using party pills ................................................................ 334
21.7 Purchase of party pills .................................................................................................................. 335
21.8 Summary of party pills trends ...................................................................................................... 337
References ................................................................................................................................................ 338
Appendix 1: Lifetime drug use .................................................................................................................. 344
Appendix 2: Current drug use ................................................................................................................... 353
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | Table of Contents
9
List of Figures
Figure 2 1: Proportion of the frequent drug users who were male, 2006-2013 ........................... 13
Figure 2 2: Mean age of the frequent drug users, 2006-2013 ....................................................... 14
Figure 2 3: Proportion of the frequent drug users who were of European ethnicity, 20062013 ..................................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 2 4: Proportion of the frequent drug users who were of Maori ethnicity, 2006-2013 ...... 16
Figure 2 5: Proportion of the frequent drug users who were unemployed or on a sickness
benefit, 2006-2013 .............................................................................................................. 17
Figure 2 6: Proportion of the frequent drug users who had no educational qualifications,
2006-2013 ............................................................................................................................ 18
Figure 2 7: Mean score of perception of physical health by frequent drug user group, 2013 ...... 22
Figure 2 8: Mean score of perception of mental health by frequent drug user group, 2013 ....... 24
Figure 3 1: Proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had ever used oxycodone,
anti-depressants, synthetic cannabis and opium poppies, 2006-2013 ............................... 29
Figure 3 2: Proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had ever used cocaine,
crystal methamphetamine (Ice) and BZP, 2006-2013 ......................................................... 30
Figure 3 3: Proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had ever used Ritalin™
(methylphenidate), non BZP party pills, anti-depressants, oxycodone and synthetic
cannabis, 2006-2013............................................................................................................ 31
Figure 3 4: Proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had ever used BZP,
methamphetamine, cocaine, crystal methamphetamine (Ice), 2006-2013 ........................ 32
Figure 3 5: Proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had ever used
methamphetamine, non BZP pills, cocaine and synthetic cannabis, 2006-2013 ................ 34
Figure 3 6: Proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had ever used antidepressants,
oxycodone and codeine, 2006-2013 ................................................................................... 34
Figure 3 7: Proportion of the frequent methamphetamine users who had used antidepressants, crystal methamphetamine (ice), synthetic cannabis, tobacco and
oxycodone in the previous six months, 2006-2013 ............................................................. 36
Figure 3 8: Proportion of the frequent methamphetamine users who had used LSD, BZP,
ecstasy and nitrous oxide in the previous six months, 2006-2013...................................... 37
Figure 3 9: Mean number of days frequent methamphetamine users had used ecstasy and
benzodiazepines in the previous six months (of those who had used these drug types
in the previous six months), 2006-2013 .............................................................................. 38
Figure 3 10: Mean number of days frequent methamphetamine users had used cannabis
and crystal methamphetamine (ice) in the previous six months (of those who had
used these drug types in the previous six months), 2006-2013.......................................... 39
Figure 3 11: Proportion of the frequent ecstasy users who had used methylphenidate
(Ritalin™), anti-depressants, tobacco and synthetic cannabis in the previous six
months, 2006-2013.............................................................................................................. 40
Figure 3 12: Proportion of the frequent ecstasy users who had used BZP, nitrous oxide, and
LSD in the previous six months, 2006-2013......................................................................... 41
10
Table of Contents | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 3 13: Mean number of days frequent ecstasy users had used synthetic cannabis,
nitrous oxide, and ecstasy in the previous six months (of those who had used these
drug types in the previous six months), 2006-2013 ............................................................ 42
Figure 3 14: Proportion of the frequent injecting drug users who had used
methamphetamine, anti-depressants, oxycodone, Ritalin, morphine and synthetic
cannabis in the previous six months, 2006-2013 ................................................................ 43
Figure 3 15: Proportion of the frequent injecting drug users who had used nitrous oxide,
methadone, ecstasy and BZP in the previous six months, 2006-2013 ................................ 44
Figure 3 16: Proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had injected
methamphetamine, methadone and BZP in the previous six months (of those who
had used these drugs in the previous six months), 2006-2013 ........................................... 45
Figure 3 17: Mean number of days the frequent injecting drug users had used crystal
methamphetamine (Ice) and methylphenidate (Ritalin™) in the previous six months
(of those who had used these drug types in the previous six months), 2006-2013 ........... 46
Figure 4 1: Proportion of frequent drug users who had tried a drug type for the first time,
2009-2013 ............................................................................................................................ 52
Figure 4 2: Proportion of frequent drug users who had tried a drug type for the first time by
frequent drug user group, 2009-2013 ................................................................................. 53
Figure 4 3: Drug types which the frequent ecstasy users had used for the first time (of those
who had tried a drug for the first time), 2009-2013 ........................................................... 56
Figure 4 4: Pharmaceutical drugs that the frequent ecstasy users had used for the first time
(of those who had tried a drug for the first time), 2009-2013 ............................................ 57
Figure 4 5: Drug types that the frequent methamphetamine users had used for the first
time (of those who had tried a drug for the first time), 2009-2013.................................... 59
Figure 4 6: Drug types which the frequent injecting drug users had used for the first time (of
those who had tried a drug for the first time), 2009-2013 ................................................. 62
Figure 4 7: Proportion of frequent drug users who noticed a new drug type, 2008-2013 ........... 63
Figure 5 1: Mean score of the current availability of methamphetamine by combined
frequent drug users, 2006-2013 .......................................................................................... 71
Figure 5 2: Mean score of the current availability of methamphetamine by combined
frequent drug users by location, 2006-2013 ....................................................................... 72
Figure 5 3: Mean score of the current availability of methamphetamine by location, 2013 ........ 73
Figure 5 4: Mean score of the change in the availability of methamphetamine by combined
frequent drug users, 2006-2013 .......................................................................................... 75
Figure 5 5: Mean score of the change in the availability of methamphetamine by combined
frequent drug users by location, 2006-2013 ....................................................................... 76
Figure 5 6: Mean price of a ‘point’ of methamphetamine by combined frequent drug users,
2006-2013 ............................................................................................................................ 78
Figure 5 7: Mean price of a gram of methamphetamine by combined frequent drug users,
2006-2013 ............................................................................................................................ 79
Figure 5 8: Mean price of a gram of methamphetamine by location, 2013 .................................. 80
Figure 5 9: Mean price of a ‘point’ of methamphetamine by location, 2006-2013 ...................... 81
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | Table of Contents
11
Figure 5 10: Mean price of a gram of methamphetamine by location, 2006-2013 ...................... 82
Figure 5 11: Mean score of the change in the price of methamphetamine in the past six
months by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013 ....................................................... 84
Figure 5 12: Mean score of the change in the price of methamphetamine in the past six
months by location, 2013 .................................................................................................... 85
Figure 5 13: Mean score of the change in the price of methamphetamine in the past six
months by location, 2006-2013 ........................................................................................... 86
Figure 5 14: Mean score of the current strength of methamphetamine by combined
frequent drug users, 2006-2013 .......................................................................................... 89
Figure 5 15: Mean score of the current strength of methamphetamine by combined
frequent drug users by location, 2006-2013 ....................................................................... 90
Figure 5 16: Mean score of the change in strength of methamphetamine in the past six
months by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013 ....................................................... 92
Figure 5 17: Mean score of the change in strength of methamphetamine in the past six
months by combined frequent drug users by location, 2006-2013 .................................... 93
Figure 5 18: Perceptions of the number of people using methamphetamine by combined
frequent drug users, 2006-2013 .......................................................................................... 95
Figure 5 19: Perceptions of the number of people using methamphetamine by combined
frequent drug users by location, 2006-2013 ....................................................................... 96
Figure 5 20: Proportion of frequent drug users who could purchase methamphetamine in
one hour or less, 2006-2013 ................................................................................................ 98
Figure 5 21: Proportion of frequent drug users who could purchase methamphetamine in
one hour or less by location, 2006-2013 ............................................................................. 99
Figure 5 22: Kilograms of methamphetamine and crystal methamphetamine seized in New
Zealand, 1999-2013 ........................................................................................................... 101
Figure 5 23: Number of methamphetamine laboratories dismantled in New Zealand, 20002013 ................................................................................................................................... 102
Figure 5 24: Thousands of (equivalent) tablets of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine seized in
New Zealand, 2000-2013 ................................................................................................... 103
Figure 6 1: Mean score of the current availability of crystal methamphetamine by combined
frequent drug users, 2006-2013 ........................................................................................ 108
Figure 6 2: Mean score of the change in availability of crystal methamphetamine by
combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013 ....................................................................... 110
Figure 6 3: Mean price of a ‘point’ of crystal methamphetamine by combined frequent drug
users, 2006-2013 ............................................................................................................... 112
Figure 6 4: Mean price of a gram of crystal methamphetamine by combined frequent drug
users, 2007-2013 ............................................................................................................... 112
Figure 6 5: Mean score of the change in the price of crystal methamphetamine in the past
six months by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013................................................ 114
Figure 6 6: Mean score of the current strength of crystal methamphetamine by combined
frequent drug users, 2006-2013 ........................................................................................ 116
12
Table of Contents | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 6 7: Mean score of the perceptions of the number of people using crystal
methamphetamine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013 .................................. 118
Figure 7 1: Mean score of the current availability of ecstasy by combined frequent drug
users, 2006-2013 ............................................................................................................... 123
Figure 7 2: Mean score of the current availability of ecstasy by location, 2006-2013 ................ 124
Figure 7 3: Mean score of the change in the availability of ecstasy by combined frequent
drug users, 2006-2013 ....................................................................................................... 125
Figure 7 4: Mean score of the change in the availability of ecstasy by location, 2006-2013 ...... 126
Figure 7 5: Mean price of a tablet of ecstasy by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013..... 127
Figure 7 6: Mean price of a tablet of ecstasy by location, 2013 .................................................. 128
Figure 7 7: Mean price of a pill of ecstasy by location, 2006-2013 ............................................. 128
Figure 7 8: Mean score of the change in the price of ecstasy in the past six months by
combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013 ....................................................................... 130
Figure 7 9: Mean score of the change in the price of ecstasy in the past six months by
location, 2006-2013 ........................................................................................................... 131
Figure 7 10: Mean score of the current strength of ecstasy by combined frequent drug
users, 2006-2013 ............................................................................................................... 132
Figure 7 11: Mean score of the current strength of ecstasy by location, 2006-2013.................. 133
Figure 7 12: Mean score of the change in strength of ecstasy by combined frequent drug
users, 2006-2013 ............................................................................................................... 134
Figure 7 13: Mean score of the change in strength of ecstasy by location, 2006-2013 .............. 135
Figure 7 14: Mean score of perceptions of the number of people using ecstasy by combined
frequent drug users, 2006-2013 ........................................................................................ 136
Figure 7 15: Mean score of perceptions of the number of people using ecstasy by location,
2006-2013 .......................................................................................................................... 137
Figure 7 16: Proportion of frequent drug users who purchased ecstasy weekly or more
often, 2006-2013 ............................................................................................................... 139
Figure 7 17: Proportion of frequent drug users who purchased ecstasy weekly or more
often by location, 2013 ...................................................................................................... 140
Figure 7 18: Proportion of frequent drug users who purchased ecstasy weekly or more
often by location, 2006-2013 ............................................................................................ 141
Figure 7 19: Proportion of frequent drug users who could purchase ecstasy in one hour or
less, 2006-2013 .................................................................................................................. 143
Figure 7 20: Proportion of frequent drug users who could purchase ecstasy in one hour or
less by location, 2006-2013 ............................................................................................... 144
Figure 7 21: Thousands of (equivalent) ecstasy tablets seized in New Zealand, 2000-2013 ...... 146
Figure 8 1: Current availability of cannabis by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013 ....... 151
Figure 8 2: Current availability of cannabis by combined frequent drug users by location,
2006-2013 .......................................................................................................................... 152
Figure 8 3: Change in availability of cannabis by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013 .... 153
Figure 8 4: Change in availability of cannabis by location, 2006-2013 ........................................ 154
Figure 8 5: Price of an ounce of cannabis by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013 .......... 156
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | Table of Contents
13
Figure 8 6: Mean price paid for an ounce of cannabis (NZD) by location, 2013.......................... 157
Figure 8 7: Mean price paid for an ounce of cannabis (NZD) by location, 2006-2013 ................ 158
Figure 8 8: Mean score of the current strength of cannabis by combined frequent drug
users, 2006-2013 ............................................................................................................... 160
Figure 9 1: Mean score of the current availability of LSD by combined frequent drug users,
2006-2013 .......................................................................................................................... 175
Figure 9 2: Mean score of the change in availability of LSD by combined frequent drug
users, 2006-2013 ............................................................................................................... 177
Figure 9 3: Mean price of a ‘tab’ of LSD by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013 ............. 178
Figure 9 4: Mean score of the current strength of LSD by combined frequent drug users,
2006-2013 .......................................................................................................................... 180
Figure 9 5: Change in the mean score of the strength of LSD by combined frequent drug
users, 2006-2013 ............................................................................................................... 182
Figure 9 6: Number of tabs of LSD and other synthetic psychedelics seized in New Zealand,
1999-2013 .......................................................................................................................... 184
Figure 10 1: Current availability of street morphine by combined frequent drug users, 20082013 ................................................................................................................................... 187
Figure 10 2: Current availability of street morphine in Wellington and Christchurch, 20082013 ................................................................................................................................... 188
Figure 10 3: Change in availability of street morphine by combined frequent drug users,
2008-2013 .......................................................................................................................... 189
Figure 10 4: Change in availability of street morphine in Wellington and Christchurch, 20082013 ................................................................................................................................... 190
Figure 10 5: Current mean price paid for 100 milligrams of street morphine (NZD), 20082013 ................................................................................................................................... 191
Figure 10 6: Current mean price paid for 100 milligrams of street morphine in Wellington
and Christchurch (NZD), 2008-2013 .................................................................................. 191
Figure 10 7: Change in the price of street morphine in the past six months by combined
frequent drug users, 2008-2013 ........................................................................................ 193
Figure 10 8: Change in the price of street morphine in the past six months in Wellington and
Christchurch, 2008-2013 ................................................................................................... 194
Figure 10 9: Current strength of street morphine in the past six months by combined
frequent drug users, 2008-2013 ........................................................................................ 195
Figure 10 10: Current strength of street morphine in Wellington and Christchurch, 20082013 ................................................................................................................................... 196
Figure 10 11: Perceptions of the number of people using street morphine in Wellington and
Christchurch, 2008-2013 ................................................................................................... 198
Figure 10 12: Proportion of frequent drug users who purchased street morphine weekly or
more often in Wellington and Christchurch, 2008-2013................................................... 199
Figure 10 13: Proportion of frequent drug users who could purchase street morphine in one
hour or less, 2008-2013 ..................................................................................................... 201
14
Table of Contents | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 10 14: Proportion of frequent drug users who could purchase street morphine in one
hour or less, 2008-2013 ..................................................................................................... 202
Figure 11 1: Mean score of the current availability of cocaine by combined frequent drug
users, 2006-2013 ............................................................................................................... 208
Figure 11 2: Mean score of the change in availability of cocaine by combined frequent drug
users, 2006-2013 ............................................................................................................... 211
Figure 11 3: Mean price of a gram of cocaine (NZD) by combined frequent drug users, 20062013 ................................................................................................................................... 212
Figure 11 4: Mean score of the change in price of cocaine in the previous six months by
combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013 ....................................................................... 213
Figure 11 5: Mean score of the current purity of cocaine by combined frequent drug users,
2006-2013 .......................................................................................................................... 215
Figure 11 6: Mean score of the perceptions of the number of people using cocaine by
combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013 ....................................................................... 217
Figure 11 7: Grams of cocaine seized in New Zealand, 1999-2013 ............................................. 218
Figure 13 1: Mean score of the perceptions of the number of people using homebake
morphine/heroin by combined frequent drug users, 2008-2013 ..................................... 228
Figure 14 1: Current availability of street methadone by combined frequent drug users,
2008-2013 .......................................................................................................................... 232
Figure 15 1: Current availability of street BZP by combined frequent drug users, 2007-2013 ... 236
Figure 15 2: Change in the availability of street BZP by combined frequent drug users, 20072013 ................................................................................................................................... 237
Figure 15 3: Perceptions of the number of people using street BZP by combined frequent
drug users, 2007-2013 ....................................................................................................... 238
Figure 16 1: Proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had been ‘given a drug
without their knowledge’, ‘passed out’, no money for rent/food’, ‘sexually harassed’,
and ‘slept rough’ due to their drug use, 2007 -2013 ......................................................... 241
Figure 16 2: Proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had their ‘drink spiked’,
‘physically hurt themselves’, and ‘damaged a friendship’ due to their drug use, 2007 2013 ................................................................................................................................... 242
Figure 16 3: Proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had ‘damaged property’,
‘stole property’, and ‘took sick leave’ due to their drug use, 2007-2013 ......................... 242
Figure 16 4: Proportion of frequent ecstasy users who were ‘physically/verbally
threatened’, ‘physically assaulted’, and ‘had their drink spiked’ due to their drug use,
2008-2013 .......................................................................................................................... 243
Figure 16 5: Proportion of frequent ecstasy users who ‘upset a family relationship’, and had
‘unprotected sex’ due to their drug use, 2007-2013......................................................... 244
Figure 16 6: Proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had ‘no money for food or
rent’, ‘stole property’, ‘got into debt’ and ‘physically hurt themselves’ due to their
drug use, 2007-2013 .......................................................................................................... 245
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | Table of Contents
15
Figure 16 7: Proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had accessed a ‘General
Practitioner’, ‘counsellor’ and ‘social worker’ in relation to drug use in the past six
months, 2006-2013............................................................................................................ 249
Figure 16 8: Proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had accessed an ‘Accident and
Emergency Department’ and had been ‘admitted to hospital’ in relation to drug use
in the past six months, 2006-2013 .................................................................................... 249
Figure 16 9: Proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who received ‘First Aid’,
‘accessed an ambulance’ and were ‘admitted to hospital’ in relation to drug use in
the past six months, 2006-2013 ........................................................................................ 252
Figure 16 10: Proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had been ‘admitted to hospital’,
‘received First Aid’ and ‘accessed a General Practitioner’ in relation to drug use in the
past six months, 2006-2013............................................................................................... 253
Figure 16 11: Selected reasons provided by the frequent methamphetamine users for using
drugs, 2008-2013 ............................................................................................................... 256
Figure 16 12: Selected reasons provided by the frequent injecting drug users for using
drugs, 2008-2013 ............................................................................................................... 258
Figure 16 13: Selected reasons provided by the frequent ecstasy users for using drugs,
2008-2013 .......................................................................................................................... 260
Figure 16 14: Proportion of frequent drug user group who were assessed as drug
dependent, 2006-2013 ...................................................................................................... 261
Figure 16 15: Proportion of frequent drug users who had ever suffered from a mental illness
by frequent drug user group, 2008-2013 .......................................................................... 262
Figure 16 16: Proportion of frequent drug users who had stayed in a psychiatric facility
overnight or longer by of frequent drug user group, 2008-2013 ...................................... 263
Figure 16 17: Proportion of frequent drug user group who are currently receiving treatment
for a mental illness, 2008-2013 ......................................................................................... 264
Figure 17 1: Proportion of the frequent drug users who felt they needed at least some help
to reduce their drug use by frequent drug user group, 2009-2013 .................................. 270
Figure 17 2: Proportion of the frequent methamphetamine users who reported ‘fear of
service’, ‘fear of police’ and ‘fear of losing friends’ as barriers to seeking help (of
those who were unable to find help), 2007-2013 ............................................................. 273
Figure 17 3: Proportion of the frequent injecting drug users who reported ‘no transport to
get there’ or ‘didn’t know where to go’ as barriers to seeking help (of those who were
unable to find help), 2007-2013 ........................................................................................ 275
Figure 17 4: Proportion who were currently in drug treatment by frequent drug user group,
2013 ................................................................................................................................... 277
Figure 17 5: Proportion of callers to the Alcohol and Drug Help-line by drug type calling
about, 2007-2013 .............................................................................................................. 280
Figure 17 6: Proportion of clients screening positive for problematic substance use by
substance type, 2005-2013 ............................................................................................... 281
Figure 18 1: Proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who sold drugs, committed
property crime and committed fraud in the previous month, 2006-2013........................ 285
16
Table of Contents | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 18 2: Proportion of frequent injecting drug users who sold drugs, committed
property crime and committed fraud in the previous month, 2006-2013........................ 286
Figure 18 3: Proportion of frequent ecstasy users who sold drugs, committed property
crime and committed fraud in the previous month, 2006-2013....................................... 287
Figure 18 4: Proportion of frequent injecting drug users who committed a violent crime in
their lifetime, in the previous six months, and in the previous month, 2006-2013.......... 289
Figure 18 5: Proportion of frequent ecstasy users who committed a violent crime in their
lifetime, in the previous six months, and in the previous month, 2006-2013 .................. 289
Figure 18 6: Proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who used social welfare
benefits, credit from dealers, and borrowed money to pay for drug use, 2006-2013 ..... 292
Figure 18 7: Proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who made drugs themselves,
used someone else’s prescription, their own prescription and ‘doctor shopped’ to pay
for drug use, 2008-2013 .................................................................................................... 293
Figure 18 8: Proportion of frequent ecstasy users who made drugs themselves and used
someone else’s prescription to pay for drug use, 2008-2013 ........................................... 295
Figure 18 9: Proportion of frequent injecting users who used a prescription (own name),
someone else’s prescription and ‘doctor shopping’ to pay for drug use, 2006-2013 ....... 297
Figure 19 1: Proportion of frequent drug users who had ever been arrested, convicted and
imprisoned, 2013 ............................................................................................................... 300
Figure 19 2: Proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had ever been arrested,
convicted and imprisoned, 2006-2013 .............................................................................. 301
Figure 19 3: Proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had ever been arrested,
convicted and imprisoned, 2006-2013 .............................................................................. 302
Figure 19 4: Proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had ever been arrested, convicted
and imprisoned, 2006-2013............................................................................................... 303
Figure 19 5: Proportion of convicted frequent drug users who received alcohol and drug
treatment as part of sentence, 2009-2013........................................................................ 304
Figure 19 6: Proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had been arrested and
imprisoned in the previous 12 months, 2006-2013 .......................................................... 305
Figure 19 7: Proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had been arrested and
imprisoned in the previous 12 months, 2006-2013 .......................................................... 305
Figure 19 8: Proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had been arrested and imprisoned in
the previous 12 months, 2006-2013 ................................................................................. 306
Figure 19 9: Proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had been arrested for a
violent crime, property crime and driving under the influence of alcohol and other
drugs in the previous 12 months, 2006-2013.................................................................... 308
Figure 19 10: Proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had been arrested for a violent
crime, disorderly conduct, and use/possession of drugs in the previous 12 months,
2006-2013 .......................................................................................................................... 309
Figure 19 11: Proportion of frequent drug users who noticed police activity toward drug
users in the past six months, 2006-2013 ........................................................................... 310
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | Table of Contents
17
Figure 19 12: Mean score of change in police activity toward drug users in the past six
months for frequent methamphetamine users, frequent injecting drug users and
frequent ecstasy users, 2006-2013.................................................................................... 311
Figure 19 13: Proportion of frequent drug users who thought police activity had made it
‘more difficult’ for them to obtain drugs in the past six months, 2006-2013 ................... 313
Figure 19 14: Proportion of frequent drug users who had a friend(s) arrested in the past six
months, 2006-2013............................................................................................................ 314
Figure 20 1: Mean score of the current availability of synthetic cannabinoids by
location, 2013 .................................................................................................................... 322
Figure 20 2: Mean score of the change in the availability of synthetic cannabinoids
by location, 2013 ............................................................................................................... 323
Figure 20 3: Mean score of the change in the price of synthetic cannabinoids by
location, 2013 .................................................................................................................... 324
Figure 20 4: Mean score of perceived change in the number of people using
synthetic cannabinoids by location, 2013 ......................................................................... 327
List of Tables
Table 1 1: Distribution of IDMS respondents by site for the years 2006, 2007, 2008,
2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 ....................................................................................... 10
Table 1 2: Distribution of IDMS respondents by module for the years 2006, 2007,
2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 ............................................................................. 10
Table 1 3: Weighted distribution of respondents by site for the years 2006, 2007,
2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 ............................................................................. 11
Table 1 4: Weighted distribution of respondents by module for the years 2006,
2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 ................................................................... 11
Table 2 1: Ethnicity of the frequent drug users, 2013 ................................................................... 14
Table 2 2: Employment status of the frequent drug users, 2013 .................................................. 17
Table 2 3: Highest educational achievement of the frequent drug users, 2013 ........................... 18
Table 2 4: Frequent drug users’ sexual orientation, 2013 ............................................................. 19
Table 2 5: Frequent drug users by marital status, 2013 ................................................................ 19
Table 2 6: Frequent drug users by current accommodation type, 2013 ....................................... 20
Table 2 7: Frequent drug users’ self-assessment of current physical health, 20092013 ..................................................................................................................................... 21
Table 2 8: Frequent drug users’ self-assessment of current mental health, 20102013 ..................................................................................................................................... 23
Table 4 1: Drug types the frequent ecstasy users used for the first time in the past
six months (of those who reported using a drug for the first time in previous
six months), 2009-2013 ....................................................................................................... 53
Table 4 2: Drug types used by frequent methamphetamine users for the first time
in the past six months (of those who reported using a drug for the first time
in previous six months), 2009-2013 .................................................................................... 57
18
Table of Contents | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 4 3: Drug types used by the frequent injecting drug user for the first time in
the past six months (of those who reported using a drug for the first time in
previous six months), 2009-2013 ........................................................................................ 60
Table 4 4: New drug types noticed in previous six months, 2011-2013 ........................................ 64
Table 4 5: New types of people reported using drugs, 2011-2013................................................ 65
Table 5 1: Current availability of methamphetamine by combined frequent drug
users, 2006-2013 ................................................................................................................. 70
Table 5 2: Current availability of methamphetamine by location, 2013 ....................................... 72
Table 5 3: Change in availability of methamphetamine by combined frequent drug
users, 2006-2013 ................................................................................................................. 74
Table 5 4: Current price of methamphetamine (NZD) by combined frequent drug
users, 2006-2013 ................................................................................................................. 77
Table 5 5: Current median (mean) price for a ‘point’ and gram of
methamphetamine (NZD) by location, 2013 ....................................................................... 79
Table 5 6: Change in the price of methamphetamine in the past six months by
combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013 ......................................................................... 83
Table 5 7: Change in the price of methamphetamine in the past six months by
location, 2013 ...................................................................................................................... 85
Table 5 8: Current median (mean) price of pseudoephedrine (NZD), 2011-2013......................... 87
Table 5 9: Change in the price of pseudoephedrine in the past six months, 20112013 ..................................................................................................................................... 87
Table 5 10: Current strength of methamphetamine by combined frequent drug
users, 2006-2013 ................................................................................................................. 88
Table 5 11: Change in strength of methamphetamine by combined frequent drug
users, 2006-2013 ................................................................................................................. 91
Table 5 12: Perceptions of the number of people using methamphetamine by
combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013 ......................................................................... 94
Table 5 13: Perceptions of the number of people using methamphetamine by
combined frequent drug users by location, 2013 ............................................................... 96
Table 5 14: Median (mean) dollar amount spent on methamphetamine (NZD) on a
typical occasion by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013 ......................................... 97
Table 5 15: Median (mean) dollar amount spent on methamphetamine (NZD) on a
typical occasion by combined frequent drug users by location, 2013 ................................ 97
Table 5 16: Time taken to purchase methamphetamine by combined frequent drug
users, 2006-2013 ................................................................................................................. 98
Table 5 17: Location from which methamphetamine purchased in the past six
months by combined frequent drug users, 2009-2013 ..................................................... 100
Table 5 18: People from whom methamphetamine purchased in the past six
months by combined frequent drug users, 2009-2013 ..................................................... 100
Table 6 1: Current availability of crystal methamphetamine by combined frequent
drug users, 2006-2013 ....................................................................................................... 107
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | Table of Contents
19
Table 6 2: Mean score of the current availability of crystal methamphetamine by
combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013 ....................................................................... 109
Table 6 3: Current median (mean) price for crystal methamphetamine (NZD) by
combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013 ....................................................................... 111
Table 6 4: Change in the price of crystal methamphetamine in the past six months
by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013 .................................................................. 113
Table 6 5: Current purity of crystal methamphetamine by combined frequent drug
users, 2006-2013 ............................................................................................................... 115
Table 6 6: Change in strength of crystal methamphetamine by combined frequent
drug users, 2006-2013 ....................................................................................................... 117
Table 6 7: Perceptions of the number of people using crystal methamphetamine by
combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013 ....................................................................... 118
Table 7 1: Drug types thought to be in ecstasy (of the people who thought they
knew), 2011-2013 .............................................................................................................. 122
Table 7 2: Current availability of ecstasy by combined frequent drug users, 20062013 ................................................................................................................................... 122
Table 7 3: Current availability of ecstasy by location, 2013 ........................................................ 123
Table 7 4: Change in availability of ecstasy by combined frequent drug users, 20062013 ................................................................................................................................... 125
Table 7 5: Current price of ecstasy (NZD) by combined frequent drug users, 20062013 ................................................................................................................................... 126
Table 7 6: Current median (mean) price for ecstasy (NZD) by location, 2013............................. 127
Table 7 7: Change in the price of ecstasy in the past six months by combined
frequent drug users, 2006-2013 ........................................................................................ 129
Table 7 8: Current strength of ecstasy by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013 ............... 132
Table 7 9: Change in strength of ecstasy (MDMA) by combined frequent drug users,
2006-2013 .......................................................................................................................... 134
Table 7 10: Perceptions of the number of people using ecstasy by combined
frequent drug users, 2006-2013 ........................................................................................ 136
Table 7 11: Frequency of purchase of ecstasy in past six months by combined
frequent drug users, 2006-2013 ........................................................................................ 138
Table 7 12: Median (mean) dollar amount spent on ecstasy (NZD) on a typical
occasion by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013 ................................................... 141
Table 7 13: Time taken to purchase ecstasy by combined frequent drug users, 20062013 ................................................................................................................................... 142
Table 7 14: Location from which ecstasy purchased in the past six months by
combined frequent drug users, 2009-2013 ....................................................................... 145
Table 7 15: People from whom ecstasy purchased in the past six months by
combined frequent drug users, 2009-2013 ....................................................................... 145
Table 8 1: Current availability of cannabis by combined frequent drug users, 20062013 ................................................................................................................................... 151
20
Table of Contents | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 8 2: Change in availability of cannabis by combined frequent drug users,
2006-2013 .......................................................................................................................... 153
Table 8 3: Current price of cannabis (NZD) by combined frequent drug users, 20062013 ................................................................................................................................... 155
Table 8 4: Current median (mean) price for cannabis (NZD) by location, 2013 .......................... 156
Table 8 5: Change in the price of cannabis in the past six months by combined
frequent drug users, 2006-2013 ........................................................................................ 159
Table 8 6: Current strength of cannabis by combined frequent drug users, 20062013 ................................................................................................................................... 160
Table 8 7: Change in strength of cannabis by combined frequent drug users, 20062013 ................................................................................................................................... 162
Table 8 8: Perceptions of the number of people using cannabis by combined
frequent drug users, 2006-2013 ........................................................................................ 163
Table 8 9: Frequency of purchase of cannabis in past six months by combined
frequent drug users, 2006-2013 ........................................................................................ 165
Table 8 10: Median (mean) dollar amount spent on cannabis (NZD) on typical
occasion by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013 ................................................... 166
Table 8 11: Time taken to purchase cannabis by combined frequent drug users,
2006-2013 .......................................................................................................................... 167
Table 8 12: Location from which cannabis purchased in the past six months by
combined frequent drug users, 2009-2013 ....................................................................... 169
Table 8 13: People from whom cannabis purchased in the past six months by
combined frequent drug users, 2009-2013 ....................................................................... 169
Table 9 1: Current availability of LSD by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013 ................. 174
Table 9 2: Change in availability of LSD by combined frequent drug users, 20062013 ................................................................................................................................... 176
Table 9 3: Current median (mean) price for LSD (NZD) by combined frequent drug
users, 2006-2013 ............................................................................................................... 177
Table 9 4: Change in the price of LSD in the past six months by combined frequent
drug users, 2006-2013 ....................................................................................................... 179
Table 9 5: Current strength of LSD by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013..................... 180
Table 9 6: Change in strength of LSD by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013 ................. 181
Table 9 7: Perceptions of the number of people using LSD by combined frequent
drug users, 2006-2013 ....................................................................................................... 183
Table 10 1: Current availability of street morphine by combined frequent drug
users, 2008-2013 ............................................................................................................... 187
Table 10 2: Change in availability of street morphine by combined frequent drug
users, 2008-2013 ............................................................................................................... 189
Table 10 3: Current median (mean) price for street morphine (NZD) by combined
frequent drug users, 2008-2013 ........................................................................................ 190
Table 10 4: Change in the price of street morphine in the past six months by
combined frequent drug users, 2008-2013 ....................................................................... 192
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | Table of Contents
21
Table 10 5: Current strength of street morphine by combined frequent drug users,
2008-2013 .......................................................................................................................... 195
Table 10 6: Change in strength of street morphine by combined frequent drug
users, 2008-2013 ............................................................................................................... 196
Table 10 7: Perceptions of the number of people using street morphine, 2008-2013 ............... 197
Table 10 8: Frequency of purchase of street morphine in past six months by
combined frequent drug users, 2008-2013 ....................................................................... 199
Table 10 9: Median (mean) dollar amount spent on street morphine (NZD) on
typical occasion by combined frequent drug users, 2008-2013 ....................................... 200
Table 10 10: Time taken to purchase street morphine by combined frequent drug
users, 2008-2013 ............................................................................................................... 200
Table 10 11: Location from which street morphine purchased in the past six months
by combined frequent drug users, 2013 ........................................................................... 203
Table 10 12: People from whom street morphine was purchased in the past six
months by combined frequent drug users, 2008-2013 ..................................................... 203
Table 10 13: Opioid products seized from 2009-2012................................................................. 204
Table 11 1: Current availability of cocaine by combined frequent drug users, 20062013 ................................................................................................................................... 208
Table 11 2: Change in availability of cocaine by combined frequent drug users,
2006-2013 .......................................................................................................................... 210
Table 11 3: Current price of cocaine (NZD) by combined frequent drug users, 20062013 ................................................................................................................................... 211
Table 11 4: Change in the price of cocaine in the past six months by combined
frequent drug users, 2006-2013 ........................................................................................ 213
Table 11 5: Current purity of cocaine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013 ................ 214
Table 11 6: Change in purity of cocaine by combined frequent drug users, 20062013 ................................................................................................................................... 215
Table 11 7: Perceptions of the number of people using cocaine by combined
frequent drug users, 2006-2013 ........................................................................................ 216
Table 12 1: Current availability of heroin by combined frequent drug users, 20082013 ................................................................................................................................... 221
Table 12 2: Change in availability of heroin by combined frequent drug users, 20082013 ................................................................................................................................... 221
Table 12 3: Current median (mean) price of heroin (NZD) by combined frequent
drug users, 2008-2013 ....................................................................................................... 222
Table 12 4: Change in the price of heroin in the past six months by combined
frequent drug users, 2008-2013 ........................................................................................ 223
Table 12 5: Current purity of heroin by combined frequent drug users, 2008-2013 .................. 223
Table 12 6: Change in purity of heroin by combined frequent drug users, 2008-2013 .............. 224
Table 12 7: Perceptions of the number of people using heroin by combined
frequent drug users, 2008-2013 ........................................................................................ 224
22
Table of Contents | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 13 1: Current availability of homebake morphine/heroin by combined
frequent drug users, 2008-2013 ........................................................................................ 227
Table 13 2: Change in availability of homebake morphine/heroin by combined
frequent drug users, 2008-2013 ........................................................................................ 227
Table 13 3: Perceptions of the number of people using homebake morphine/
heroin by combined frequent drug users, 2008-2013....................................................... 228
Table 14 1: Current availability of street methadone by combined frequent drug
users, 2008-2013 ............................................................................................................... 231
Table 14 2: Change in availability of street methadone by combined frequent drug
users, 2008-2013 ............................................................................................................... 232
Table 14 3: Perceptions of the number of people using street methadone by
combined frequent drug users, 2008-2013 ....................................................................... 233
Table 15 1: Current availability of street BZP by combined frequent drug users,
2007-2013 .......................................................................................................................... 235
Table 15 2: Change in availability of street BZP by combined frequent drug users,
2007-2013 .......................................................................................................................... 236
Table 15 3: Perceptions of the number of people using street BZP by combined
frequent drug users, 2007-2013 ........................................................................................ 237
Table 16 1: Drug-related incidents by frequent drug user group, 2013 ...................................... 240
Table 16 2: Drug types mainly responsible for drug related incidents by frequent
drug user group, 2013 ....................................................................................................... 246
Table 16 3: Proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had accessed medical
and health services in relation to drug use in the past six months, 2006-2013 ................ 248
Table 16 4: Proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had accessed
medical and health services in relation to drug use in the past six months,
2006-2013 .......................................................................................................................... 251
Table 16 5: Proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had accessed medical and
health services in relation to drug use in the past six months, 2006-2013 ....................... 254
Table 16 6: Self-reported reasons for using drugs by frequent methamphetamine
users, 2008-2013 ............................................................................................................... 255
Table 16 7: Self-reported reasons for using drugs by frequent injecting drug users,
2008-2013 .......................................................................................................................... 257
Table 16 8: Self-reported reasons for using drugs by frequent ecstasy users, 20082013 ................................................................................................................................... 259
Table 17 1: Extent to which the frequent drug users felt they needed help to reduce
their drug use by frequent drug user group, 2009-2013 ................................................... 269
Table 17 2: Proportion of frequent drug users who had wanted help to reduce their
drug use in the previous six months but had not got it, 2007-2013 ................................. 271
Table 17 3: Barriers experienced by the frequent methamphetamine users when
trying to find help to reduce drug use (of those who were unable to find
help), 2007-2013................................................................................................................ 272
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | Table of Contents
23
Table 17 4: Barriers experienced by the frequent injecting drug users when trying to
find help to reduce drug use (of those who were unable to find help), 20072013 ................................................................................................................................... 274
Table 17 5: Barriers experienced by frequent ecstasy users when trying to find help
to reduce drug use (of those who were unable to find help), 2010-2013 ........................ 276
Table 17 6: Drug type(s) currently in treatment for by frequent drug user group,
2010-2013 .......................................................................................................................... 278
Table 18 1: Proportion of the frequent drug users who committed property crime,
2013 ................................................................................................................................... 285
Table 18 2: Proportion of the frequent drug users who sold illegal drugs, 2013 ........................ 286
Table 18 3: Proportion of the frequent drug users who committed fraud, 2013 ....................... 287
Table 18 4: Proportion of the frequent drug users who committed violent crime,
2013 ................................................................................................................................... 288
Table 18 5: Different means used by the frequent methamphetamine users to pay
for drugs in the past six months, 2006 – 2013 .................................................................. 291
Table 18 6: Different means used by frequent ecstasy users to pay for drugs in the
past six months, 2006 – 2013 ............................................................................................ 294
Table 18 7: Different means used by frequent injecting drug users to pay for drugs
in the past six months, 2006 – 2013 .................................................................................. 296
Table 19 1: Proportion of frequent drug users who were arrested for different
criminal offences in the past 12 months by frequent drug user group, 2013................... 307
Table 19 2: Frequent methamphetamine users’ perceptions of the change in police
activity in relation to drug users in the past six months (of those who noticed
any change in police activity), 2006-2013 ......................................................................... 311
Table 19 3: Frequent ecstasy users perceptions of the change in police activity in
relation to drug users in the past six months (of those who noticed any
change in police activity), 2006-2013 ................................................................................ 312
Table 19 4: Frequent injecting drug users perceptions of the change in police
activity in relation to drug users in the past six months (of those who noticed
any change in police activity), 2006-2013 ......................................................................... 312
Table 19 5: Proportion of frequent drug users who thought police activity had made
it ‘more difficult’ for them to obtain drugs in the past six months, 2006-2013 ................ 313
Table 19 6: Change in the number of friends arrested in the past six months by
frequent drug user group (of those who had a friend arrested), 2009-2013 ................... 316
Table 20 1: Current availability of synthetic cannabinoids by location, 2013 ............................. 321
Table 20 2: Change in availability of synthetic cannabinoids by location, 2013.......................... 322
Table 20 3: Current price of synthetic cannabinoids (NZD) by location, 2013 ............................ 323
Table 20 4: Change in the price of synthetic cannabinoids by location, 2013 ............................ 324
Table 20 5: Current strength of synthetic cannabinoids by location, 2013 ................................. 325
Table 20 6: Change in strength of synthetic cannabinoids by location, 2013 ............................. 326
Table 20 7: Perceptions of the number of people using synthetic cannabinoids by
location, 2013 .................................................................................................................... 326
24
Table of Contents | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 20 8: Frequency of purchase of synthetic cannabinoids in past six months by
location, 2013 .................................................................................................................... 328
Table 20 9: Median (mean) dollar amount spent on synthetic cannabinoids (NZD)
on typical occasion by location, 2013 ................................................................................ 328
Table 20 10: Time taken to purchase synthetic cannabinoids by location, 2013 ........................ 329
Table 20 11: Location from which synthetic cannabinoids were purchased in the
past six months by location, 2013 ..................................................................................... 329
Table 20 12: People from whom synthetic cannabinoids was purchased in the past
six months by location, 2013 ............................................................................................. 330
Table 21 1: Current availability of party pills by combined frequent drug users, 2013 .............. 332
Table 21 2: Change in availability of party pills by combined frequent drug users,
2013 ................................................................................................................................... 332
Table 21 3: Current price of party pills (NZD) by combined frequent drug users,
2013 ................................................................................................................................... 333
Table 21 4: Change in the price of party pills in the past six months by combined
frequent drug users, 2013 ................................................................................................. 333
Table 21 5: Current strength of party pills by combined frequent drug users, 2013 .................. 334
Table 21 6: Change in strength of party pills by combined frequent drug users, 2013 .............. 334
Table 21 7: Perceptions of the number of people using party pills by combined
frequent drug users, 2013 ................................................................................................. 335
Table 21 8: Frequency of purchase of party pills in past six months by combined
frequent drug users, 2013 ................................................................................................. 335
Table 21 9: Time taken to purchase party pills by combined frequent drug users,
2013 ................................................................................................................................... 336
Table 21 10: Location from which party pills were purchased in the past six months
by combined frequent drug users, 2013 ........................................................................... 336
Table 21 11: People from whom party pills were purchased in the past six months
by combined frequent drug users, 2013 ........................................................................... 336
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | Table of Contents
25
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 New Zealand government agencies including
Police, Ministry of Health, Customs Service, Ministry of Justice, Department of Corrections, Ministry
of Pacific Island Affairs and Te Puni Kōkiri. The development of the IDMS drew on the Illicit Drug
Reporting System (IDRS) and Ecstasy and other drug Reporting System (EDRS) which are conducted
by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC) in Australia. We would like to
acknowledge the New Zealand Needle Exchange who assisted us with the recruitment of frequent
drug users for the study. We would also like to thank the following agencies and organisations who
provided secondary data on drug use and drug related harm in New Zealand for this study:
•
New Zealand Police
•
National Drug Intelligence Bureau (NDIB)
•
New Zealand Ministry of Health
•
New Zealand Customs Service
•
Alcohol Drug Association New Zealand (ADANZ)
•
Community Alcohol and Drug Services (CADS)
Last, but by no means least, we would like to thank all the interviewers who worked with us on the
study, and the frequent drug users who agreed to be interviewed. The views expressed in this report
are entirely our own. They do not necessarily reflect those of any government agency or other
organisation.
Correspondence
Dr Chris Wilkins, Senior Researcher, Drugs Team Leader, Centre for Social and Health Outcomes
Research and Evaluation (SHORE), Massey University, PO Box 6137, Wellesley Street, Auckland, New
Zealand, tel. 00 64 9 366 6136, email: [email protected]
26
Acknowledgements | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Executive Summary
Overview of the IDMS study
The Illicit Drug Monitoring System (IDMS) is conducted annually to provide a ‘snapshot’ of trends in
drug use and drug markets in New Zealand. The 2013 IDMS surveyed 312 frequent drug users (i.e.
118 frequent ecstasy users, 101 frequent injecting drug users [IDU] and 93 frequent
methamphetamine users) from the three main centres (i.e. Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch)
from August to December 2013. This report presents findings from the 2013 IDMS survey and
compares them to the previous seven years of the study.
New psychoactive substances
Approximately one-third of the frequent drug users reported ‘trying’ and/or ‘noticing’ a new drug
type in 2013. The ‘new drugs’ most commonly mentioned were synthetic psychedelics (e.g. 25INBOMe), MDMA powder, ‘2C’ drugs and oxycodone. An increasing proportion of the frequent drug
users reported using methylone, tramadol, and mephedrone for the first time in 2013. The high
levels of drug experimentation reflect the proliferation of new psychoactive substances (NPS 1) in
recent years with 284 new NPS compounds reported globally since 2009 (UNODC, 2014).
Drug markets on the internet
Many of the frequent drug users noted increasing use of the internet as a means to buy and sell
drugs, including advertising drugs on social network sites, such as Facebook™, and purchasing drugs
from overseas via the Deep Web (e.g. Silk Road) using anonymised browsers and bitcoins. The
original Silk Road website was closed by the authorities in October 2013, but over a dozen new sites
have emerged to replace it (NDIB, 2014). This new internet marketplace creates access to
traditionally difficult-to-source drug types (e.g. genuine MDMA), new NPS (e.g. 25I-NBOMe), opens
up the market to non-traditional consumers, and creates opportunities for non-traditional drug
dealing groups with computer expertise.
The emergence of synthetic psychedelics (NBOMe)
The use of LSD rose sharply in 2013, where previously it had been declining for a number of years.
The proportion of ecstasy users who had used LSD increased from 32% in 2012 to 47% in 2013. This
1
New Psychoactive Substances or NPS have been defined as psychoactive compounds that pose a potential
public health risk which are not currently controlled under international drug laws (UNODC, 2013)
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | Executive Summary
1
is almost certainly due to the recent emergence of synthetic psychedelics, such as 25C-NBOMe,
which are often sold as ‘LSD’ and are supplied in identical blotter tab formats. The synthetic
psychedelic 25I-NBOMe is extremely potent, being active in sub-milligram doses, and has been
associated with a number of overdose deaths in the United States and Europe (ACMD, 2013;
EMCDDA, 2014). Over 16,300 tabs of ‘LSD and other synthetic psychedelics’ have been seized in New
Zealand during the first seven months of 2014, compared to 18,900 tabs over the entire year in
2013, and 1,290 tabs in 2012 (NDIB, 2014).
The rise and rise of oxycodone
The proportion of injecting drug users who had recently used oxycodone has increased steadily over
the past five years (up from 9% in 2008 to 46% in 2013). The ecstasy users also reported a sharp
increase in oxycodone use in 2013, but from a low baseline. There has been a gradual increase in the
use of methylphenidate (Ritalin™) and anti-depressants over the past eight years. The frequent drug
users increasingly reported obtaining drugs by using ‘someone else’s prescription’. The overprescribing of oxycodone in the United States has resulted in increased treatment admissions,
hospital emergencies and overdose deaths (Maxwell, 2011; Nicholas et al., 2011).
An expanding market for methamphetamine in Christchurch
There was a recovery in the availability of methamphetamine in Christchurch in 2013, following five
years of decline. The proportion of frequent drug users in Christchurch who reported
methamphetamine was ‘easier’ to obtain increased from 14% in 2012 to 26% in 2013. The
proportion who could purchase methamphetamine in one hour or less in Christchurch increased
dramatically from 56% in 2012 to 92% in 2013. The influx of international workers to Christchurch as
part of the earthquake rebuild may be playing a part in the resurgence of methamphetamine there,
while police have also noted a re-organisation of the gang scene in Christchurch which may be
facilitating greater drug supply (NDIB, 2014).
The return of MDMA
The strength of ecstasy which had previously been reported to be declining since around 2008,
recovered in 2013. The proportion of users saying they thought their ecstasy contained ‘MDMA’
increased from 89% in 2011 to 96% in 2013, and the proportion who thought their ecstasy contained
‘nothing or almost nothing’ decreased from 22% in 2012 to 9% in 2013. The return of higher purity
MDMA has been noted in Europe (where there is significant manufacture in the Netherlands and
2
Executive Summary | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Belgium), and this may indicate producers have been able to circumvent the previously successful
control of key MDMA precursors, such as piperonylmethylketone (PMK) (EMCDDA, 2014).
A buoyant crystal methamphetamine market
The revitalisation of the crystal methamphetamine (‘ice’) market continued in 2013 with increasing
availability, a declining ‘point’ price and ongoing high strength over recent years. The number of
people using ‘ice’ has consistently been described as ‘more’ since 2011. As outlined previously, this
may reflect greater domestic controls over methamphetamine precursors which make importing
finished crystal methamphetamine more attractive.
A major disruption of the street morphine market in Christchurch
There was a dramatic decrease in the availability of street morphine in Christchurch in 2012, and this
trend continued in 2013. The proportion of frequent drug users in Christchurch who reported that
street morphine was ‘more difficult’ to obtain increased markedly from 11% in 2011 to 59% in 2013.
The decline in availability was accompanied by increases in price. Interestingly, the proportion of
drug users who purchased morphine from a ‘gang member’ in Christchurch increased from 7% in
2012 to 36% in 2013. Further investigation is required to determine the cause of these disruptions,
but they may reflect the adoption of tighter opioid prescribing practices and, as a result, reduced
illicit supply.
Synthetic cannabinoids under the Psychoactive Substances Act
Synthetic cannabinoid use was fairly common among the frequent drug users in 2013, but use has
levelled out since a peak in 2011. The proportion of methamphetamine users who had recently used
synthetic cannabis increased from 10% in 2010 to 41% in 2011, before levelling out to 32% in 2012
and 30% in 2013. The frequent drug users reported some decline in availability and increase in price
of synthetic cannabis in the latter part of 2013. These changes may reflect the greater retail controls
imposed by the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013, and growing reports of adverse effects (Ministry
of Health, 2014; Wilkins, 2014). There was some decline in the number of days the
methamphetamine users had used natural cannabis since 2010, and this suggests some users are
substituting synthetic cannabis for natural cannabis. The proportion of enquiries to the ‘Drug and
Alcohol Helpline’ concerning synthetic cannabis increased from 1% in 2011/12 to 9% in 2013/14,
indicating a growing concern in the community about these products. However, the impact of
synthetic cannabis on overall drug treatment demand appears to be fairly modest, with only
approximately 2% of treatment episodes involving synthetic cannabinoids as the primary drug
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | Executive Summary
3
problem (personal correspondence, Robert Steenhuisen, Community Alcohol and Drug Services,
2014).
‘Party pills’ under the Psychoactive Substances Act
‘Party pills’ were considerably less popular than synthetic cannabinoids with only approximately 10%
having used them in the previous six months. Fifty-six percent of the frequent drug users said ‘less’
people were using party pills compared to six months ago. The low strength of these products might
explain their current low popularity. Fifty-nine percent described the current strength of party pills
as ‘low’ and 36% said the strength was ‘decreasing’. While the legal status of approved party pill
products during the time of interviewing (i.e. Aug-Dec 2013) ensured many purchased party pills
from legal retailers (78%), significant minorities also reported purchasing from a ‘drug dealer’ (22%),
‘friend’ (19%) and a ‘pub/bar/club’ (19%), suggesting some sales occurred within personal networks
and unapproved products were available from the black market.
Boutique markets for cocaine and heroin but some evidence of increasing use
Only small numbers of the frequent drug users reported having any knowledge of cocaine and
heroin, and this supports the understanding that these markets continue to be small in New
Zealand. However, there was some tentative evidence that this might be changing. The proportion
who said ‘less’ people were using cocaine decreased from 53% in 2011 to 7% in 2013. Similarly, the
proportion who said ‘more’ people were using heroin increased 15% in 2012 to 61% in 2013.
Increasing demand for counselling and emergency health services
The proportion of methamphetamine users receiving treatment for a mental illness increased from
15% to 26% over the past five years. An increasing proportion of the injecting drug users accessed a
range of counselling and advisory services in relation to their drug use in 2013. The
methamphetamine users were more likely over the past eight years to have accessed emergency
medical services, such as an ambulance and Emergency Department. They were also more likely in
recent years to have paid for their drug use with ‘social welfare benefits’, ‘credit from drug dealers’,
‘money borrowed from friends’ and by ‘pawning property’. The frequent drug users reported quite
different incidences of drug dependency (84% for injecting, 66% for methamphetamine and 9% for
ecstasy). The proportion of methamphetamine users who were assessed to be drug dependent
increased from 52% in 2012 to 66% in 2013. Increasing proportions of the frequent drug users had
received drug treatment as part of sentencing since 2009, but a growing proportion acknowledged
they needed help in 2013.
4
Executive Summary | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
The impact of drug enforcement increasingly felt by methamphetamine and ecstasy users
The proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had a friend(s) arrested in the previous six
months increased sharply from 63% in 2012 to 82% in 2013. Over the past eight years, there has
been a steady rise in the proportion of frequent ecstasy users who ‘noticed police activity towards
drug users’, and ‘had a friend(s) arrested’. These trends reflect the enforcement priority given to
methamphetamine under the Government’s Methamphetamine Action Plan, and the successful
enforcement operations conducted against local ecstasy syndicates since 2011 (e.g. Operation Ark).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | Executive Summary
5
1. Introduction
The Illicit Drug Monitoring System (IDMS) was established in 2005 to provide annual ‘snapshots’ of
drug use, drug markets and drug related harm in New Zealand. The findings from the IDMS are
intended to inform strategic responses to drug use in New Zealand, and are utilised by a wide
audience including government agencies, drug treatment organisations, drug prevention
organisations, health and welfare services, needle exchanges and researchers.
1.1 Aims of IDMS
The principal aims of the IDMS are to:
 Track trends in drug use;
 Identify the emergence of new drug types;
 Measure the availability, price, and strength of drugs of greatest concern;
 Document the health and social harms related to drug use;
 Document demand for drug treatment services and the barriers experienced by those
accessing help for drug problems.
1.2 Methodology
The IDMS employs a research methodology which has been used successfully in a number of
countries to monitor trends in drug use and drug related harm (see Griffiths et al., 2000; Mounteney
& Leirvag, 2004; Wilkins & Rose, 2003). The Australian drug monitoring programmes (i.e. the Illicit
Drug Reporting System (IDRS) and Ecstasy and related Drugs Reporting System (EDRS)) provided a
natural starting point for the development of a drug monitoring system in New Zealand (see recent
examples, Dunn et al., 2007; O'Brien et al., 2007; Stafford et al., 2009). These methodologies were
adapted and extended in the IDMS to address the unique features of illegal drug use in New Zealand.
The recruitment methods employed in the IDMS were first piloted during early research into the
socio-economic impact of methamphetamine in New Zealand in 2004 (see Wilkins et al., 2004).
The primary source of information in the IDMS are three groups of frequent drug users (i.e. frequent
methamphetamine users, frequent ecstasy users and frequent injecting drug users) recruited from
the community in the three main centres of New Zealand (i.e. Auckland, Wellington and
6
1. Introduction | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Christchurch). The frequent drug users are interviewed because they are a ‘sentinel population’ with
first-hand experience and expert knowledge of recent trends in drug use and drug markets, and who
also bear a disproportionately high level of drug related harm (see Breen et al., 2002; Hando et al.,
1997; Wilkins, et al., 2004).
A unique design feature of the IDMS is that it simultaneously recruits and interviews three groups of
frequent drug users from the community. This is done to provide a broader understanding of recent
trends in different drug types and to ensure we have a sample of sufficient size to investigate less
popular or emerging drug types.
To be eligible to be interviewed for the study respondents have to have used a drug type at least
monthly in the past six months. The specific eligibility criteria are as follows:
i)
Frequent methamphetamine users - at least monthly users of methamphetamine or crystal
methamphetamine;
ii) Frequent ecstasy users - at least monthly users of ecstasy;
iii) Frequent Intravenous Drug Users (IDU) – at least monthly injectors of any drug. The drug
types injected by the IDU sample can include legal pharmaceuticals which may have been
illegally diverted from the medical system, such as morphine, methadone and
methylphenidate (Ritalin).
The information provided by the interviews with the three groups of frequent drug users is
contextualised with secondary data sources, such as drug seizure statistics, admissions to drug
treatment programmes, and calls to drug support and information lines.
1.3 Survey of frequent drug users
A total of 312 frequent drug users were interviewed for the 2013 IDMS, including 118 frequent
ecstasy users, 93 frequent methamphetamine users, and 101 frequent injecting drug users (IDU).
The frequent drug users interviewed for the study participated in an in-depth, hour-long face-to-face
interview using a structured questionnaire. Recruitment and interviewing of the frequent drug users
was carried out in the three main centres (i.e. Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch) from August
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 1. Introduction
7
to December 2013. Participants were recruited through purposive sampling and ‘snowballing’
(Biernacki & Waldorf, 1981; Watters & Biernacki, 1989). Purposive sampling involves the use of
targeted recruitment strategies and is used to reach hard-to-reach populations, such as frequent
illegal drug users, when general population sampling is costly. In order to ensure that a broadly
representative sample of frequent drug users is interviewed for the IDMS, a range of ‘start points’
for recruitment are chosen, based on the demographic profile of users and an understanding of the
venues and locations where they are likely to congregate in a given site (see Wilkins et al., 2005a,
2005b, 2005c; Wilkins, et al., 2004). The recruitment of the three samples of frequent drug users
was achieved through three separate promotional campaigns. The interviewers left promotional
material at a wide range of locations. Those contacting interviewers about participating in the study
indicated the type of drug advertisement to which they were responding and were screened for
eligibility for that drug type. Participants were administered a structured face-to-face interview at a
public venue of their choosing.
Participants were informed that all the information provided was strictly confidential and
anonymous, and that the results would only be presented in aggregate. The project was designed so
that no individual participant could be identified at a later date. The protocols and procedures used
to collect and store the data for the project were approved by the Massey University Human
Subjects Ethics Committee. All participants were offered a $20 food voucher to compensate them
for their time.
1.4 Secondary data sources
A range of secondary data sources were used in the 2013 IDMS to place the reports of the frequent
drug users in wider context. Secondary data sources included in this report are:
•
Drug seizure data
•
Call statistics from the Drug and Alcohol Help-line
•
Drug treatment admission statistics
We would like to thank the New Zealand Police, National Drug Intelligence Bureau (NDIB), New
Zealand Customs Service, Alcohol and Drug Association of New Zealand (ADANZ) and Community
Alcohol and Drug Services (CADS) for allowing us to present this data. The amount of a drug seized
by the authorities in a given year is constantly up-dated as cases are resolved through the courts.
8
1. Introduction | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
The seizure data for previous years has been up dated in this report and consequently may differ
from previous IDMS reports.
1.5 Analysis
In this report we carried out extensive statistical testing of the differences between measures of
drug use and drug-related harm. This statistical analysis is important to determine whether
differences between measures are ‘real’ differences or merely unusual results due to sampling error.
Samples of a given study population do not perfectly match the entire population but naturally vary
depending on the sample taken at any given time. Measures of drug use and drug-related harm
therefore naturally vary according to the sample taken at a given time, and so differences between
measures may not represent actual differences but variation due to the sampling process.
The statistical analysis in this report brings an important level of rigour to the findings. It is
particularly important when trying to answer the question of whether variation in findings between
years is because there has been some real change or merely an unusual result due to sampling error.
We only consider there to be a real difference between the measures if the result of the test is
statistically significant at the p<0.05% level. In other words, the probability of obtaining that result
by chance is less than one in 20. At times we note situations where the test result is close to the
p<0.05% cut-off point. This is particularly worthy of note when sample numbers are low and may be
impeding a successful test.
Statistical testing was carried out for a range of drug measures collected in the study. We were
primarily interested in two types of statistical tests across time; firstly testing for long term trends
from 2006 to 2013, and secondly testing for recent trends from 2012 to 2013. We tested for
differences in proportions (e.g. yes/no questions) between 2012 and 2013 using logistic regression.
We tested for differences in means between 2012 and 2013 using Student’s t-tests. Student’s t-tests
were run on the log-transformed values for highly-skewed variables (e.g. number of days used
methamphetamine in the previous six months). Scale-type questions such as current drug availability
were allocated scores (e.g. very difficult=4, difficult=3, easy=2 and very easy=1) and differences from
2012 and 2013 were tested for using Student’s t-tests. Student’s t-tests assume the samples tested
form a normal distribution. With scale-type questions such an assumption can never be met as the
scores are based on discrete data. However frequency tables show the distribution of data as being
mound shaped, providing an approximation of a normal probability distribution. The enumerated
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 1. Introduction
9
scale question is not intended to provide a precise description of the variable; rather it is a practical
way to easily summarise the variable and demonstrate how it has changed. Spearman’s rank
correlation coefficients were used to test for trends from 2006 and 2013 for both proportions and
means. A p-value of less than 0.05 indicated a significant trend across the six years and the direction
(positive or negative) of the coefficient showed if the trend was increasing or decreasing overtime.
Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients were only run where data existed for all eight sample years.
All analysis was run using SAS software.
1.6 Weighting of the sample
As part of the analysis we wished to compare findings from the 2013 IDMS survey with the previous
2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007 and 2006 IDMS surveys. The annual samples differed somewhat
in terms of the proportion of respondents in each site and in each frequent drug user module (see
Tables 1.1 and 1.2). If unaccounted for it is possible for the differences between the samples to
influence the results of the comparisons. To minimise the effect of differing sample populations we
weighted the sample to ensure the relative contribution of each site and module was equal across
years. We applied fixed weightings for site location and frequent drug user group based on the
averages for these categories for 2006-2008. Tables 1.3 and 1.4 show the weighted percentages of
respondents from each site and module respectively.
Table 1 1: Distribution of IDMS respondents by site for the years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011,
2012 and 2013
Site (%)
2006
(n=318)
2007
(n=324)
2008
(n=404)
2009
(n=315)
2010
(n=411)
2011
(n=372)
2012
(n=330)
2013
(n=312)
Total
(n=2786)
Auckland
43.4
46.9
33.2
41.6
36.0
49.7
37.6
43.3
41.2
Wellington
22.0
28.1
31.7
23.8
28.5
23.7
25.2
15.7
25.2
Christchurch
34.6
25.0
35.1
34.6
35.5
26.6
37.3
41.0
33.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Total
Table 1 2: Distribution of IDMS respondents by module for the years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010,
2011, 2012 and 2013
Module (%)
2006
(n=318)
2007
(n=324)
2008
(n=404)
2009
(n=315)
2010
(n=411)
2011
(n=372)
2012
(n=330)
2013
(n=312)
Total
(n=2786)
Methamphetamine
35.8
34.0
33.9
33.3
31.6
30.4
30.3
29.8
32.4
Ecstasy
34.9
32.4
33.4
35.6
37.2
43.3
38.2
37.8
36.6
Injecting
29.2
33.6
32.7
31.1
31.1
26.3
31.5
32.4
31.1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Total
10
1. Introduction | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 1 3: Weighted distribution of respondents by site for the years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010,
2011, 2012 and 2013
Site (%)
2006
(n=318)
2007
(n=323)
2008
(n=405)
2009
(n=315)
2010
(n=412)
2011
(n=375)
2012
(n=331)
2013
(n=312)
Total
(n=2791)
Auckland
39.8
41.4
40.8
40.6
41.1
38.8
41.5
41.9
40.7
Wellington
27.1
27.6
27.6
27.4
27.2
26.8
27.1
26.9
27.2
Christchurch
33.1
31.0
31.6
32.0
31.7
34.5
31.4
31.2
32.1
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Total
Table 1 4: Weighted distribution of respondents by module for the years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010,
2011, 2012 and 2013
Module (%)
2006
(n=318)
2007
(n=323)
2008
(n=405)
2009
(n=315)
2010
(n=412)
2011
(n=375)
2012
(n=331)
2013
(n=312)
Total
(n=2791)
Methamphetamine
34.3
32.9
36.1
34.5
36.3
32.5
36.1
34.8
34.7
Ecstasy
35.2
31.2
33.6
33.9
33.6
32.3
34.1
36.1
33.7
Injecting
30.6
35.9
30.2
31.6
30.2
35.2
29.8
29.1
31.6
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Total
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 1. Introduction
11
2. Demographics
2.1 Introduction
The IDMS has consistently found distinct demographic profiles for each of the three groups of
frequent drug users interviewed for the study. The frequent ecstasy users tend to be younger (i.e.
early 20s), students, and more highly educated (Wilkins et al., 2011b). In contrast, the frequent
methamphetamine users are older (i.e. early 30 year olds) and more likely to be Maori (Wilkins et al.,
2010a). Finally, the frequent injecting drug users are the oldest group (i.e. late 30s), more likely to be
unemployed or on a sickness benefit, and more likely to have poor physical health (Wilkins, et al.,
2011b).
The IDMS has also identified some emerging trends in the demographic profiles of the frequent drug
user groups. The injecting drug users have progressively aged through the course of the study (i.e.
from a mean age of 32 years in 2006 to 39 years in 2012). The proportion of the frequent
methamphetamine users who were Maori increased from 22% in 2006 to 39% in 2012, with
particularly sharp increases in the past two years. The mean age of the frequent methamphetamine
users has also begun to increase over the past two years. Finally, the proportion of the frequent
ecstasy users who were Maori has increased steadily over the past seven years, albeit at a modest
rate and from a low baseline (i.e. from 3% in 2006 to 11% in 2012).
2.2 Gender
Sixty nine percent of the frequent ecstasy users, 67% of the frequent methamphetamine users and
64% of the frequent injecting drug users were male in 2013 (Figure 2.1). There was no statistically
significant change in the gender of the three frequent drug user groups from 2006 to 2013.
12
2. Demographics | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 2 1: Proportion of the frequent drug users who were male, 2006-2013
100%
% of frequent drug users
90%
80%
70%
60%
Ecstasy
50%
IDU
40%
Meth
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
2.3 Age
The frequent methamphetamine users were a mean age of 36 years old, the frequent injecting drug
users were 33 years old, and the frequent ecstasy users were 23 years old in 2013. The mean age of
the frequent methamphetamine users increased from 30 years in 2006 to 36 years in 2013
(p<0.0001). While the frequent injecting drug users have got progressively older over the course of
the study (from 32 years in 2006 to 39 years in 2012, p=0.0241), this trend was dramatically reversed
in 2013 with the mean age of the group falling to 33 years old (Figure 2.2). The age of the frequent
ecstasy users declined slightly from 24 years in 2012 to 23 years 2013 (p=0.0459).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 2. Demographics
13
Figure 2 2: Mean age of the frequent drug users, 2006-2013
45
40
36
Mean age (years)
35
37
38
38
39
39
36
32
34
30
30
31
32
30
32
33
30
Ecstasy
25
23
20
23
23
24
23
22
IDU
23
22
Meth
15
10
5
0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
2.4 Ethnicity
Ninety percent of frequent ecstasy users, 80% of the frequent injecting drug users and 53% of the
frequent methamphetamine users were of European ethnicity in 2013 (Table 2.1). The proportion of
frequent methamphetamine users who were European decreased from 71% in 2006 to 53% in 2013
(p=0.0005) (Figure 2.3). The proportion of frequent ecstasy users who were European has steadily
declined over the past eight years; down from 96% in 2006 to 90% in 2013 (p=0.0249). However, the
proportion of European ecstasy users increased from 81% in 2012 to 90% in 2013, and this increase
was close to being statistically significant (p=0.1034).
Table 2 1: Ethnicity of the frequent drug users, 2013
Ethnicity (%)
Methamphetamine
users (n=93)
Injecting drug
users (IDU)
(n=101)
Ecstasy users
(n=118)
European
53
80
90
Maori
43
15
6
Pacific Island
2
2
3
Asian
2
1
1
Other
0
3
1
14
2. Demographics | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 2 3: Proportion of the frequent drug users who were of European ethnicity, 2006-2013
100%
96%
90%
90%
87%
90%
86%
85%
80%
79%
% of frequent drug users
81%
78%
82%
70%
83%
77%
82%
83%
80%
70%
71%
60%
67%
68%
Ecstasy
IDU
68%
68%
Meth
61%
50%
53%
53%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
The proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who were Maori increased from 22% in 2006 to
43% in 2013 (p<0.0001) (Figure 2.4). The proportion of frequent ecstasy users who were Maori also
increased, albeit from a much lower baseline, from 3% in 2006 to 6% in 2013, and this was close to
being statistically significant (p=0.1037). There was a decline in the proportion of frequent ecstasy
users who were Maori from 2012 to 2013, but this change was not statistically significant
(p=0.1451).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 2. Demographics
15
Figure 2 4: Proportion of the frequent drug users who were of Maori ethnicity, 2006-2013
100%
90%
% of frequent drug users
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
43%
39%
IDU
40%
30%
Ecstasy
22%
25%
20%
28%
25%
19%
28%
3%
2006
5%
8%
2007
2008
27%
17%
16%
13%
20%
16%
10%
0%
Meth
11%
2009
13%
8%
2010
2011
15%
11%
2012
6%
2013
Year
2.5 Employment status
The three frequent drug user groups show distinctive employment status profiles. In 2013, 76% of
the frequent injecting drug users and 60% of the frequent methamphetamine users were
unemployed or on a sickness benefit, compared to only 12% of the frequent ecstasy users (Table 2.2
and Figure 2.5). Furthermore, 62% of the frequent ecstasy users were students (i.e. tertiary or high
school), compared to less than 10% of the other two groups. There was no statistically significant
trend in the proportion of frequent drug users who were unemployed from 2006 to 2013.
16
2. Demographics | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 2 2: Employment status of the frequent drug users, 2013
Employment status (%)
Methamphetamine
users (n=93)
Injecting drug
users (IDU)
(101)
Ecstasy users
(n=118)
Unemployed/ sick/ other
60
76
12
Employed
32
16
26
8
8
62
Students (tertiary/ high school)
Figure 2 5: Proportion of the frequent drug users who were unemployed or on a sickness benefit, 20062013
100%
90%
82%
79%
80%
79%
76%
75%
69%
% of frequent drug users
69%
69%
70%
60%
65%
66%
64%
61%
50%
Ecstasy
60%
58%
IDU
52%
49%
40%
Meth
30%
18%
20%
10%
14%
6%
6%
6%
2008
2009
8%
7%
2011
2012
12%
0%
2006
2007
2010
2013
Year
2.6 Education
The frequent methamphetamine users and frequent injecting drug users often have poor levels of
educational achievement. In 2013, 34% of the frequent injecting drug users and 29% of the frequent
methamphetamine users had no educational qualifications at all (Table 2.3). In contrast, only 4% of
the frequent ecstasy users had no educational qualifications. The proportion of frequent
methamphetamine users with no educational qualifications has decreased somewhat from 37% in
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 2. Demographics
17
2006 to 29% in 2013, and this decline was close to being statistically significant (p=0.0767) (Figure
2.6).
Table 2 3: Highest educational achievement of the frequent drug users, 2013
Highest educational
qualification (%)
Methamphetamine
users (n=93)
Injecting drug
users (IDU)
(n=101)
Ecstasy users
(n=116)
No qualifications
29
34
4
High school qualifications
27
28
69
Trade qualifications
25
18
13
Tertiary qualifications
18
20
14
Figure 2 6: Proportion of the frequent drug users who had no educational qualifications, 2006-2013
100%
90%
% of frequent drug users
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
36%
30%
37%
36%
34%
31%
33%
30%
7%
3%
4%
33%
25%
26%
20%
10%
Ecstasy
42%
3%
34%
30%
26%
IDU
Meth
29%
4%
21%
6%
4%
4%
2010
2011
2012
2013
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
Year
2.7 Sexual orientation
Twenty percent of the frequent injecting drug users, 18% of frequent ecstasy users and 14% of
frequent methamphetamine users identified as non-heterosexual (i.e. gay man, lesbian woman, bisexual or ‘other’ sexual orientation) in 2013 (Table 2.4). The proportion of frequent injecting drug
users who identified as non-heterosexual increased from 5% in 2012 to 21% in 2013 (p=00041 ). The
18
2. Demographics | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
proportion of frequent ecstasy users who identified as non-heterosexual increased from 7% in 2012
to 18% in 2013 (p=0.0158).
Table 2 4: Frequent drug users’ sexual orientation, 2013
Sexual orientation (%)
Methamphetamine
users (n=92)
Heterosexual
Ecstasy users
(n=118)
Intravenous drug
users (IDU) (n=101)
86
82
80
Gay male
1
6
3
Lesbian
2
0
2
Bisexual
11
11
15
0
1
1
Other
2.8 Marital status
Sixty-one percent of the frequent ecstasy users, 54% of the frequent methamphetamine users and
49% of the frequent injecting drug users were of single marital status in 2013 (Table 2.5). The
frequent injecting drug users were more likely to be married or in a de facto relationship than the
other two groups.
Table 2 5: Frequent drug users by marital status, 2013
Marital status (%)
Methamphetamine
users (n=93)
Ecstasy users
(n=118)
Intravenous
drug users (IDU)
(n=101)
Single
54
61
49
With a regular partner
27
34
29
Married/ defacto
8
4
14
Separated
7
1
2
Divorced
4
0
5
Widowed
0
1
2
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 2. Demographics
19
2.9 Accommodation
Seventy-one percent of frequent ecstasy users, 66% of the frequent methamphetamine users and
53% of frequent injecting drug users were living in a rented private accommodation in 2013 (Table
2.6).
Table 2 6: Frequent drug users by current accommodation type, 2013
Accommodation type
(%)
Methamphetamine
users (n=92)
Rented private house
Intravenous
drug users
(IDU) (n=101)
Ecstasy users
(n=118)
66
71
53
Own private house
7
12
8
Parents/family private
house
8
16
7
Boarding house/hostel
15
10
9
7
3
10
Other
1
0
3
Shelter/refuge
2
1
1
Drug treatment residence
0
0
0
No fixed
address/homeless
2.10 Physical health
The frequent drug users were asked to self-assess their physical health using a five point scale (i.e.
1=poor – 5=excellent). In 2013, 45% of the frequent injecting drug users reported their physical
health as either ‘fair’ or ‘poor’ (Table 2.7). The frequent methamphetamine users reported a slight
decrease in their self-reported levels of physical health from 2009 to 2013 (down from 3.0 to 2.8),
and this decline was close to being statistically significant (p=0.0727). As a consequence, the
frequent methamphetamine users had similar levels of poor physical health as the frequent injecting
drug users in 2013 (Figure 2.7).
20
2. Demographics | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 2 7: Frequent drug users’ self-assessment of current physical health, 2009-2013
Methamphetamine users
General physical
health (%)
Excellent [5]
Very good [4]
2009
(n=104)
2010
(n=126)
Ecstasy users
2011
(n=112)
2012
2013
(n=100)
(n=93)
2009
(n=111)
Intravenous drug users (IDU)
2010
(n=153)
2011
(n=161)
2012
2013
(n=124)
(n=118)
2009
(n=99)
2010
(n=128)
2011
(n=98)
2012
2013
(n=104)
(n=101)
13
7
12
7
5
27
19
22
21
27
4
5
7
11
8
19
23
31
20
17
33
36
37
37
40
19
21
21
15
17
35
37
37
32
39
25
26
27
31
20
29
36
29
32
30
24
23
9
31
28
13
17
10
9
12
29
24
32
31
20
10
11
10
10
12
2
2
4
3
1
19
15
10
12
25
3.0
2.9
3.3
2.8
2.8
3.7
3.5
3.6
3.6
3.8
2.6
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.6
Good [3]
Fair [2]
Poor [1]
Average score of
physical health
(1=Poor – 5=Excellent)
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 2. Demographics
21
Figure 2 7: Mean score of perception of physical health by frequent drug user group, 2013
5.0
1 = poor - 5 = excellent
4.0
3.0
3.8
2.8
2.6
2.0
1.0
0.0
Meth
Ecstasy
IDU
2.11 Mental health
The frequent drug users were also asked to self-assess their mental health using a five point scale
(i.e. 1=poor – 5=excellent). The frequent ecstasy users rated their mental health considerable higher
than either the frequent methamphetamine users or the frequent injecting drug users (Figure 2.8).
Twenty-nine percent of the frequent methamphetamine users described their mental health as
either ‘fair’ or ‘poor’ in 2013 (Table 2.8). The mental health of frequent injecting drug users declined
from 2012 to 2013 (down from 3.2 to 2.7, p=0.0065). In contrast, the mental health of the frequent
ecstasy users improved from 2012 to 2013 (up from 3.7 to 4.0), and this increase was close to being
statistically significant (p=0.0831).
22
2. Demographics | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 2 8: Frequent drug users’ self-assessment of current mental health, 2010-2013
General
mental
health (%)
Methamphetamine users
Ecstasy users
Intravenous drug users (IDU)
2010
(n=128)
2011
(n=113)
2012
(n=100)
2013
(n=92)
2010
(n=153)
2011
(n=161)
2012
(n=125)
2013
(n=118)
2010
(n=127)
2011
(n=96)
2012
(n=104)
2013
(n=101)
11
12
14
11
26
29
28
38
11
10
18
13
22
28
11
22
35
36
31
33
23
26
18
12
31
36
43
38
27
21
27
18
42
36
36
30
31
17
22
18
10
12
11
9
17
18
24
28
5
7
10
11
1
2
2
2
6
11
5
17
3.0
3.2
2.8
3.1
3.7
3.8
3.7
4.0
3.1
3.1
3.2
2.7
Excellent [5]
Very good
[4]
Good [3]
Fair [2]
Poor [1]
Average
score of
mental
health
(1=Poor –
5=Excellent)
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 2. Demographics
23
Figure 2 8: Mean score of perception of mental health by frequent drug user group, 2013
5.0
4.0
4.0
1 = poor - 5 = excellent
3.1
3.0
2.7
2.0
1.0
0.0
Meth
Ecstasy
IDU
2.12 Summary of demographic characteristics
Frequent methamphetamine users
•
Sixty- seven percent of the frequent methamphetamine users were male and their mean age
was 36 years old in 2013
•
The mean age of the frequent methamphetamine users increased from 30 years in 2009 to 36
years in 2013
•
The proportion of the frequent methamphetamine users who were Maori increased from 27% in
2010 to 43% in 2013
•
Sixty percent of the frequent methamphetamine users were unemployed or on the sickness
benefit in 2013
•
The proportion of frequent methamphetamine users with no educational qualifications declined
from 37% in 2006 to 29% in 2013
24
2. Demographics | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
•
The frequent methamphetamine users reported a slight decline in their physical health from
2009 to 2013
•
Twenty-nine percent of the frequent methamphetamine users described their mental health as
‘fair’ or ‘poor’ in 2013
Frequent ecstasy users
•
Sixty- nine percent of the frequent ecstasy users were male and their mean age was 23 years
old in 2013
•
The mean age of the frequent ecstasy users decreased slightly from 24 years in 2012 to 23 years
in 2013
•
The proportion of the frequent ecstasy users who were Maori increased steadily from 3% in
2006 to 11% in 2012, but then declined to 6% in 2012
•
Only 12% of the frequent ecstasy users were unemployed or on a sickness benefit in 2013
•
Sixty-two percent of the frequent ecstasy users were students in 2013
•
The proportion of the frequent ecstasy users who identified as non-heterosexual increased from
7% in 2012 to 18% in 2013
•
Sixty-one percent of the frequent ecstasy users were of ‘single’ marital status in 2013
•
The frequent ecstasy users rated their physical health and mental health much higher than
either the frequent methamphetamine users or the frequent injecting drug users
Frequent injecting users
•
Sixty-four percent of the frequent injecting users were male and their mean age was 33 years in
2013
•
The mean age of the frequent injecting drug users increased steadily from 32 years in 2006 to 39
years in 2012, but then declined sharply to 33 years in 2013
•
Eighty percent of the frequent injecting drug users identified as European in 2013
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 2. Demographics
25
•
Seventy–six percent of the frequent injecting drug users reported that they were unemployed or
on a sickness benefit in 2013
•
The proportion of frequent injecting drug users with no educational qualifications decreased
from 36% in 2006 to 34% in 2013
•
The proportion of frequent injecting drug users who identified as non-heterosexual decreased
from 5% in 2012 to 21 % in 2013
•
Forty-five percent of the frequent injecting drug users described their physical health as ‘fair’ or
‘poor’ in 2013
•
Forty-five percent of the frequent injecting drug users described their mental health as ‘fair’ or
‘poor’ in 2013
•
The mental health of the injecting drug users declined from 2012 to 2013
26
2. Demographics | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
3. Drug use patterns
3.1 Introduction
There has been a global trend over the past decade or so towards increased poly drug use and
synthetic stimulant drug use (EMCDDA, 2013b; UNODC, 2012, 2013). New Zealand has experienced
increased use of a number of synthetic stimulants since the early 2000s, including
methamphetamine, crystal methamphetamine and ecstasy (MDMA) (Wilkins et al., 2002b; Wilkins et
al., 2003). In more recent years, a range of new psychoactive substances (NPS) have emerged with
many sold as so called ‘legal highs’ (EMCDDA, 2011, 2013a, 2013b; UNODC, 2012, 2013). New
Zealand has been at the fore front of this phenomenon with a large legal market for BZP and TFMPP
‘party pills’ during the mid-2000s, followed by ‘non-BZP party pills’ containing DMAA, and most
recently synthetic cannabinoids, such as K2, Kronic and Spice, and plant extracts such as salvia
divinorum (Sheridan et al., 2007; UNODC, 2011; Wilkins, 2011; Wilkins et al., 2008).
The global disruption in the supply of MDMA in the mid-2000s meant that drugs sold as ‘ecstasy’
increasingly
contain
a
range
of
substitute
compounds
including
cathinones
(i.e.
methylmethcathinone, methylone, mephedrone, MDPV) and piperazines (i.e. BZP, mCPP, TFMPP).
There has been increasing extra-medical use of pharmaceutical medicines in many developed
countries over the past decade, such as oxycodone, morphine, methadone, benzodiazepines and
methylphenidate (Ritalin™) (UNODC, 2012, 2013). The number of patients receiving oxycodone in
New Zealand has increased by 249% since 2007, with no corresponding decrease in the number
receiving morphine (the preferred first-line pain relief option) (BPJ, 2012). The United States has
experienced substantial problems with the misuse of oxycodone with resulting increases in
treatment admissions, hospital emergencies and overdose deaths (Maxwell, 2011; Nicholas, et al.,
2011).
Achieving the appropriate level of pharmaceutical drug use requires a measured policy response
which balances reducing the misuse of pharmaceuticals with not denying access to medicines to
those with legitimate medical needs, or those seeking to reduce dependence on illegal drugs
(Nicholas, et al., 2011; Sheridan & Butler, 2008; Wilkins et al., 2011a). The benefits of methadone
maintenance in terms of reducing drug use have been found to increase with the length of time an
injecting drug user stays on a methadone programme, which suggests the focus should be on
retaining injecting drug users in methadone programmes and within therapeutic relationships,
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 3. Drug use patterns
27
rather than taking a punitive approach against instances of inappropriate use (Judson et al., 2010).
Recent investigations of pharmaceutical drug misuse have recommended greater monitoring and
research of the extent of abuse, the review of the marketing practices of the pharmaceutical
industry, changes to clinical practice around pain relief, greater workforce development and auditing
of prescription practices, dissemination of harm minimization information to misusers, increased
public education about the efficacy of medicines, and enhancements of the information technology
used to allocate prescription medicines (Nicholas, et al., 2011; Sheridan & Butler, 2008).
This chapter presents data on all the drug types which the frequent drug users have used in their
lifetimes and the drug types which they have consumed during the previous six months. We have
added specific questions on a number of new drug categories to the IDMS interview in recent years,
including hallucinogenic mushrooms (psilocybin) in 2007; codeine, oxycodone, morphine, opium
poppies and ‘homebake’ heroin in 2008; and synthetic cannabis and non-BZP party pills in 2010. In
2011, we added a range of new drugs including mephedrone, ‘2C’ drugs (e.g. 2CB, 2CI, 2CE, 2CD),
MDPV, DMT, salvia divinorum, Fentanyl, 4-MEC, Tramadol and methylone.
3.2 Lifetime use of drug types by frequent methamphetamine users
The frequent methamphetamine users had tried a mean of 12 drug types in their lifetimes in 2013.
The drug types which the frequent methamphetamine users had most commonly ever tried were
methamphetamine (100%), tobacco (91%), cannabis (95%), alcohol (89%), amphetamine (69%),
ecstasy (68%), LSD (65%), magic mushrooms (psilocybin) (60%), and crystal methamphetamine (55%)
(see Appendix 1). Many of the frequent methamphetamine users had tried pharmaceutical drugs
such as codeine (42%), methylphenidate (Ritalin™) (41%), benzodiazepines (41%), Tramadol (37%),
anti-depressants (33%) and morphine (28%). Forty-nine percent of the frequent methamphetamine
users had tried synthetic cannabinoids and 23% had used legal ‘party pills’. Some of the frequent
methamphetamine users had tried other ‘new drug types’, including party pills (30%), salvia
divinorum (20%), one of the ‘2C’ drugs (13%) or mephedrone (8%).
A higher proportion of the methamphetamine users had tried oxycodone (up from 3% in 2008 to
12% in 2013, p=0.0012), anti-depressants (up from 13% in 2006 to 33% in 2013, p=0.0005) and
synthetic cannabis (up from 22% in 2010 to 49% in 2013, p<0.0001). There was a decrease in the
proportion of methamphetamine users who had tried LSD (down from 83% in 2006 to 65% in 2013,
p=0.0002), ecstasy (down from 85% in 2012 to 68% in 2013, p=0.0027), methylphenidate (Ritalin™)
28
3. Drug use patterns | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
(down from 60% in 2012 to 49% in 2013, p=0.0042), opium poppies (down from 39% in 2012 to 22%
in 2013, p=0.0065), hallucinogenic mushrooms (down from 79% in 2012 to 60% in 2013, p=0.0016)
and ‘party pills’ (down from 38% in 2012 to 23% in 2013, p=0.0178) (Figure 3.1).
Figure 3 1: Proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had ever used oxycodone, antidepressants, synthetic cannabis and opium poppies, 2006-2013
100%
% frequent methamphetamine users
90%
80%
Synthetic
cannabis
70%
Antidepressants
57%
60%
Oxycodone
52%
50%
49%
Opium
poppies
44%
43%
39%
35%
40%
30%
31%
37%
30%
20%
32%
31%
32%
33%
21%
13%
22%
22%
19%
10%
15%
11%
11%
2009
2010
12%
3%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2011
2012
2013
Year
A lower proportion of frequent methamphetamine users had tried crystal methamphetamine (down
from 78% in 2006 to 55% in 2013, p<0.0001), cocaine (down from 65% in 2006 to 35% in 2013,
p<0.0001), GHB (down from 36% in 2006 to 29% in 2013, p=0.0285), benzodiazepines (down from
48% in 2006 to 41% in 2013, p=0.0233), codeine (down from 53% in 2008 to 42% in 2013, p=0.0323),
methadone (down from 30% in 2006 to 18% in 2013, p=0.0147), nitrous oxide (down from 60% to
33%, p<0.0001), heroin (down from 31% in 2012 to 13% in 2013, p=0.0016) and BZP (down from 75%
in 2006 to 30% in 2013, p<0.0001) (Figure 3.2).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 3. Drug use patterns
29
Figure 3 2: Proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had ever used cocaine, crystal
methamphetamine (Ice) and BZP, 2006-2013
100%
% frequent methamphetamine users
90%
80%
78%
78%
74%
73%
78%
70%
75%
60%
65%
50%
68%
58%
55%
53%
53%
55%
54%
BZP
49%
40%
45%
35%
41%
38%
30%
Cocaine
Ice
34%
32%
28%
20%
31%
30%
2012
2013
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Year
The drug types the frequent methamphetamine users had first tried were tobacco (at a mean age of
15 years), alcohol (15 years) and cannabis (16 years). The frequent methamphetamine users had first
tried methamphetamine at a mean age of 26 years (median 22 years).
3.3 Lifetime use of drug types by frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users
The frequent ecstasy users had tried a mean of 11 drug types in their lifetimes in 2013. Overall, the
number of drugs types that the frequent ecstasy users had tried increased from 10.5 in 2006 to 11.1
in 2013 (p=0.0011). However, the number of drugs tried declined from 12.4 in 2012 to 11.1 in 2013
(p=0.0321). The drug types which the frequent ecstasy users had most commonly tried were ecstasy
(100%), alcohol (99%), cannabis (97%), tobacco (89%), LSD (72%), synthetic cannabis (58%) and party
pills (35%) (see Appendix 1). Many of the frequent ecstasy users had tried other ‘new drugs’
including salvia divinorum (49%), one of the 2C drugs (28%) and mephedrone (27%). Many of the
frequent ecstasy users had also tried pharmaceutical drugs, such as methylphenidate (Ritalin™)
(55%), codeine (49%), Tramadol (36%), anti-depressants (23%) and benzodiazepines (27%).
30
3. Drug use patterns | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Overall, the proportion of the frequent ecstasy users who have tried synthetic cannabis increased
steeply from 36% in 2010 to 58% in 2013 (p=0.0003), although there has been some decline in
recent years (Figure 3.3). The frequent ecstasy users were more likely to have tried oxycodone (up
from 5% in 2008 to 15% in 2013, p=0.0022), anti-depressants (up from 9% in 2006 to 23% in 2013,
p<.0001), Ritalin™ (methylphenidate) (up from 39% in 2006 to 55% in 2013 (p<0.0001) and tobacco
(up from 78% in 2006 to 89% in 2013, p=0.0042).
Figure 3 3: Proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had ever used Ritalin™ (methylphenidate), non
BZP party pills, anti-depressants, oxycodone and synthetic cannabis, 2006-2013
100%
90%
80%
% frequent ecstasy users
70%
70%
55%
60%
58%
39%
40%
36%
58%
50%
39%
Ritalin
55%
51%
Synthetic
cannabis
36%
30%
Antidepressants
53%
48%
50%
68%
68%
35%
Oxycodone
30%
20%
25%
10%
0%
15%
9%
2006
2007
18%
19%
13%
5%
2008
23%
21%
7%
5%
2009
2010
2011
Non BZP pills
15%
9%
2012
2013
Year
The proportion of the frequent ecstasy users who had ever tried methamphetamine and crystal
methamphetamine decreased over the past seven years, down from 50% in 2006 to 32% in 2013
(p=0.0018 ), and down from 19% in 2006 to 11% in 2013 (p=0.0095 ) respectively (Figure 3.4). There
was a decrease in the proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had ever tried BZP (down from 91%
in 2006 to 35% in 2013, p<0.0001), cocaine (down from 41% in 2006 to 25% in 2013, p=0.0075),
nitrous oxide (down from 92% in 2006 to 50% in 2013, p<0.0001), GHB (down from 34% in 2006 to
17% in 2013, p<0.0001), mephedrone (down from 38% in 2012 to 27% in 2013, p=0.0642), party pills
(down from 68% in 2012 to 35% in 2013, p<0.0001) and ketamine ( down from 36% in 2012 to 22%
in 2013, p=0.0192).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 3. Drug use patterns
31
Figure 3 4: Proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had ever used BZP, methamphetamine, cocaine,
crystal methamphetamine (Ice), 2006-2013
100%
94%
91%
90%
% frequent ecstasy users
80%
BZP
70%
Methamphetamine
60%
54%
50%
50%
44%
42%
41%
40%
Ice
48%
Cocaine
34%
34%
30%
32%
32%41% 32% 38%
30%
25%
30%
30%
31%
25%
20%
35%
32%
25%
23%
19%
18%
10%
17%
16%
8%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
11%
10%
2011
2012
2013
Year
The drug types which the frequent ecstasy users had first tried were alcohol (at a mean age of 14
years), tobacco (15 years) and cannabis (15 years). There was an increase in the age at which the
frequent ecstasy users had first tried crystal methamphetamine (up from 19 years in 2011 to 24
years in 2013, p=0.0023). Over the past eight years there has been a gradual decrease in the mean
age at which the frequent ecstasy users first tried ecstasy (down from 19 years in 2012 to 18 years in
2013, p=0.0047).
32
3. Drug use patterns | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
3.4 Lifetime use of drug types by frequent injecting drug users
The frequent injecting drug users had tried a mean of 16 drug types in their lifetimes in 2013.
Overall, they had tried a greater number of drug types over the previous eight years, up from 13 in
2006 to 16 in 2013 (p<0.0001), however the number of drug types tried declined from 18 in 2012 to
16 in 2013 (p=0.0004) (see Appendix 1). Most of the frequent injecting drug users had tried
pharmaceutical drugs, including morphine (86%), methylphenidate (Ritalin™) (85%), methadone
(73%), codeine (69%), benzodiazepines (60%), opium poppies (58%), anti-depressants (38%),
oxycodone (67%) and Tramadol (44%). The other drug types most commonly tried by the frequent
injecting drug users were alcohol (96%), cannabis (95%), tobacco (95%), methamphetamine (89%),
LSD (75%) and homebake morphine/heroin (74%). Thirty–nine percent of the injecting drug users
had tried heroin. Some of the injecting drug users had tried ‘new drugs’ such synthetic cannabis
(41%), salvia divinorum (23%), one of the ‘2C’ drugs (16%) and party pills (14%).
The proportion of the frequent injecting drug users who had tried methamphetamine increased
from 74% in 2006 to 89% in 2013 (p=0.0005) (Figure 3.5). The proportion of injecting drug users who
had tried synthetic cannabis increased sharply from 14% in 2012 to 42% in 2013 (p<0.0001). A higher
proportion of frequent injecting drug users had tried anti-depressants (up from 19% in 2006 to 38%
in 2013, p<0.0001), oxycodone (up from 21% in 2008 to 67% in 2013, p<0.0001), and RitalinTM (up
from 74% in 2011 to 85% to 2013, p=0.0401) (Figure 3.6). The proportion of injecting drug users who
had tried party pills decreased sharply from 42% in 2012 to 14% in 2013 (p<0.0001). There was a
decrease in the proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had tried cocaine (down from 64%
in 2012 to 40% in 2013, p=0.0010), codeine (down from 82% in 2012 to 69% in 2013, p=0.0334),
opium poppies (down from 84% in 2012 to 58% in 2013, p=0.0002) and tramadol (down from 65% in
2012 to 44% in 2013, p=0.0046).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 3. Drug use patterns
33
Figure 3 5: Proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had ever used methamphetamine, non BZP
pills, cocaine and synthetic cannabis, 2006-2013
100%
94%
% frequent injecting drug users
80%
87%
85%
90%
77%
76%
74%
74%
70%
89%
64%
63%
62%
Meth
58%
60%
50%
47%
52%
50%
Cocaine
45%
41%
Non BZP pills
40%
Synthetic
cannabis
40%
42%
30%
22%
20%
14%
16%
10%
14%
13%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Figure 3 6: Proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had ever used antidepressants, oxycodone
and codeine, 2006-2013
100%
90%
82%
% frequent injecting drug users
81%
80%
70%
74%
71%
69%
70%
56%
60%
59%
67%
Antidepressants
54%
46%
50%
52%
41%
40%
20%
39%
38%
30%
Oxycodone
46%
38%
24%
19%
21%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Year
34
3. Drug use patterns | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
2012
2013
Codeine
A lower proportion of the frequent injecting drug users had tried nitrous oxide (down from 68% in
2006 to 46% in 2013, p=0.0011), BZP (down from 49% to 35%, p=0.0386), LSD (down from 90% in
2006 to 75% in 2013, p=0.0104) and heroin (down from 61% in 2012 to 39% in 2013, p=0.0026).
The drug types which the frequent injecting drug users had first tried were alcohol (at a mean age of
13 years), tobacco (15 years) and cannabis (15 years). There was a decrease in the mean age at
which the frequent injecting drug users had first tried morphine (down from 23 years in 2008 to 21
years in 2013) and this difference was statistically significant (p=0.0038).
3.5 Current drug use of the frequent methamphetamine users
The frequent methamphetamine users had used a mean of seven drug types in the past six months
in 2013 (median 6 ,range 1-16). The drug types most commonly used by the frequent
methamphetamine users in the previous six months in 2013 were methamphetamine (100%),
tobacco (80%), cannabis (88%), alcohol (80%), crystal methamphetamine (Ice) (41%), ecstasy (35%)
and synthetic cannabis (30%) (see Appendix 2). Many of the frequent methamphetamine users had
recently used pharmaceuticals such as Tramadol (49%), benzodiazepines (28%), codeine (27%),
methylphenidate (Ritalin™) (23%) and anti-depressants (23%) in 2013. Some of the frequent
methamphetamine users had also used ‘new drugs’ such as salvia divinorum (10%), party pills (7%),
or one of the 2C drugs (6%) in the previous six months.
Overall, there has been a decrease in the use of crystal methamphetamine among the frequent
methamphetamine users (down from 64% in 2006 to 29% in 2010, p<0.0001), but there has been
some recovery in use in recent years (up to 41% in 2013) (Figure 3.7). The proportion of frequent
methamphetamine users who had used synthetic cannabis increased from 10% in 2010 to 30% in
2013 (p=0.0011). There was a steady increase in the proportion of frequent methamphetamine
users who had used anti-depressants, up from 5% in 2006 to 23% in 2013 (p=0.0015), and a further
increase from 13% in 2012 to 23% in 2013, which was very close to being statistically significant
(p=0.0663). The proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had recently used tobacco
decreased from 95% in 2012 to 80% in 2013 (p=0.0011).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 3. Drug use patterns
35
Figure 3 7: Proportion of the frequent methamphetamine users who had used anti-depressants, crystal
methamphetamine (ice), synthetic cannabis, tobacco and oxycodone in the previous six months, 20062013
100%
95%
90%
% frequent methamphetamine users
80%
84%
84%
86%
84%
84%
80%
80%
70%
64%
Antidepressants
Oxycodone
64%
61%
60%
Tobacco
53%
51%
50%
41%
40%
29%
37%
41%
32%
30%
18%
20%
10%
14%
14%
3%
30%
23%
20%
13%
12%
10%
5%
Synthetic
cannabis
Ice
8%
5%
5%
2009
2010
6%
4%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2011
2012
2013
Year
There has been a steady and substantial decline in the proportion of frequent methamphetamine
users who reported recently using BZP over the past eight years (down from 32% in 2006 to 0% in
2013, p<0.0001) (Figure 3.8). The use of LSD has recovered in recent years but still remains below its
2006 level (down from 36% in 2006 to 22% in 2013, p=0.0381). There were decreases in the
proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had recently used nitrous oxide (down from
15% in 2006 to 9% in 2013, p<0.0001), morphine (down from 16% in 2008 to 7% in 2013, p=0.0132),
cocaine (down from 11% in 2006 to 3% in 2013, p=0.0364), ecstasy (down from 46% in 2012 to 35%
in 2013, p=0.0729), hallucinogenic mushrooms (down from 27% in 2007 to 16% in 2013, p=0.0892)
and GHB (down from 13% in 2006 to 10% in 2013, p=0.0899), with the latter three declines close to
being statistically significant.
36
3. Drug use patterns | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 3 8: Proportion of the frequent methamphetamine users who had used LSD, BZP, ecstasy and
nitrous oxide in the previous six months, 2006-2013
100%
% frequent methamphetamine users
90%
80%
70%
LSD
60%
50%
50%
40%
47%
44%
36%
Nitrous
oxide
51%
41%
43%
44%
46%
35%
BZP
35%
Ecstasy
29%
30%
22%
18%
20%
10%
25%
24%
32%
24%
14%
15%
13%
11%
7%
9%
9%
6%
8%
5%
6%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
0%
2013
Year
Those frequent methamphetamine users who indicated they had used a drug type in the past six
months were asked on how many days they had used that drug type in the previous six months. The
frequent methamphetamine users had used methamphetamine on more days from 2012 to 2013
(up from 51 days to 66 days, p=0.0561). Overall, the frequent methamphetamine users had used
ecstasy on more days over the past eight years (up from 7 days in 2006 to 11 days in 2013,
p=0.0083), but the number of days of use decreased from 19 days in 2012 to 11 days in 2013, and
this decrease was close to being statistically significant (p=0.0622) (Figure 3.9). The number of days
the frequent methamphetamine users had used benzodiazepines increased from 46 in 2006 to 62 in
2013 (p=0.0158).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 3. Drug use patterns
37
Figure 3 9: Mean number of days frequent methamphetamine users had used ecstasy and
benzodiazepines in the previous six months (of those who had used these drug types in the previous six
months), 2006-2013
Mean number of days used in past six months
80
70
62
62
57
60
52
50
46
Ecstasy
46
43
40
40
Benzod
iazepin
es
30
19
20
10
13
7
9
11
9
6
7
2008
2009
0
2006
2007
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
The number of days the frequent methamphetamine users had used cannabis declined from 117
days in 2006 to 98 days in 2013 (p=0.0195) (Figure 3.10). There was no change in the number of days
crystal methamphetamine was used from 2006 to 2013 (p=0.4676).
38
3. Drug use patterns | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 3 10: Mean number of days frequent methamphetamine users had used cannabis and crystal
methamphetamine (ice) in the previous six months (of those who had used these drug types in the
previous six months), 2006-2013
Mean number of dyas used in past six months
140
125
117
120
116
113
110
111
98
100
88
Cannabis
80
60
55
Ice
51
46
40
45
31
30
29
24
20
0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
If frequent methamphetamine users reported using a drug in the previous six months they were
asked if they had injected that drug in the same six month period. Twenty-eight percent of the
frequent methamphetamine users had injected methamphetamine in 2013, and there was little
change in the level of methamphetamine injecting over the previous eight years.
3.6 Current drug use of the frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users
The frequent ecstasy users had used a mean of six drug types in the past six months in 2013 (median
6, range 2-15). The drug types most commonly used by the frequent ecstasy users in the previous six
months in 2013 were ecstasy (100%), alcohol (94%), cannabis (85%), tobacco (62%) and LSD (47%)
(see Appendix 2). Some of the frequent ecstasy users had recently used pharmaceutical drugs such
as methylphenidate (Ritalin™) (29%), codeine (23%) and Tramadol (15%). Twenty-two percent of the
frequent ecstasy users had used synthetic cannabis in the previous six months. Some of the frequent
ecstasy users had used other ‘new drugs’ in the past six months including mephedrone (13%), one of
the 2C drugs (12%) and party pills (10%).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 3. Drug use patterns
39
A higher proportion of the frequent ecstasy users had recently used methylphenidate (Ritalin™) (up
from 13% in 2006 to 29% in 2013, p=0.0002) and oxycodone (up from 2% in 2012 to 8% in 2013), and
this latter increase was close to being statistically significant (p=0.0623) (Figure 3.11).
Figure 3 11: Proportion of the frequent ecstasy users who had used methylphenidate (Ritalin™), antidepressants, tobacco and synthetic cannabis in the previous six months, 2006-2013
100%
90%
82%
% frequent ecstasy users
80%
73%
72%
67%
70%
Ritalin
73%
68%
62%
61%
60%
Tobacco
45%
50%
40%
10%
Synthetic
cannabis
32%
29%
25%
30%
20%
Antidepressants
13%
3%
15%
5%
0%
2006
2007
19%
7%
2%
2008
19%
6%
4%
2009
24%
24%
21%
11%
8%
2%
2010
3%
2011
oxycodone
8%
22%
8%
2%
2012
6%
2013
Year
A lower proportion of the frequent ecstasy users had recently used cannabis (down from 90% in
2012 to 85% in 2013, p=0.0660), tobacco (down from 82% in 2012 to 62% in 2013, p=0.0012), BZP
(down from 65% in 2006 to only 5% in 2013, p<0.0001), nitrous oxide (down from 47% in 2006 to
14% in 2013, p<0.0001), hallucinogenic mushrooms (down from 32% in 2007 to 22% in 2013,
p=0.0076) and GHB (down from 10% in 2006 to 4% in 2013), with this last decrease very close to
being statistically significant (p=0.0541) (Figure 3.12). The proportion who had used LSD declined
from 48% in 2006 to 32% in 2012 (p=0.0577), before increasing to 47% in 2013 (p=0.0298).
40
3. Drug use patterns | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 3 12: Proportion of the frequent ecstasy users who had used BZP, nitrous oxide, and LSD in the
previous six months, 2006-2013
80%
70%
65%
% frequent ecstasy users
60%
50%
BZP
48%
47%
46%
41%
45%
47%
47%
Nitrous
oxide
LSD
40%
32%
30%
32%
28%
25%
20%
31%
32%
24%
24%
7%
15%
10%
19%
14%
11%
9%
5%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
5%
2013
Year
Those frequent ecstasy users who had used a drug type in the past six months were asked on how
many days they had used it in the previous six months. The frequent ecstasy users had used ecstasy
on a greater number of days from 2006 to 2013 (up from 8 days to 14 days, p=0.0001) (Figure 3.13).
The frequent ecstasy users had also used synthetic cannabis on more days (up from 7 days in 2010
to 27 days in 2013), but the increase was not statistically significant (p=0.1299). There was a
decrease in the number of days the frequent ecstasy users had used nitrous oxide (down from 9
days in 2006 to 4 days in 2013, p=0.0023) and BZP (down from 7 days in 2006 to 2 days in 2013,
p=0.0037).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 3. Drug use patterns
41
Figure 3 13: Mean number of days frequent ecstasy users had used synthetic cannabis, nitrous oxide,
and ecstasy in the previous six months (of those who had used these drug types in the previous six
months), 2006-2013
30
Mean number of days used in past 6 months
27
25
21
20
Ecstasy
20
17
Nitrous oxide
14
15
12
12
14
13
11
10
Synthetic
cannabis
13
9
7
8
5
7
7
3
0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2
2011
4
4
2012
2013
Year
3.7 Current drug use of the frequent injecting drug users
The frequent injecting drug users had used a mean of eight drug types in the past six months in 2013
(median 7, range 3-19). The number of drug types used by the frequent injecting drug users in the
previous six months increased from 6.6 in 2006 to 7.8 in 2013 (p<0.0001). Pharmaceutical drug use
was common among the frequent injecting drug users with 70% using morphine, 62% using
methylphenidate (Ritalin™), 54% using methadone, 46% using oxycocdone, 46% using
benzodiazepines and 40% using codeine in the previous six months in 2013 (see Appendix 2). The
other drug types most commonly used by the frequent injecting drug users were tobacco (83%),
cannabis (77%), alcohol (68%), methamphetamine (55%), and homebake heroin/morphine (25%).
Only 14% of the frequent injecting drug users had used heroin in the previous six months in 2013.
Some of the injecting drug users had recently used ‘new drugs’ such as synthetic cannabis (21%),
one of the ‘2C’ drugs (9%), mephedrone (3%) and party pills (1%).
The proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had used oxycodone in the previous six months
increased from 9% in 2008 to 46% in 2013 (p<0.0001), and from 25% in 2012 to 46% in 2013
p=0.0032) (Figure 3.14). A higher proportion of frequent injecting drug users had also recently used
42
3. Drug use patterns | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
anti-depressants (up from 8% in 2006 to 19% in 2013, p=0.0004), synthetic cannabis (up from 9% in
2006 to 21% in 2013, p=0.0072), morphine (up from 54% in 2008 to 70% in 2013, p=0.0344), Ritalin™
(up from 43% in 2006 to 62% in 2013, p=0.0047) and methamphetamine (up from 40% in 2006 to
55% in 2013), with the latter increase close to being statistically significant (p=0.0885).
Figure 3 14: Proportion of the frequent injecting drug users who had used methamphetamine, antidepressants, oxycodone, Ritalin, morphine and synthetic cannabis in the previous six months, 20062013
100%
% frequent injecting drug users
90%
80%
70%
62%
55%
54%
60%
50%
49%
55%
Synthetic
cannabis
Meth
46%
Morphine
50%
44%
40%
47%
50%
46%
38%
40%
19%
20%
8%
Ritalin
30%
30%
10%
70%
67%
Antidepressants
Oxycodone
21%
18%
21%
18%
18%
9%
24%
25%
19%
9%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
The frequent injecting drug users were less likely to have used BZP (down from 30% in 2006 to 5% in
2013, p<0.0001), nitrous oxide (down from 21% in 2006 to 4% in 2013, p<0.0001), ecstasy (down
from 30% to 16%, p=0.0170) and methadone (down from 74% in 2006 to 54% in 2013, p=0.0002)
(Figure 3.15). A lower proportion of injecting drug users had recently used heroin (down from 25%
to 14%), and this decline was close to being statistically significant (p=0.0945).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 3. Drug use patterns
43
Figure 3 15: Proportion of the frequent injecting drug users who had used nitrous oxide, methadone,
ecstasy and BZP in the previous six months, 2006-2013
100%
% frequent injecting drug users
90%
80%
74%
71%
73%
73%
74%
70%
67%
60%
BZP
56%
54%
50%
Nitrous
oxide
Methadone
40%
Ecstasy
34%
30%
30%
20%
30%
22%
21%
18%
21%
18%
10%
13%
0%
2006
2007
2008
6%
2009
15%
20%
12%
6%
20%
16%
4%
2010
16%
15%
10%
1%
2011
4%
2012
5%
4%
2013
Year
Those injecting drug users who reported using a drug in the previous six months were asked if they
had injected that drug in the same six month period. The drug types the frequent injecting drug
users had most commonly injected in 2013 were morphine (100% those who had recently used
morphine), ketamine (100%), ‘homebake’ morphine (100%), heroin (94%), methylphenidate
(Ritalin™) (91%), methamphetamine (90%), oxycodone (88%) and BZP (68%). The proportion of
frequent injecting drug users who injected methamphetamine increased from 71% in 2006 to 90% in
2013 (p=0.0015) (Figure 3.16). The proportion who injected BZP increased from 31% in 2006 to 68%
in 2013 (p=0.0004). Conversely, the proportion of frequent injecting drug users injecting methadone
decreased from 80% in 2012 to 62% in 2013 (p=0.0386).
44
3. Drug use patterns | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 3 16: Proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had injected methamphetamine,
methadone and BZP in the previous six months (of those who had used these drugs in the previous six
months), 2006-2013
100%
90%
% frequentt injecting drug users
90%
84%
90%
89%
80%
83%
80%
71%
80%
66%
70%
60%
84%
65%
80%
80%
76%
Meth
63%
62%
50%
Methadone
BZP
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Those frequent injecting drug users who reported using a drug type in the past six months were also
asked on how many days they had used the drug over the same six month period. The frequent
injecting drug users had used methylphenidate (Ritalin™) on a greater number of days (up from 40
days in 2006 to 44 days in 2013, p=0.0044), and also crystal methamphetamine (up 43 days in 2006
to 45 days in 2013, p=0.0463) and homebake heroin/morphine (up from 19 days in 2012 to 45 days
in 2013, p=0.0362) (Figure 3.17). The number of days the injecting drug users had used cannabis
decreased from 123 days in 2006 to 91 days in 2013 (p=0.0353), and from 110 days in 2012 to 91
days in 2013, with this latter decrease close to being statistically significant (p=0.0990).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 3. Drug use patterns
45
Figure 3 17: Mean number of days the frequent injecting drug users had used crystal
methamphetamine (Ice) and methylphenidate (Ritalin™) in the previous six months (of those who had
used these drug types in the previous six months), 2006-2013
180
Mean days used in last 6 months
160
140
120
Ice
100
Ritalin
80
65
57
60
43
45
41
33
40
34
33
44
40
30
20
15
0
2006
2007
2008
11
13
10
12
2009
2010
2011
2012
Year
46
3. Drug use patterns | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
2013
3.7 Summary of drug patterns
Frequent methamphetamine users
•
The drug types most commonly used by the frequent methamphetamine users in the
previous six months in 2013 were methamphetamine (100%), tobacco (80%), cannabis
(88%), alcohol (80%), crystal methamphetamine (Ice) (41%) and ecstasy (35%)
•
Many of the frequent methamphetamine users had used pharmaceuticals in the previous six
months, such as Tramadol (49%), benzodiazepines (28%), codeine (27%), methylphenidate
(Ritalin™) (23%) and anti-depressants (23%)
•
Some of the frequent methamphetamine users had recently used ‘new drugs’, such as
synthetic cannabis (30%), salvia divinorum (10%), party pills (7%) and one of the ‘2C’ drugs
(6%)
•
Overall, there has been a decrease in the use of crystal methamphetamine among the
frequent methamphetamine users (down from 64% in 2006 to 29% in 2010), but there has
been some recovery in use in recent years (up to 41% in 2013)
•
The proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had used synthetic cannabis
increased sharply from 5% in 2010 to 41% in 2011, but use has levelled out in more recent
years to 30% in 2013
•
There was a steady increase in the proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had
used anti-depressants (up from 5% in 2006 to 20% in 2011), and a further increase to 23% in
2013
•
The proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who recently used LSD declined from
36% in 2006 to 11% in 2009, but recovered to 22% in 2013
•
There were decreases in the proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who recently
used ecstasy, nitrous oxide, BZP, hallucinogenic mushrooms and GHB
•
The frequent methamphetamine users used ecstasy on more days from 2006 to 2012 (up
from 7 days to 19 days), but this was followed by a decrease from 2012 to 2013 (down from
19 days to 11 days)
•
The number of days the frequent methamphetamine users used cannabis declined from 117
days in 2006 to 98 days in 2013
•
Twenty-eight percent of the frequent methamphetamine users had
methamphetamine in 2013, and there was little change from previous years
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 3. Drug use patterns
injected
47
Frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users
•
The drug types most commonly used by the frequent ecstasy users in the previous six
months in 2013 were ecstasy (100%), alcohol (94%), cannabis (85%), tobacco (62%) and LSD
(47%)
•
Some of the frequent ecstasy users had recently used pharmaceutical drugs such as
methylphenidate (Ritalin™) (29%), codeine (23%) and Tramadol (15%)
•
Minorities of the frequent ecstasy users had used ‘new drugs’ in the past six months,
including synthetic cannabis (22%), mephedrone (13%), one of the ‘2C drugs’ (12%) and
party pills (10%)
•
The proportion of the frequent ecstasy users who had used methylphenidate (Ritalin™)
increased from 13% in 2006 to 29% in 2013
•
The proportion of the frequent ecstasy users who had used oxycodone increased from 2% in
2008 to 8% in 2013
•
The proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had used LSD declined from 48% in 2006 to
32% in 2012, before steeply increasing to 47% in 2013
•
The proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had used cannabis declined from 90% in 2012
to 85% in 2013
•
There were steep declines in the use of BZP (down from 65% in 2006 to 5% in 2013) and
nitrous oxide (down from 47% in 2006 to 14% in 2013)
•
The frequent ecstasy users had used ecstasy on a greater number of days in the previous six
months (up from 8 days in 2006 to 14 days in 2013)
•
The frequent ecstasy users had also used synthetic cannabis on more days (up from 7 days in
2010 to 27 days in 2013)
Frequent injecting drug users
•
Pharmaceutical drug use was common among the frequent injecting drug users with 70%
using morphine, 62% using methylphenidate (Ritalin™), 54% using methadone, 46% using
oxycodone, 46% using benzodiazepines and 40% using codeine in the previous six months in
2013
48
3. Drug use patterns | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
•
Only 14% of the frequent injecting drug users had used heroin in the previous six months in
2012
•
Some of the injecting drug users had recently used ‘new drugs’ such as synthetic cannabis
(21%), one of the ‘2C’ drugs (9%), mephedrone (3%) and party pills (1%)
•
The proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had recently used oxycodone increased
from 9% in 2008 to 46% in 2013, and from 25% in 2012 to 46% in 2013
•
There was an increase in the proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had recently
used anti-depressants (up from 8% in 2006 to 19% in 2013), Ritalin (up from 43% in 2006 to
62% in 2013) and morphine (up from 54% in 2008 to 70% in 2013)
•
The proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had recently used methamphetamine
increased from 40% in 2006 to 55% in 2013
•
The proportion of injecting drug users who had used synthetic cannabis in the past six
months increased from 9% in 2006 to 21% in 2013
•
The injecting drug users were less likely to have used BZP, nitrous oxide, ecstasy and
methadone from 2006 to 2013
•
The proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had injected methamphetamine (of
those who used it) increased from 71% in 2006 to 90% in 2013
•
Conversely, the proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had injected methadone
decreased from 80% in 2012 to 62% in 2013
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 3. Drug use patterns
49
4. Emerging drug types
4.1 Introduction
Frequent drug users are often ‘early adopters’ of new drugs and so are well placed to comment on
emerging drug trends. A growing number of new or previous obscure synthetic psychoactive
compounds have emerged over the past five years. Collectively they are referred to as new
psychoactive substances or NPS. NPS has been defined by the United Nations drug control office as
psychoactive compounds that pose a potential public health risk which are not currently controlled
under international drug laws (UNODC, 2013). NPS are often sold as ‘legal’ alternatives to illegal
drugs, although their precise legal status is often unclear, and may differ across jurisdictions. NPS
include a wide range of compound classes including phenethylamines (e.g. MDEA, ‘2C Class’, 25INBOMe), tryptamines (e.g. DMT), piperazines (e.g. BZP, TFMPP, mCPP), cathinones (e.g.
mephedrone, methylone, MDPV), synthetic cannabimimetics (e.g. K2, Kronic, Spice) and plant-based
drugs such as salvia divinorum, Khat and Kratom (EMCDDA, 2011; UNODC, 2011, 2012, 2013).
There is evidence that the number and availability of NPS has been growing in many parts of the
world (UNODC, 2013). The number of NPS identified each year by the European Monitoring Centre
for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) increased from 13 in 2008 to 81 in 2013 (EMCDDA, 2011,
2012, 2013a). The number of NPS reported worldwide increased from 166 at the end of 2009 to 348
in 2013 (UNODC, 2013, 2014). The number of identified NPS now greatly exceeds the total number
of drugs under international control (i.e. 348 vs. 234) (UNODC, 2013, 2014).
New Zealand has been at the forefront of the NPS phenomena with large markets for legal BZP party
pills in the mid-2000s, followed by DMMA party pills, nitrous oxide and most recently synthetic
cannabinoids (Wilkins et al., 2013). The popularity of NPS in New Zealand may reflect the poor
supply of many traditional illegal drugs, such as ecstasy and cocaine, due to New Zealand’s
geographical distance from supply routes and small population. The IDMS found the proportion of
frequent drug users who had used a drug for the first time increased from 24% in 2009 to 40% in
2011, before declining back to 24% in 2012 (Wilkins et al., 2013). Synthetic cannabinoid products
(e.g. Kronic, K2) have proven to be particularly popular in New Zealand. The proportion of frequent
methamphetamine users interviewed for the IDMS who had used synthetic cannabis increased from
10% in 2010 to 41% in 2011 (Wilkins et al., 2012). The use of NPS has been associated with
50
4. Emerging drug types | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
emergency hospital admissions and poisoning notifications in New Zealand (Gee & Fountain, 2007;
Ministry of Health, 2014).
In July 2013, the New Zealand Government established the world’s first regulated legal market for
NPS, with the enactment of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013, in an attempt to address the
underlying drivers of the NPS problem. Under this new legislation, NPS products assessed to be ‘low
risk’ will be permitted to be legally manufactured and sold subject to certain retail restrictions and
other regulations. While the implementation of the new NPS regime has proven to be challenging
(Wilkins, 2014), broad cross-party political support for the regulated legal market approach to NPS
appears to remain (New Zealand Parliament, 2014). The regulation required for the operation of the
full regime is expected to be available by the end of 2014 (Ministry of Health, 2014).
4.2 Drug types used for first time in past six months
The frequent drug users were first asked what ‘drug types’, if any, they had tried for the first time in
the previous six months in 2013. This was an open question with the interviewer offering no
suggestions concerning what drug types might be available. Note, the question asks about all the
drug types a frequent drug user may have tried for the first time in the previous six months, not
merely new drug types. Consequently, some answers can include established drug types which a
respondent may have just happened to have tried in the past six months.
In 2013, 56% of the frequent ecstasy users, 29% of the frequent methamphetamine users and 18%
of the frequent injecting drug users had used a drug type for the first time in the previous six
months. The proportion of the frequent drug users (i.e. combined three frequent drug user groups)
who had tried a drug type for the first time in the previous six months increased from 24% in 2009 to
36% in 2013 (p=0.0005 ) (with a peak of 40% in 2011) (Figure 4.1).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 4. Emerging drug types
51
Figure 4 1: Proportion of frequent drug users who had tried a drug type for the first time, 2009-2013
60%
% of frequent drug users
50%
40%
40%
36%
34%
33%
30%
24%
20%
10%
0%
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
The proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had tried a drug for the first time
increased from 16% in 2009 to 29% in 2013 (p=0.0023) (with a peak of 43% in 2011) (Figure 4.2). The
proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had tried a drug for the first time increased from 36% in
2012 to 56% in 2013 (p=0.0026). The proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had tried a
drug for the first time decreased from 32% in 2012 to 18% in 2013 (p=0.0323).
52
4. Emerging drug types | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 4 2: Proportion of frequent drug users who had tried a drug type for the first time by frequent
drug user group, 2009-2013
60%
56%
55%
49%
50%
% of frequent drug users
43%
40%
2009
40%
36%
34%
32%
29%
30%
28%
2010
2011
23%
2012
20%
20%
18%
16%
15%
2013
10%
0%
Meth
Ecstasy
IDU
The drug types which the frequent ecstasy users most often reported trying for the first time in 2013
were ecstasy (17%), methamphetamine (16%), LSD (15%), hallucinogenic mushrooms (10%),
mephedrone (9%), synthetic cannabinoids (9%), tramadol (7%), methylphenidate (Ritalin™) (7%),
opium poppies (7%) and amphetamine (7%).(Table 4.1).
Table 4 1: Drug types the frequent ecstasy users used for the first time in the past six months (of those
who reported using a drug for the first time in previous six months), 2009-2013
Frequent ecstasy users
New drug (%)
Ecstasy
Methamphetamine
2009
(n=44)
2010
(n=84)
5
17
2011
(n=77)
2012
(n=46)
2013
N= (67)
16
5
17
6
0
8
5
16
LSD
25
14
10
7
15
Hallucinogenic mushrooms
(psilocybin)
17
21
9
7
10
Synthetic cannabis
0
9
30
11
9
Mephedrone
4
3
3
7
9
Tramadol
Methylphenidate (Ritalin™)
0
4
6
12
7
19
25
10
2
7
Opium poppies
0
0
4
2
7
Amphetamine
17
12
10
2
7
0
4
1
2
6
Cocaine
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 4. Emerging drug types
53
Methadone (methylmethcathinone)
0
1
0
3
5
Anti-depressants
9
1
2
2
5
Nitrous oxide
2
6
2
0
5
Ketamine
11
6
1
11
4
Amyl nitrate
11
0
2
0
4
Methylone
4
1
0
2
3
Oxycodone
11
2
2
0
3
Morphine
3
1
1
0
3
GHB/GBL
4
3
1
0
3
MDA
0
0
3
0
3
Salvia divinorum
0
1
5
9
2
Codeine
16
8
12
2
2
Mescaline
8
0
0
0
2
Non-BZP party pills (e.g. DMAA)
0
7
5
0
1
Zopiclone
0
2
1
0
1
Alcohol
0
5
5
0
1
Tobacco
0
4
6
0
1
Cannabis
0
4
6
0
1
Any 2C compound(2CI, 2CB, 2CP)
0
3
8
6
0
2CI
0
1
6
4
0
BZP party pills
4
3
1
4
0
Homebake heroin/ morphine
0
0
3
2
0
2CB
0
1
5
2
0
Crystal methamphetamine
0
0
2
2
0
Dimethyltryptamine (DMT)
0
0
6
2
0
MDPV
0
0
0
2
0
Addarell
0
0
1
1
0
Benzodiazepines
7
5
6
0
0
Sevredol (Hydromorphone)
0
0
0
0
0
Viagra
0
0
2
0
0
2CP
0
0
0
0
0
Dexamphetamine
3
1
2
0
0
Procyclidine
0
0
0
0
0
Clonazepam
0
0
0
0
0
Phencyclidine
0
0
0
0
0
Ephedrine
0
1
0
0
0
Synthetic cocaine
0
1
0
0
0
Kava
0
1
0
0
0
Quetiapine
0
0
2
0
0
Heroin
0
0
0
0
0
Buprenorphine
0
0
0
0
0
Quinine
0
0
0
0
0
Dextromethorphan
0
0
3
0
0
Promethazine
0
0
1
0
0
6-APB
0
0
1
0
0
Fentanyl
0
0
1
0
0
54
4. Emerging drug types | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
The proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had tried ecstasy for the first time increased from 5%
in 2012 to 17% in 2013, and this increase was close to being statistically significant (p=0.0734). The
proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had tried LSD for the first time increased from 7% in 2012
to 15% in 2013 (p=0.0705) (Figure 4.3). There were declines in the proportion of frequent ecstasy
users who had first tried hallucinogenic mushrooms (down from 17% in 2009 to 10% in 2013,
p=0.0742), Ritalin™ (down from 19% in 2009 to 7% in 2013, p=0.0035), codeine (down from 16% in
2009 to 2% in 2013, p=0.0175) and amphetamine (down from 17% in 2009 to 7% in 2013, p=0.0953)
(Figure 4.3 & 4.4).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 4. Emerging drug types
55
Figure 4 3: Drug types which the frequent ecstasy users had used for the first time (of those who had tried a drug for the first time), 2009-2013
% ecsatsy users who used drug for the first time
50%
40%
30%
30%
2009
25%
2010
2011
21%
20%
10%
17% 17%
16%
9%
11%
9%
17%
15%
14%
2013
10%
10%
5%
5%
2012
17%
8%
6%
7%
9%
7%
9%
7%
5%
3%
0%
0%
12%
10%
1%
0%
0%
2%
2%
0%
Synthetic
cannabis
56
Ecstasy
LSD
Any 2C drug
4. Emerging drug types | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Hallucinogenic
mushrooms
Salvia
Divinorum
Amphetamine
Figure 4 4: Pharmaceutical drugs that the frequent ecstasy users had used for the first time (of those
who had tried a drug for the first time), 2009-2013
% ecsatsy users who used drug for the first time
50%
40%
2009
30%
2010
25%
2011
20%
19%
2012
16%
2013
12%
10%
10%
7%
2%
8%
7%
6%
2% 2%
0%
Ritalin
12%
11%
Codeine
4%
3%
2% 2%
0%
0%
Oxycodone
Tramadol
The drug types most often tried by the frequent methamphetamine users for the first time in 2013
were synthetic cannabinoids (30%), tramadol (19%), mephedrone (i.e methylmethcathinone) (13%),
ketamine (7%), mescaline (7%) and GHB/GBL (6%) (Table 4.2 & Figure 4.5).
Table 4 2: Drug types used by frequent methamphetamine users for the first time in the past six
months (of those who reported using a drug for the first time in previous six months), 2009-2013
Frequent methamphetamine users
New drug (%)
Synthetic cannabis
Tramadol
Mephedrone (methylmethcathinone)
2009
(n=17)
2010
(n=26)
2011
(n=47)
2012
(n=31)
2013
(n=25)
0
16
36
29
30
12
14
2
9
19
0
4
6
7
13
Ketamine
18
0
0
3
7
Mescaline
0
4
0
0
7
GHB/GBL
6
4
0
0
6
Methamphetamine
0
16
11
10
3
Ecstasy
7
0
2
7
3
Viagra
0
0
2
3
3
Heroin
0
0
0
3
3
12
15
6
0
3
Salvia divinorum
0
0
4
0
3
Amphetamine
0
0
0
0
3
Homebake heroin/ morphine
0
0
6
9
0
Oxycodone
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 4. Emerging drug types
57
Cocaine
12
4
2
9
0
Any 2C compound(2CI, 2CB, 2CP)
0
4
11
7
0
2CB
0
4
6
7
0
Methylphenidate (Ritalin™)
12
8
2
3
0
Morphine
0
0
0
3
0
BZP party pills
0
0
0
3
0
Non-BZP party pills (e.g. DMAA)
0
0
4
3
0
Crystal methamphetamine
0
0
2
3
0
Dexamphetamine
0
7
0
3
0
Benzodiazepines
12
0
2
0
0
Methadone
0
4
4
0
0
Codeine
0
4
0
0
0
Sevredol (Hydromorphone)
0
0
0
0
0
2CI
0
0
4
0
0
LSD
0
4
2
0
0
Opium poppies
7
8
0
0
0
Anti-depressants
0
4
6
0
0
Zopiclone
0
3
4
0
0
Hallucinogenic mushrooms (psilocybin)
6
4
2
0
0
Amyl nitrate
6
0
2
0
0
Nitrous oxide
0
0
2
0
0
Alcohol
0
0
2
0
0
2CP
0
0
2
0
0
Procyclidine
6
0
0
0
0
Clonazepam
6
0
0
0
0
Phencyclidine
6
0
0
0
0
Tobacco
0
0
0
0
0
Cannabis
0
0
0
0
0
Methylone
0
0
0
0
0
Ephedrine
0
0
0
0
0
Synthetic cocaine
0
0
0
0
0
Kava
0
0
0
0
0
Quetiapine
0
0
0
0
0
Buprenorphine
0
0
0
0
0
Quinine
0
0
0
0
0
MDA
0
0
0
0
0
Dextromethorphan
0
0
0
0
0
Promethazine
0
0
0
0
0
Dimethyltryptamine (DMT)
0
0
0
0
0
Addarell
0
0
0
0
0
6-APB
0
0
0
0
0
Fentanyl
0
0
0
0
0
MDPV
0
0
0
0
0
58
4. Emerging drug types | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 4 5: Drug types that the frequent methamphetamine users had used for the first time (of those
who had tried a drug for the first time), 2009-2013
% methamphetamine users who used drug for the first
time
50%
40%
36%
30%
29%
30%
2009
2010
19%
20%
16%
16%
11%
10%
10%
9%
6%
3%
0%
0%
13%
0%
2012
12%
2013
9%
7%
6%
4%
7%
6%
4%
2%
0% 0%
2011
15%
14%
12%
0%
0% 0%
6%
3%
0%
0%
The drug types the frequent injecting drug users had most often tried for the first time in 2013 were
methylone (22%), synthetic cannabinoids (21%), heroin (15%), homebake heroin/morphine (11%),
ketamine (11%), methadone (6%), oxycodone (5%), fentanyl (5%), morphine (5%), cocaine (5%) and
hallucinogenic mushrooms (5%) (Table 4.3). The proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had
tried synthetic cannabinoids for the first time decreased from 48% in 2012 to 21% in 2013
(p=0.0211) (Figure 4.6).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 4. Emerging drug types
59
Table 4 3: Drug types used by the frequent injecting drug user for the first time in the past six months
(of those who reported using a drug for the first time in previous six months), 2009-2013
Injecting drug users
New drug (%)
2009
(n=16)
2010
(n=30)
2011
(n=28)
2012
(n=32)
2013
(n=16)
Methylone
0
0
0
0
22
Synthetic cannabis
0
20
34
48
21
Heroin
7
3
0
0
15
Homebake heroin/ morphine
0
3
8
6
11
Ketamine
19
7
0
3
11
Methadone
13
7
7
3
6
Oxycodone
31
7
22
9
5
Fentanyl
0
0
0
3
5
Morphine
13
7
8
0
5
Cocaine
0
13
0
0
5
Hallucinogenic mushrooms
(psilocybin)
0
0
0
0
5
Tramadol
0
16
3
19
0
12
10
12
9
0
Ecstasy
0
0
4
6
0
Methamphetamine
0
7
8
4
0
Benzodiazepines
0
7
11
3
0
Codeine
0
7
7
3
0
LSD
0
0
4
3
0
Methylphenidate (Ritalin™)
Mephedrone(methylmethcathinone)
0
0
3
3
0
12
0
0
3
0
MDPV
0
0
0
3
0
Any 2C compound(2CI, 2CB, 2CP)
0
0
4
0
0
Salvia divinorum
0
0
12
0
0
Sevredol (Hydromorphone)
0
0
7
0
0
2CB
0
0
4
0
0
2CI
0
0
4
0
0
Opium poppies
0
0
4
0
0
BZP party pills
7
3
4
0
0
Non-BZP party pills (e.g. DMAA)
0
4
3
0
0
Anti-depressants
0
3
0
0
0
Zopiclone
0
7
0
0
0
Nitrous oxide
6
3
0
0
0
Alcohol
0
0
0
0
0
Viagra
0
6
0
0
0
Crystal methamphetamine
0
3
0
0
0
2CP
0
0
0
0
0
Dexamphetamine
0
4
0
0
0
GHB/GBL
0
3
0
0
0
Mescaline
0
0
0
0
0
Procyclidine
0
0
0
0
0
Clonazepam
0
0
0
0
0
Amyl nitrate
60
4. Emerging drug types | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Phencyclidine
0
0
0
0
0
Amphetamine
6
7
0
0
0
Tobacco
0
3
0
0
0
Cannabis
0
3
0
0
0
Ephedrine
0
0
0
0
0
Synthetic cocaine
0
0
0
0
0
Kava
0
0
0
0
0
Quetiapine
0
6
0
0
0
Buprenorphine
0
3
0
0
0
Quinine
0
3
0
0
0
MDA
0
0
0
0
0
Dextromethorphan
0
0
0
0
0
Promethazine
0
0
0
0
0
Dimethyltryptamine (DMT)
0
0
0
0
0
Addarell
0
0
0
0
0
6-APB
0
0
0
0
0
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 4. Emerging drug types
61
Figure 4 6: Drug types which the frequent injecting drug users had used for the first time (of those who had tried a drug for the first time), 2009-2013
% injecting drug users who used drug for the first time
60%
48%
50%
40%
34%
2009
31%
2010
30%
2011
2012
20%
22%
22%
21%
19%
20%
16%
10%
7%
9%
12% 12%
10%
9%
6%
4%
5%
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 0%
0%
0%0%0%0%
0%
Synthetic cannabis
62
Tramadol
Oxycodone
4. Emerging drug types | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Ritalin
Ecstasy
Methylone
2013
New drug types noticed
The frequent drug users were asked if they had heard about any new drug types in the previous six
months. This was an open qualitative question with the interviewer offering no suggestions
concerning possible new drug types which might be available. The interviewer wrote down what the
respondent said in consultation with them. A total of 70 frequent drug users (23% of the sample)
provided reports of new drug types in 2013. The proportion of the frequent drug users who noticed
a new drug type increased from 9% in 2008 to 23% in 2013 (p<0.0001) (Figure 4.7).
Figure 4 7: Proportion of frequent drug users who noticed a new drug type, 2008-2013
60%
% of frequent drug users
50%
40%
34%
30%
27%
24%
23%
20%
13%
10%
9%
0%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
The highest proportion of those who answered the question (i.e. 19% or 13 respondents) reported
noticing synthetic psychedelics in the previous six months (e.g. 25I-NBOMe), with one participant
noting they were ‘a lot cheaper’ than LSD (Table 4.4). Thirteen percent mentioned ‘ecstasy’ or
‘MDMA’, with a number referring to MDMA ‘powder’. Eleven percent reported noticing one of the
2C drugs (e.g. 2CB, 2CE, 2CI, 2CP). Seven percent reported ‘oxycodone’, 4% mentioned
‘mephedrone’, 3% new synthetic cannabinoid products, and 3% reported ‘methoxetamine’ (also
known as ‘MXE’). Methoxetamine is a synthetic derivative of ketamine with similar effects to
ketamine.
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 4. Emerging drug types
63
Table 4 4: New drug types noticed in previous six months, 2011-2013
Drug type (%)
2011
(n=125)
2012
(n=89)
2013
(n=70)
Synthetic LSD (25I-NBOMe)
-
-
19
MDMA (powder)
7
10
13
13
17
11
Oxycodone
2
0
7
Designer drugs, new synthetics, research chemicals
5
2
6
Methadone
1
1
6
Heroin
0
1
6
Mephedrone (4-MMC, MCAT)
6
3
4
Synthetic cannabimimetics(e.g. Kronic, Spice)
9
7
3
Methoxetamine
0
4
3
Morphine
3
2
3
Cocaine
1
2
3
Ritalin
1
2
3
Methamphetamine (meth, P)
6
1
3
Methylone
1
1
3
AM2201 (synthetic cannabinoid)
2
0
3
Homebake Morphine
-
-
3
MDPV (‘bath salts’)
1
10
1
GHB
1
2
1
Amphetamine (uppers, speed)
6
1
1
BZP
1
1
1
Fentanyl
0
1
1
Barbiturates
0
1
1
LSD
2
0
1
Krokodil
-
-
1
Ketamine
0
0
1
5-Meo- MiPT
-
-
1
19
2
0
Cannabis
2
2
0
DMT
2
1
0
Benzodiazepines
1
1
0
Mescaline
0
1
0
Ice/crystal methamphetamine (crystal)
8
0
0
Dextromethorphan (in Robitussin cough syrup)
1
0
0
6APB
1
0
0
2C drugs (e.g. 2CB, 2CE, 2CI, 2CP)
Unspecified [‘ecstasy’] pill logos
64
4. Emerging drug types | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
New types of drug users
The frequent drug users were asked if they had seen any different types of drug users in the
previous six months in 2013. Fifty-two frequent drug users (23% of the sample) provided accounts of
new types of drug users in 2013. Twenty frequent drug users (38% of those who commented)
reported seeing ‘younger’ drug users (Table 4.5). A further five frequent drug users (10%) reported
that more ‘university students’ were using drugs. Seven frequent drug users (14%) said there were
more ‘professional people’ using drugs. Two frequent drug users reported more professionals using
methamphetamine, and four users reported more females using drugs now.
Table 4 5: New types of people reported using drugs, 2011-2013
Types of people (%)
2011
(n=150)
2012
(n=73)
2013
(n=52)
Young people
35
27
38
Professionals
8
10
14
University students
12
11
10
People of all ages
4
8
10
More women/girls
-
-
8
Cannabis users
-
7
6
Injecting users
5
4
6
Ecstasy users
9
8
4
High school students
-
7
4
Morphine users
-
7
4
Methamphetamine users
5
5
4
4
4
Synthetic cannabis users
People with physical and/or mental health problems
3
0
2
LSD users
-
-
2
13
3
0
Ritalin users
-
3
0
Hallucinogen users
3
1
0
Users due to Christchurch earthquake
1
1
0
Homeless people
2
0
0
Using at parties
Different ways of selling drugs
Finally, the frequent drug users were asked if they had noticed any new ways in which drugs had
been sold in the previous six months. A total of 55 frequent drug users (18% of the sample) provided
comments. Forty-one of those (74%) reported increasing use of the internet to buy and sell drugs
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 4. Emerging drug types
65
including social network sites (e.g. ‘Facebook™’) (36%) and purchasing from the Deep Web (18%), for
example ‘Silk Road’. One respondent added that drug purchases were made using ‘non traceable’
‘bitcoin dollars’. Eight frequent drug users (15% of those who commented) reported people were
able to buy drugs via phone text orders, with deliveries made to their homes.
4.3 Summary of emerging drugs
•
The proportion of the frequent drug users who had tried a drug for the first time increased
from 24% in 2009 to 36% in 2013
•
The proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had tried a drug for the first time increased
from 36% in 2012 to 56% in 2013
•
The proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had tried a drug for the first time
increased from 16% in 2009 to 29% in 2013
•
The proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had tried a drug for the first time
decreased from 32% in 2012 to 18% in 2013
•
The drug types which the frequent ecstasy users had most often tried for the first time in
2013 were ecstasy (17%), methamphetamine (16%), LSD (15%), hallucinogenic mushrooms
(10%), mephedrone (9%) and synthetic cannabinoids (9%), tramadol (7%), methylphenidate
(Ritalin™) (7%), opium poppies (7%) and amphetamine (7%)
•
The proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had tried ecstasy for the first time increased
from 5% in 2012 to 17% in 2013
•
The proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had tried LSD for the first time increased from
7% in 2012 to 15% in 2013
•
There were declines in the proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had first tried
hallucinogenic mushrooms (down from 17% in 2009 to 10% in 2013, p=0.0742), Ritalin
(down from 19% in 2009 to 7% in 2013, p=0.0035 ), codeine (down from 16% in 2009 to 2%
in 2013, p=0.0175 ) and amphetamine (down from 17% in 2009 to 7% in 2013, p=0.0953)
•
The drug types most often tried by the frequent methamphetamine users for the first time
in 2013 were synthetic cannabinoids (30%), tramadol (19%), mephedrone (i.e
methylmethcathinone) (13%), ketamine (7%), mescaline (7%) and GHB/GBL (6%)
•
The drug types the frequent injecting drug users had most often tried for the first time in
2013 were methylone (22%), synthetic cannabinoids (21%), heroin (15%), homebake
66
4. Emerging drug types | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
heroin/morphine (11%), ketamine (11%), methadone (6%), oxycodone (5%), fentanyl (5%),
morphine (5%), cocaine (5%) and hallucinogenic mushrooms (5%)
•
The proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had tried synthetic cannabinoids for the
first time decreased from 48% in 2012 to 21% in 2013
•
The proportion of frequent drug users had noticed a new drug type(s) increased from 9% in
2008 to 23% in 2013
•
The new drug types the frequent drug users most commonly reported seeing in 2013 were
synthetic psychedelics (e.g. 25I-NBOMe) (19%), MDMA (powder) (13%), 2C drugs (11%) and
oxycodone (7%)
•
Many frequent drug users reported increasing use of the internet to buy and sell drugs,
including the use of social network sites (e.g. Facebook™) and deep websites such as ‘Silk
Road’
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 4. Emerging drug types
67
5. Methamphetamine
5.1 Introduction
Methamphetamine, known colloquially in New Zealand as ‘meth’ or ‘P’, is a powerful psychostimulant which can cause hostility, hallucinations, obsessive behaviour and episodes of paranoid
psychosis resembling schizophrenia (Gawin & Ellinwood, 1988; Hall & Hando, 1994; Kuhn et al.,
1998; Shearer et al., 2002). Users ‘coming down’ from methamphetamine experience depression,
fatigue, insomnia, and a strong psychological craving to use the drug again (Gawin & Ellinwood,
1988). Methamphetamine use can damage the cardiovascular system and dopamine terminals in the
brain (Kuhn, et al., 1998; Shearer, et al., 2002).
Methamphetamine use first emerged in the general New Zealand population in the late 1990s and
reached a peak in the early 2000s (Wilkins, 2002; Wilkins, et al., 2002b; Wilkins & Sweetsur, 2008).
The Ministry of Health found amphetamine/methamphetamine use among the general population
(aged 16-64 years old) declined from 2.7% in 2003 to 0.9% in 2012/13 (although the survey waves
are not fully comparable due to changes in methodology) (Ministry of Health, 2013). While use of
methamphetamine in the general population may have declined in recent years, high levels of use
and related harm remain in ‘at risk’ groups, such as youth from dysfunctional family backgrounds,
the mentally ill, victims of physical and sexual abuse, and those from marginalised social and ethnic
groups (Wilkins et al., 2010b).
In October 2009, the National-led Government announced a broad programme of policy measures,
known as the Methamphetamine Action Plan (MAP), to significantly reduce methamphetamine use
in New Zealand (Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2009). This included initiatives to
reduce methamphetamine supply by controlling precursors, actively targeting methamphetamine
supply chains through intelligence-led policing and new legislative tools (e.g. criminal proceeds
recovery), reducing demand for methamphetamine through community action programmes (i.e.
Community Alcohol Youth and Drugs [CAYAD] initiatives) and community policing, and by helping
users into alcohol and drug (AOD) treatment programmes and investing in additional residential AOD
treatment placements. The various components of the plan have been implemented over the past
four years with six-monthly progress reports available (e.g. Department of the Prime Minister and
Cabinet, 2010a, 2010b). In August 2011, the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act reclassified the key
68
5. Methamphetamine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
methamphetamine precursor compounds, ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, as Class B2 controlled
drugs (making them available only by prescription from a medical practitioner).
5.2 Knowledge of methamphetamine trends
Fifty- four percent of the frequent drug users interviewed for the 2013 IDMS (n= 147) indicated they
felt confident enough to comment on the price, strength and availability of methamphetamine in
the previous six months. This included 98% of the frequent methamphetamine users (n= 91), 46% of
the frequent injecting drug users (n= 39) and 17% of the frequent ecstasy users (n=17).
5.3 Availability of methamphetamine
Current availability of methamphetamine
The frequent drug users reported the current availability of methamphetamine was ’easy /very easy’
in 2013 (Table 5.1). There was no statistically significant change in the current availability of
methamphetamine from 2006 to 2013 (p=0.2236) (Figure 5.1). There was also no change in the
current availability of methamphetamine from to 2012 to 2013 (p=0.7110).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 5. Methamphetamine
69
Table 5 1: Current availability of methamphetamine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Combined
modules
(n=176)
Combined
modules
(n=176)
Combined
modules
(n=195)
Combined
modules
(n=167)
Combined
modules
(n=201)
Combined
modules
(n=185)
Very easy [4]
38%
38%
42%
37%
34%
Easy [3]
44%
48%
48%
53%
Difficult [2]
17%
12%
9%
Very difficult [1]
1%
2%
Average availability
score (1=very
difficult – 4=very
easy)
3.2
Easy/
very easy
Current
availability of
methamphetamine
(%)
Overall current
status
70
2012
Combined
modules
(n=168)
2013
Combined
modules
(n= 147)
32%
44%
39%
48%
48%
37%
43%
7%
16%
18%
17%
15%
0%
2%
2%
2%
2%
2%
3.2
3.3
3.3
3.1
3.1
3.2
3.2
Easy/
very easy
Easy/
very easy
Easy/
very easy
Easy/
very easy
Easy/ very
easy
Very easy/
Easy/
easy
Very easy
5. Methamphetamine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 5 1: Mean score of the current availability of methamphetamine by combined frequent drug
users, 2006-2013
4.0
1 = very difficult - 4 = very easy
3.5
3.2
3.2
3.3
3.3
3.1
3.1
2010
2011
3.2
3.2
2012
2013
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
Year
There was a decrease in the current availability of methamphetamine in Christchurch from 2006 to
2013 (down from 3.3 in 2007 to 3.0 in 2013, p=0.0010). The availability of methamphetamine
increased in Christchurch from 2012 to 2013 (up from 2.8 to 3.0), but this increase was not
statistically significant (p=0.4455) (Figure 5.2). There was no change in the current availability of
methamphetamine in Auckland from 2006 to 2013. There was also no change in the current
availability of methamphetamine in Wellington from 2006 to 2013.
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 5. Methamphetamine
71
Figure 5 2: Mean score of the current availability of methamphetamine by combined frequent drug
users by location, 2006-2013
1 = very difficult - 4 = very easy
4.0
3.5
3.0
Auckland
2.5
Wellington
Christchurch
2.0
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
In 2013, the current availability of methamphetamine was lower in Christchurch than in Auckland
(2.9 vs. 3.3, p=0.0771), and in Wellington (2.9 vs. 3.0 , p=0.9240 ) (Table 5.2 and Figure 5.3).
Table 5 2: Current availability of methamphetamine by location, 2013
Current availability
of methamphetamine
(%)
Auckland
(n= 88 )
Wellington
(n=28 )
Christchurch
(n= 31 )
Very easy [4]
46%
31%
32%
Easy [3]
45%
45%
35%
Difficult [2]
9%
20%
30%
Very difficult [1]
1%
4%
3%
Average availability
score (1=very difficult
– 4=very easy)
3.3
3.0
2.9
Very easy/
easy
Easy/
very easy
Easy/
very easy
Overall current status
72
5. Methamphetamine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 5 3: Mean score of the current availability of methamphetamine by location, 2013
4.0
1 = very difficult - 4 = very easy
3.5
3.3
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
Auckland
Wellington
Christchurch
Location
Change in the availability of methamphetamine
The frequent drug users considered the availability of methamphetamine to have been
‘stable/easier’ over the past six months in 2013 (Table 5.3). There was no statistically significant
difference in reports of the change in the availability of methamphetamine from 2006 to 2013
(p=0.6557), with most saying it was ‘stable’ (Figure 5.4). There was an increase in the availability of
methamphetamine from 2012 to 2013 (up from 2.0 to 2.1), but this was not statistically significant
(p=0.4736).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 5. Methamphetamine
73
Table 5 3: Change in availability of methamphetamine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
Change in
availability of
methamphetamine
(%)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
(n=175)
(n=174)
(n=193)
(n=164)
(n=194)
Combined
modules
(n=170)
2012
2013
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
(n=165)
(n= 143)
Easier [3]
21%
29%
14%
28%
16%
18%
26%
15%
Stable [2]
52%
51%
57%
44%
60%
53%
51%
61%
9%
6%
6%
8%
8%
13%
7%
13%
19%
14%
23%
20%
17%
16%
16%
10%
2.0
2.1
1.9
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.1
Stable/
Stable/
Stable/
Stable/
easier
Stable/
Stable/
easier
easier
easier
easier
Fluctuates [2]
More difficult [1]
Average change in
availability score
(1=more difficult –
3=easier)
Overall recent
change
74
Stable/
more
difficult
5. Methamphetamine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Stable/
easier
more
difficult
Figure 5 4: Mean score of the change in the availability of methamphetamine by combined frequent
drug users, 2006-2013
1 = more difficult - 3 = easier
3.0
2.5
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2010
2011
2012
1.9
2.0
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2013
Year
The availability of methamphetamine has become slightly easier in Auckland from 2006 to 2013 (up
from 2.0 to 2.1, p=0.0089). Overall, the availability of methamphetamine in Christchurch decreased
from 2006 to 2013 (down from 2.4 in 2007 to 1.8 in 2012, p=0.0025). However methamphetamine
availability in Christchurch recovered quite dramatically from 2012 to 2013 (up from 1.8 to 2.2,
p=0.0242) (Figure 5.5).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 5. Methamphetamine
75
Figure 5 5: Mean score of the change in the availability of methamphetamine by combined frequent
drug users by location, 2006-2013
1 = more difficult - 3 = easier
3.0
2.5
Auckland
2.0
Wellington
Christchurch
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Year
2011
2012
2013
5.4 Price of methamphetamine
Current price of methamphetamine
The current median price of a ‘point’ (0.1 grams) of methamphetamine was $100 in 2013, and the
current median price for a gram of methamphetamine was $700 in 2013 (Table 5.4).
76
5. Methamphetamine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 5 4: Current price of methamphetamine (NZD) by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
Current price of
methamphetamine ($)
Number with
knowledge
2006
Combined
modules
2007
Combined
modules
2008
Combined
modules
2009
Combined
modules
2010
Combined
modules
2011
Combined
modules
2012
Combined
modules
2013
Combined
modules
n=144
n=130
n=166
n=137
n=155
n=161
n=139
n=114
$100 ($96)
$100 ($97)
$100 ($96)
$100 ($100)
$100 ($104)
$100 ($106)
$100 ($106)
$100 ($106)
n=75
n=68
n=54
n=56
n=69
n=69
n=83
n=62
$600 ($610)
$600 ($676)
$700 ($698)
$700 ($738)
$800 ($780)
$800 ($815)
$700 ($678)
$700 ($697)
Number with
knowledge
-
-
n=13
n=16
n=8
n=7
n=21
n=6
Median (mean) price
per ounce
-
-
$12,000
($12,472)
$12,000
($13,155)
$12,000
($11,032)
$15,000
($15,108)
$10,000
($8,864)
$14,000
($15157
Median (mean) price
‘point’ (0.1 grams)
Number with
knowledge
Median (mean) price
gram
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 5. Methamphetamine
77
The mean price of a ‘point’ of methamphetamine has marginally increased over the past eight years,
up from $96 in 2006 to $106 in 2013 (p<0.0001) (Figure 5.6).
Figure 5 6: Mean price of a ‘point’ of methamphetamine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
$120
$100
$96
$97
$96
2006
2007
2008
$100
$104
$106
$106
$106
2010
2011
2012
2013
Dollars (NZ$)
$80
$60
$40
$20
$0
2009
Year
Overall, the mean price of a gram of methamphetamine increased from $610 in 2006 to $697 in
2013 (p=0.0181).
78
5. Methamphetamine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 5 7: Mean price of a gram of methamphetamine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
$900
$815
$800
$676
$700
$780
$738
$698
$678
$610
$697
Dollars (NZ$)
$600
$500
$400
$300
$200
$100
$0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
In 2013, the mean price of a ‘point’ of methamphetamine was lower in Auckland than in
Christchurch ($100 vs. $109, p=0.4769), and in Wellington ($100 vs. $113, p=0.0724) (Table 5.5).
Table 5 5: Current median (mean) price for a ‘point’ and gram of methamphetamine (NZD) by location,
2013
Current price of
methamphetamine
Number with knowledge
Auckland
Wellington
Christchurch
n=68
n=24
n=22
$100 ($100)
$100 ($113 )
$100 ($109)
Number with knowledge
n=39
n=11
n=12
Median (mean) price gram
$650 ($588)
$800 ($773)
$1000 ($984)
Median (mean) price ‘point’ (0.1
grams)
In 2013, the mean price of a gram of methamphetamine was higher in Christchurch than in Auckland
($984 vs. $588, p<0.0001), and in Wellington ($984 vs. $773, p=0.0884) (Figure 5.8).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 5. Methamphetamine
79
Figure 5 8: Mean price of a gram of methamphetamine by location, 2013
$1,100
$984
$1,000
$900
$773
Dollars (NZ$)
$800
$700
$600
$588
$500
$400
$300
$200
$100
$0
Auckland
Wellington
Christchurch
Location
The ‘point’ price of methamphetamine increased in all three study locations from 2006 to 2013
(Figure 5.9). In Auckland, the ‘point’ price increased from $93 in 2006 to $100 in 2013 (p=0.0003). In
Wellington, the price of a ‘point’ increased from $100 in 2006 to $113 in 2013 (p=0.0079). Overall,
the ‘point’ price also increased in Christchurch from $98 in 2006 to $109 in 2013 (p<0.0001).
However, the price of a ‘point’ fell in Christchurch from $122 in 2012 to $109 in 2013 (p=0.0638).
80
5. Methamphetamine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 5 9: Mean price of a ‘point’ of methamphetamine by location, 2006-2013
$140
$120
Dollars (NZ$)
$100
$80
Auckland
Wellington
$60
Christchurch
$40
$20
$0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Overall, there was no change in the price of a gram of methamphetamine in Auckland from 2006 to
2013 (p=0.1796) (Figure 5.10). Fewer frequent drug users in the other sites answered the gram price
question and this accounts for the greater variation in these locations. The gram price of
methamphetamine in Christchurch increased from $829 in 2006 to $984 in 2013, and this increase
was close to being statistically significant (p=0.1122). There was no change in the gram price in
Wellington from 2006 to 2013 (p=0.4309).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 5. Methamphetamine
81
Figure 5 10: Mean price of a gram of methamphetamine by location, 2006-2013
$1,100
$1,018
$900
$921
$870
$829
$820
Dollars (NZ$)
$800
$600
$500
$846
$674
$701
$786
$684
$642
$679
$773
$764
$733
$700
$984
$977
$941
$1,000
$694
Auckland
$660
$619
$600
$588
Wellington
$542
Christchurch
$400
$300
$200
$100
$0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Change in the price of methamphetamine
The price of methamphetamine was reported to have been ‘stable’ over the past six months in 2013
(Table 5.6). Overall, the price of methamphetamine was considered to have been increasing from
2006 to 2013 (p<0.0001) (Figure 5.11). The frequent drug users were more likely to describe the
price as ‘stable’ from 2012 to 2013, and this was close to being statistically significant (p=0.1157).
82
5. Methamphetamine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 5 6: Change in the price of methamphetamine in the past six months by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
Change in price of
methamphetamine
(%)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=155)
Combined
modules
(n=167)
Combined
modules
(n=188)
Combined
modules
(n=159)
Combined
modules
(n=190)
Combined
modules
(n=177)
Combined
modules
(n=160)
Combined
modules
(n=136)
Increasing [3]
17%
13%
17%
12%
25%
31%
18%
10%
Fluctuating [2]
12%
9%
11%
8%
9%
15%
13%
11%
Stable [2]
49%
62%
66%
73%
63%
50%
65%
73%
Decreasing [1]
21%
16%
6%
6%
3%
5%
5%
5%
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.1
2.1
Stable/
decreasing
Stable/
decreasing
Stable/
increasing
Stable
Stable/
increasing
Stable/
increasing
Stable/
increasing
Stable
Average change in
price score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
Overall recent
change
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 5. Methamphetamine
83
Figure 5 11: Mean score of the change in the price of methamphetamine in the past six months by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
1 = decreasing - 3 = increasing
3.0
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.0
2.0
2006
2007
2.1
2.1
2008
2009
2.1
2.1
2012
2013
2.0
1.5
1.0
2010
Year
84
5. Methamphetamine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
2011
Table 5 7: Change in the price of methamphetamine in the past six months by location, 2013
Change in price of
methamphetamine
(%)
Auckland
(n=82)
Wellington
(n=24 )
Christchurch
(n=30)
Increasing [3]
5%
12%
26%
Fluctuating [2]
7%
9%
31%
81%
80%
36%
Decreasing [1]
7%
0%
7%
Average change in
price score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
2.0
2.1
2.2
Stable
Stable
stable/
fluctuates
Stable [2]
Overall recent
change
There was a divergence in the appreciation of the change in the price of methamphetamine
between the site locations in 2013. The frequent drug users in Christchurch were more likely to
report the price of methamphetamine was ‘increasing’ than those in Auckland (2.2 vs. 2.0, p=
0.0552) (Table 5.7 & Figure 5.12). Frequent drug users in Auckland and Wellington were more likely
to report the price of methamphetamine as ‘stable’ compared to those in Christchurch.
Figure 5 12: Mean score of the change in the price of methamphetamine in the past six months by
location, 2013
1 = decreasing - 3 = increasing
3.0
2.2
2.1
2.0
2.0
1.0
Auckland
Wellington
Christchurch
Location
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 5. Methamphetamine
85
Overall, the frequent drug users from Auckland reported an increasing price for methamphetamine
from 2006 to 2013 (1.9 to 2.0), and this increase was close to being statistically significant
(p=0.1102) (Figure 5.13). However, in more recent years the price in Auckland was reported to be
‘stable’. The frequent drug users from Wellington (p=0.0575) and Christchurch (p<0.0001) also
reported an increasing price for methamphetamine from 2006 to 2013. However, the frequent drug
users from Christchurch were less likely to report an increasing price from 2012 to 2013 (down from
2.5 to 2.2, p=0.0303)
Figure 5 13: Mean score of the change in the price of methamphetamine in the past six months by
location, 2006-2013
1 = decreasing - 3 = increasing
3.0
2.5
Auckland
2.0
Wellington
Christchurch
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
5.5 Price of pseudoephedrine
The frequent drug users who indicated they had knowledge of methamphetamine were asked about
the price of a range of quantities of pseudoephedrine for the first time in 2011. Pseudoephedrine is
a key ingredient used to manufacture methamphetamine. The question was an attempt to capture
the impact of further legislative controls to restrict ephedrine products enacted in August 2011.
Only a small number of the frequent drug users could provide dollar values for specific quantities of
pseudoephedrine. These reports suggest the price of pseudoephedrine had increased from 2012 to
2013, but the small number of respondents providing prices indicate these results should be treated
86
5. Methamphetamine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
with considerable caution. The median price of 10 capsules of Contact NT™ increased quite
dramatically from $20 in 2012 to $100 in 2013, and the median price of a pack of 24 flu tablets
containing pseudoephedrine increased from $30 to $60 (Table 5.8).
Table 5 8: Current median (mean) price of pseudoephedrine (NZD), 2011-2013
Current price of
pseudoephedrine ($)
Number with
knowledge
Median (mean) price
per pack of 10 capsules
Contact NT
Number with
knowledge
Median (mean) price
per pack of 24 flu tabs
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
n=8
n=12
n=8
$22 ($23)
$20 ($36)
$100 ($95)
n=19
n=5
n=2
$20 ($32)
$30 ($131)
$60 ($65)
More of the frequent drug users were able to answer the question about whether the price of
pseudoephedrine had changed in the previous six months. In 2013, the frequent drug users reported
the price had been ‘stable/increasing’ over the past six months (Table 5.9). Thirty- seven percent of
the frequent drug users thought the price of pseudoephedrine had been ‘increasing’ in 2013.
Table 5 9: Change in the price of pseudoephedrine in the past six months, 2011-2013
Change in price of
pseudoephedrine
(%)
2011
Combined
modules
(n=25)
2012
Combined
modules
(n=19)
2013
Combined
modules
(n=22)
Increasing [3]
39%
33%
37%
Fluctuating [2]
11%
9%
9%
Stable [2]
50%
45%
47%
Decreasing [1]
0%
0%
6%
Average change in
price score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
2.4
2.2
2.3
Stable/
increasing
Stable/
increasing
Stable/
increasing
Overall recent
change
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 5. Methamphetamine
87
5.6 Strength of methamphetamine
Current strength of methamphetamine
The current strength of methamphetamine was described as ‘high/fluctuates’ in 2013 (Table 5.10).
The frequent drug users were more likely to describe the current strength of methamphetamine as
high from 2012 to 2013 (up from 2.2 to 2.3, p=0.0395).
Table 5 10: Current strength of methamphetamine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
Current
strength of
methamphetamine
(%)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=166)
Combined
modules
(n=166)
Combined
modules
(n=189)
Combined
modules
(n=159)
Combined
modules
(n=187)
Combined
modules
(n=171)
Combined
modules
(n=163)
Combined
modules
(n=143)
High [3]
33%
36%
36%
32%
28%
33%
30%
39%
Medium [2]
24%
20%
19%
22%
21%
18%
26%
25%
Fluctuates
[2]
37%
35%
39%
39%
37%
35%
31%
29%
Low [1]
6%
8%
7%
7%
14%
14%
13%
7%
Average
strength
score (1=low
– 3=high)
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.3
Fluctuates/
high
Fluctuates/
Fluctuates/
high
Fluctuates/
high
Fluctuates/
high
Fluctuates/
Fluctuates/
high
fluctuates
Overall
current
status
88
high
5. Methamphetamine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
high
High/
Figure 5 14: Mean score of the current strength of methamphetamine by combined frequent drug
users, 2006-2013
3.0
2.5
1 = low - 3 = high
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.2
2011
2012
2.1
2.0
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2013
Year
The current strength of methamphetamine increased in Auckland from 2012 to 2013 (up from 2.3 to
2.4), and this increase was close to being statistically significant (p=0.0651). The strength of
methamphetamine in Wellington increased from 2006 to 2013 (up from 2.0 to 2.3), and this increase
was also close to being statistically significant (p=0.0918). In contrast, the current strength of
methamphetamine in Christchurch declined from 2006 to 2013 (down from 2.3 to 1.9, p=0.0011)
(Figure 5.15).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 5. Methamphetamine
89
Figure 5 15: Mean score of the current strength of methamphetamine by combined frequent drug users
by location, 2006-2013
3.0
1 = low - 3 = high
2.5
Auckland
2.0
Wellington
Christchurch
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Change in strength of methamphetamine
The strength of methamphetamine was reported to have been ‘stable/fluctuating’ over the previous
six months in 2013 (Table 5.11). The strength of methamphetamine was considered to be declining
during the mid-to late 2000s, but stabilised in 2013 (Figure 5.16).
90
5. Methamphetamine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 5 11: Change in strength of methamphetamine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
Change in
strength of
methamphetamine
(%)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=156)
Combined
modules
(n=160)
Combined
modules
(n=189)
Combined
modules
(n=147)
Combined
modules
(n=179)
Combined
modules
(n=166)
Combined
modules
(n=158)
Combined
modules
(n=137)
Increasing [3]
17%
16%
9%
14%
8%
11%
14%
13%
Stable [2]
40%
34%
29%
28%
30%
33%
34%
45%
Fluctuating [2]
28%
30%
48%
39%
37%
38%
30%
27%
Decreasing [1]
15%
20%
14%
20%
25%
18%
22%
15%
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.9
2.0
Stable/
fluctuating
Stable/
Fluctuating/
stable
Fluctuating/
stable
Fluctuating/
stable
Fluctuating/
Stable/
Stable/
fluctuating
stable
Fluctuating
Fluctuating
Average change in
strength score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
Overall recent
change
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 5. Methamphetamine
91
Figure 5 16: Mean score of the change in strength of methamphetamine in the past six months by
combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
1 = decreasing - 3 = increasing
3.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
2011
2012
2.0
1.8
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2013
Year
The strength of methamphetamine stabilised in Auckland from 2012 to 2013 (up from 1.9 to 2.0),
and this increase was close to being statistically significant (p=0.1442). There was no change in the
strength of methamphetamine in Wellington from 2006 to 2013. In contrast, the strength of
methamphetamine in Christchurch declined from 2006 to 2013 (down from 2.2 to 1.8, p=0.0017)
(Figure 5.17).
92
5. Methamphetamine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 5 17: Mean score of the change in strength of methamphetamine in the past six months by
combined frequent drug users by location, 2006-2013
1 = decreasing - 3 = increasing
3.0
2.5
Auckland
2.0
Wellington
Christchurch
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
5.7 Perceptions of the number of people using methamphetamine
The number of people perceived by the frequent drug users to be using methamphetamine was
reported to be ‘same/more’ in the previous six months in 2013 (Table 5.12). An increasing
proportion of frequent drug users thought that ‘more’ people were using methamphetamine from
2006 to 2013 (up from 2.2 to 2.3), and this increase was close to being statistically significant
(p=0.0619) (Figure 5.18). There was no difference in perceptions of the change in the number of
people using methamphetamine from 2012 to 2013, with most saying ‘more’ or the ‘same’ numbers
were using (both at 2.3) (p=0.4743).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 5. Methamphetamine
93
Table 5 12: Perceptions of the number of people using methamphetamine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
Number of people
using
methamphetamine
(%)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=175)
Combined
modules
(n=173)
Combined
modules
(n=198)
Combined
modules
(n=169)
Combined
modules
(n=201)
Combined
modules
(n=180)
Combined
modules
(n=162)
Combined
modules
(n=141)
More [3]
43%
51%
35%
44%
45%
51%
46%
40%
Same [2]
33%
32%
39%
37%
38%
33%
41%
47%
Less [1]
23%
17%
26%
19%
16%
16%
13%
13%
2.2
2.3
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.3
2.3
More/
same
More/
same
Same/
more
More/
same
More/
same
More/
same
More/
same
Same/
more
Average number of
people using score
(1=less – 3=more)
Overall recent
change
94
5. Methamphetamine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 5 18: Perceptions of the number of people using methamphetamine by combined frequent drug
users, 2006-2013
3.0
1 = less - 3 = more
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.3
2.2
2.3
2.3
2012
2013
2.1
2.0
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Year
Overall, there was a perception of an increasing number of people using methamphetamine in
Auckland from 2006 to 2013 (up from 2.2 to 2.3, p=0.0236) (Figure 5.19 and Table 5.13). There was
also a perception of more people using methamphetamine in Wellington from 2006 to 2013
(p=0.0726), although a lower proportion said ‘more’ were using from 2012 to 2013 (down from 2.3
to 2.1, p=0.1965). Overall, there was little change in perceptions of the number of people using
methamphetamine in Christchurch from 2006 to 2013, with most saying ‘more’ or the ‘same’
number of people were using (p=0.2753) (Figure 5.19).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 5. Methamphetamine
95
Table 5 13: Perceptions of the number of people using methamphetamine by combined frequent drug
users by location, 2013
Number of people
using
methamphetamine
(%)
Auckland
(n=84)
Wellington
(n=25)
Christchurch
(n=32 )
More [3]
45%
31%
38%
Same [2]
44%
49%
54%
Less [1]
11%
20%
9%
2.3
2.1
2.3
More/
same
Same/
more
Same/
more
Average change in
price score (1=less –
3=more)
Overall recent
change
Figure 5 19: Perceptions of the number of people using methamphetamine by combined frequent drug
users by location, 2006-2013
3.0
1 = less - 3 = more
2.5
Auckland
2.0
Wellington
Christchurch
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Year
96
5. Methamphetamine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
2012
2013
5.8 Purchase of methamphetamine
Dollar amount spent
The frequent drug users reported spending a median of $180 on methamphetamine on a typical
occasion in 2013 (mean $241) (Table 5.14). There was no statistically significant trend in the mean
dollar amount spent on methamphetamine from 2006 to 2013 (p=0.6202).
Table 5 14: Median (mean) dollar amount spent on methamphetamine (NZD) on a typical occasion by
combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
Amount spent on
methamphetamine
($)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
n=108
n=117
n=161
n=116
n=148
n=143
n=128
Number with
knowledge
Median (mean)
amount spent
$200
($273)
$200
($282)
$200
($269)
$150
($313)
$200
($290)
$150
($234)
n=125
$180
$160
($372)
($241)
In 2013, the frequent drug users in Auckland reported spending more on methamphetamine on a
typical occasion than those in Wellington ($275 vs. $172, p=0.0397) (Table 5.15).
Table 5 15: Median (mean) dollar amount spent on methamphetamine (NZD) on a typical occasion by
combined frequent drug users by location, 2013
Amount spent on
methamphetamine ($)
Number with
knowledge
Median (mean) amount
spent
Auckland
Wellington
Christchurch
n=77
n=23
n=25
$200 ($275)
$100 ($172 )
$125 ($253)
The mean dollar amount the frequent drug users from Auckland spent on methamphetamine on a
typical occasion decreased from $333 in 2006 to $275 in 2013 (p=0.0245). The frequent drug users
from Christchurch reported an increase in the dollar amount spent on methamphetamine over the
six year period (up from $133 in 2006 to $253 in 2013, p<0.0001). However, the amount the
Christchurch frequent drug users spent on methamphetamine on a typical occasion decreased from
$414 in 2012 to $253 in 2013 (p=0.0116).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 5. Methamphetamine
97
Time taken to purchase
Seventy percent of the frequent drug users were able to purchase methamphetamine in one hour or
less in 2013 (Table 5.16). There was no statistically significant change in the proportion of frequent
drug users who could purchase methamphetamine in one hour or less from 2006 to 2013 (p=0.2047)
(Figure 5.20).
Table 5 16: Time taken to purchase methamphetamine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
Time to
purchase
(%)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=112)
Combined
modules
(n=116)
Combined
modules
(n=164)
Combined
modules
(n=115)
Combined
modules
(n=153)
Combined
modules
(n=145)
Combined
modules
(n=134)
Combined
modules
(n=124)
Months
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
Weeks
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
Days
4
2
3
3
9
3
6
5
About
one day
12
11
21
10
19
24
10
9
Hours
28
20
24
19
24
22
19
16
1 Hour
35
37
32
40
27
29
34
47
Less than
20 mins
21
30
21
27
21
22
30
23
Figure 5 20: Proportion of frequent drug users who could purchase methamphetamine in one hour or
less, 2006-2013
% of frequent drug users who purchased
100%
90%
80%
70%
67%
70%
60%
56%
67%
64%
53%
49%
51%
2010
2011
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
Year
98
5. Methamphetamine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
2012
2013
In 2013, there was no difference in the proportion of frequent drug users who could purchase
methamphetamine in one hour or less across the different study sites. The proportion of frequent
drug users in Christchurch who could purchase methamphetamine in one hour or less increased
dramatically from 56% in 2012 to 92% in 2013 (p=0.0139) (Figure 5.21).
Figure 5 21: Proportion of frequent drug users who could purchase methamphetamine in one hour or
less by location, 2006-2013
100%
Frequent drug users (%)
90%
80%
70%
60%
Auckland
50%
Wellington
40%
Christchurch
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Location of purchase
In 2013, 69% of the frequent drug users had purchased methamphetamine from a private house,
21% had purchased methamphetamine from a public area, 21% had purchased methamphetamine
from a ‘street drug market’, 20% had purchased methamphetamine from an agreed public location,
and 12% had purchased methamphetamine from a ‘tinny house’ (Table 5.17). The proportion of
frequent drug users who purchased methamphetamine from a ‘street drug market’ increased from
5% in 2009 to 21% in 2013 (p=0.0969). The proportion who purchased methamphetamine from a
‘public area like a park’ increased from 9% in 2009 to 21% in 2013 (p=0.0369). The proportion who
purchased methamphetamine from a ‘pub/bar/club’ increased from 2% in 2009 to 18% in 2013
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 5. Methamphetamine
99
(p=0.0014). The proportion of frequent drug users who purchased methamphetamine from a private
house decreased from 83% in 2009 to 69% in 2013 (p=0.0050).
Table 5 17: Location from which methamphetamine purchased in the past six months by combined
frequent drug users, 2009-2013
Location (%)
2009
Combined
modules
(n=117)
2010
Combined
modules
(n=145)
2011
Combined
modules
(n=143)
2012
Combined
modules
(n=135)
2013
Combined
modules
(n=124)
Private house
83
86
69
78
69
Street market
5
13
17
16
21
Public area (e.g. park)
9
13
16
21
21
Agreed public location
42
39
42
46
20
Pub/bar/club
2
7
9
15
18
‘Tinny’ house
11
13
9
21
12
Work
3
6
7
5
7
Educational institute
0
4
4
1
2
Internet
0
0
4
3
2
Type of seller
In 2013, 63% of the frequent drug users had purchased methamphetamine from a ‘drug dealer’, 62%
had purchased methamphetamine from a ‘friend’, and 55% had purchased methamphetamine from
a ‘social acquaintance’ (Table 5.18). Only 11% had purchased from a ‘partner/family member’.
Table 5 18: People from whom methamphetamine purchased in the past six months by combined
frequent drug users, 2009-2013
Type of person (%)
2009
Combined
modules
(n=117)
2010
Combined
modules
(n=146)
2011
Combined
modules
(n=144)
2012
Combined
modules
(n=134)
2013
Combined
modules
(n=124)
Drug dealer
69
69
56
69
63
Friend
56
66
54
68
62
Social acquaintance
50
52
40
57
55
Gang member/associate
30
34
33
44
36
Partner/family member
10
15
20
19
11
100
5. Methamphetamine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
5.9 Seizures of methamphetamine
The amount of methamphetamine and crystal methamphetamine seized by the New Zealand Police
and New Zealand Customs Service increased substantially after 2003, before stabilising somewhat
from 2007 onwards (Figure 5.22). Very large seizures of methamphetamine were made in 2004 (i.e.
61.5 kilograms) and 2006 (121.9 kilograms). Similarly, 53 kilograms were seized in 2011. The
provisional amount seized in 2013 is 31 kilograms. This may be revised upward as additional cases
are resolved. The 2013 seizure total is 148% higher than the previous year. The NDIB comment the
increase in 2013 is likely to represent the existence of ‘more commercial-sized laboratories as well as
more successful imports across the border’ (which may be perceived by users to be ‘ice’) (NDIB,
2014, p.13) (our further comment in italics).
Figure 5 22: Kilograms of methamphetamine and crystal methamphetamine seized in New Zealand,
1999-2013
140.0
121.9
Kilograms of methamphetamine
120.0
100.0
80.0
61.5
60.0
53.0
39.3
40.0
30.7
20.0
7.3
1.6
1.4
2.6
26.0
30.9
31.0
20.8
12.5
2.8
0.0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Source: NDIB, 2014
5.10 Methamphetamine laboratories
The number of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories detected by law enforcement is a useful
but imperfect measure of total methamphetamine production. This is because it is difficult to both
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 5. Methamphetamine
101
estimate how many laboratories remain undetected and the production capacity of both the
detected and undetected laboratories (see UNODC, 2010). The number of methamphetamine
laboratories dismantled each year by New Zealand Police has increased dramatically from a low level
in the early 2000s (Figure 5.23). Laboratory detections reached a peak in the mid-2000s at
approximately 200 laboratories per year. They then levelled off after 2007 at about 130 per year for
the next three years. There have been further declines in detections since 2010. The number of
methamphetamine laboratories detected in 2013 was 18% lower than the number detected in 2012,
and 64% lower than the number detected in 2006. New Zealand Police have noted that
methamphetamine laboratories are increasingly located in isolated rural locations and this has made
detection more difficult (NDIB, 2011). The laboratories detected in 2013 are also increasing
considered to producing at a ‘commercial level’ capacity yielding kilograms of methamphetamine
(NDIB, 2014).
Figure 5 23: Number of methamphetamine laboratories dismantled in New Zealand, 2000-2013
250
204
202
Number (labs detected)
200
181
211
190
170
150
133
135
130
109
94
100
77
41
50
9
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Source: NDIB, 2014
102
5. Methamphetamine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
5.11 Pseudoephedrine and ephedrine seizures
Pseudoephedrine and ephedrine (PSE) are key chemical precursors used to manufacture
methamphetamine. In 2002, ephedrine products were classified as Class C controlled drugs under
the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. In August 2011, ephedrine and pseudoephedrine were re-classified as
Class B2 controlled drugs, making them available only by prescription from a medical practitioner.
The amount of PSE seized by the New Zealand Customs Service increased dramatically from 2002 to
reach over 5.5 million (equivalent) tablets in 2009 (Figure 5.24). There was a substantial decline in
seizures over the next three years to just over 2 million tablets in 2012. There was some reversal of
this trend in 2013, with 3.7 million tablets seized in 2013. This total was 70% higher than the amount
seized in 2012, but 33% lower than the amount seized in 2009. The 2013 total was dominated by
one operation where 2,663,677 tablet equivalent (594 kilograms) of PSE was seized (i.e. Operation
Ghost) (NDIB, 2014).
Figure 5 24: Thousands of (equivalent) tablets of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine seized in New
Zealand, 2000-2013
6000
5586.3
5500
Thousands of tablets
5000
4612.1
4500
3920.0
4000
3738.1
3514.9
3500
3000
2667.1
2500
2192.9
1766.2
2000
1664.2
1313.1
1500
830.3
1000
255.0
500
0
32.7
10.3
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Source: NDIB, 2014
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 5. Methamphetamine
103
5.12 Summary of methamphetamine trends
•
The current availability of methamphetamine was reported to be ‘easy/very easy ’ in 2013
•
Overall there was no change in the current availability of methamphetamine from 2006 to
2013
•
The availability of methamphetamine in Christchurch decreased from 2006 to 2012, and
then recovered quite dramatically in 2013
•
The availability of methamphetamine became slightly easier in Auckland from 2006 to 2013
•
In 2013, the current availability of methamphetamine was lower in Christchurch than the
other two study locations
•
The median price paid for a ‘point’ (0.1 grams) of methamphetamine was $100 and the
median price for a gram of methamphetamine was $700 in 2013
•
The mean price of a ‘point’ of methamphetamine increased from $96 in 2006 to $106 in
2013
•
Overall, the ‘point’ price for methamphetamine increased steadily in all three study
locations from 2006 to 2013
•
However, the ‘point’ price fell in Christchurch from $122 in 2012 to $109 in 2013
•
Overall, the gram price increased from $610 in 2006 to $697 in 2013
•
The price of methamphetamine was considered to have been increasing from 2006 to 2011.
However, more frequent drug users thought the price was stable from 2012 to 2013
•
There was some divergence in perceptions of the change in price between the sites in 2013.
The frequent drug users from Auckland were more likely to report a ‘stable’ price in 2013,
whereas the frequent drug users from Christchurch were more likely to report an increasing
price from 2012 to 2013 (albeit at a declining rate)
•
The price of pseudoephedrine was reported to be ‘stable/increasing’ in 2013, and this had
not changed from the previous two years
•
Thirty-seven percent of the frequent drug users thought the price of pseudoephedrine had
been ‘increasing’ over the past six months in 2013
•
The current strength of methamphetamine was considered to be ‘high/fluctuating’ in 2013
104
5. Methamphetamine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
•
The frequent drug users were more likely to describe the current strength as ‘high’ from
2012 to 2013
•
The strength of methamphetamine stabilised in Auckland from 2012 to 2013
•
The strength of methamphetamine declined in Christchurch from 2006 to 2013
•
The frequent drug users
methamphetamine in 2013
•
Overall, an increasing proportion of frequent drug users thought that ‘more’ people were
using methamphetamine from 2006 to 2013, although there was no change from 2012 to
2013.
•
The frequent drug users in Christchurch reported spending more on methamphetamine on a
typical occasion from 2006 to 2013 (up from $133 in 2006 to $253 in 2013)
•
The proportion of frequent drug users from Christchurch who could purchase
methamphetamine in one hour or less increased dramatically from 56% in 2012 to 92% in
2013
•
Increasing proportions of frequent drug users purchased methamphetamine from street
drug markets, public areas like parks, and pubs/bars and clubs from 2009 to 2013
•
Approximately 31 kilograms of methamphetamine was seized in 2013. This is 148% more
than the amount seized in 2012 (12.5 kilograms), but 42 % lower than the amount seized in
2011 (53.0 kilograms).
•
The number of methamphetamine laboratories detected in 2013 was 18% lower than the
number detected in 2012, and 64% lower than the number detected in 2006
•
The number of (equivalent) tablets of ephedrine seized in 2013 was 70% higher than the
amount seized in 2012, but 33% lower than the amount seized in 2009
thought
that
‘the
same/more’
people
were
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 5. Methamphetamine
using
105
6. Crystal methamphetamine
6.1 Introduction
Crystal methamphetamine (‘ice’, ‘crystal’ or ‘shabu’) refers to the highly finished, crystallised form of
methamphetamine (Matsumoto et al., 2002; McKetin & McLaren, 2004). In New Zealand, crystal
methamphetamine (or ‘ice’) is often distinguished from locally made methamphetamine (or ‘P’) on
the basis that crystal methamphetamine is manufactured overseas and is of higher quality (Wilkins,
et al., 2004). ESR analysis has shown that there is actually little difference in potency between locally
made methamphetamine and imported crystal methamphetamine (NDIB, 2009). To ensure that the
frequent drug users clearly understood the difference between crystal methamphetamine and
methamphetamine the interviewer read out a brief description of crystal methamphetamine (i.e.
‘ice comes in large crystals and is usually imported’) and encouraged the respondent to complete
the crystal methamphetamine section only if they clearly knew about this form of
methamphetamine.
The IDMS had previously found a steady decrease in the recent use of crystal methamphetamine
among frequent methamphetamine users from 64% in 2006 to 29% in 2010, but this trend has
reversed in more recent years with use increasing from 29% in 2010 to 51% in 2012. There were also
reports of a sharp increase in the availability of crystal methamphetamine, and some decline in its
price, from 2011 to 2012. It was speculated that this revival in crystal methamphetamine use may
reflect increasing law enforcement pressure on domestic methamphetamine manufacture, including
tighter precursor and other chemical controls.
6.2 Knowledge of crystal methamphetamine trends
Thirteen percent of the frequent drug users interviewed for the 2013 IDMS (n= 34) indicated they
felt confident enough to comment on the price, purity and availability of crystal methamphetamine
in the previous six months. This included 25% of the frequent methamphetamine users (n=23), 12%
of the frequent injecting drug users (n=9), and 3% of the frequent ecstasy users (n=2).
106
6. Crystal methamphetamine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
6.3 Availability of crystal methamphetamine
Current availability of crystal methamphetamine
The frequent drug users considered the current availability of crystal methamphetamine to be ‘easy/
difficult’ in 2013 (Table 6.1). Overall, there was no change in the current availability of crystal
methamphetamine from 2006 to 2013 (Figure 6.1).
Table 6 1: Current availability of crystal methamphetamine by combined frequent drug users, 20062013
Current availability
of crystal
methamphetamine
(%)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=107)
Combined
modules
(n=71)
Combined
modules
(n=86)
Combined
modules
(n=66)
Combined
modules
(n=61)
Combined
modules
(n=61)
Combined
modules
(n=56)
Combined
modules
(n=33)
Very easy [4]
24%
26%
19%
27%
22%
12%
40%
23%
Easy [3]
48%
40%
72%
47%
37%
49%
35%
46%
Difficult [2]
23%
32%
9%
18%
36%
34%
19%
26%
Very difficult [1]
5%
2%
0%
7%
5%
5%
7%
4%
Average
availability score
(1=very difficult –
4=very easy)
2.9
2.9
3.1
2.9
2.8
2.7
3.1
2.9
Easy/
very easy
Easy/
difficult
Easy
Easy/
very easy
Easy/
difficult
Easy/
difficult
Very
easy/
easy
Easy/
Difficult
Overall
status
current
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 6. Crystal methamphetamine
107
Figure 6 1: Mean score of the current availability of crystal methamphetamine by combined frequent
drug users, 2006-2013
4.0
1=very difficult - 4=very easy
3.5
3.1
2.9
3.0
2.9
3.1
2.9
2.8
2.9
2.7
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Change in availability of crystal methamphetamine
The frequent drug users considered the availability of crystal methamphetamine to have been
‘stable’ over the past six months in 2013 (Table 6.2). Overall, the frequent drug users reported
increasing availability of crystal methamphetamine from 2006 to 2013 (up from 1.8 to 2.0, p=0.0033)
(Figure 6.2).
108
6. Crystal methamphetamine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 6 2: Mean score of the current availability of crystal methamphetamine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
Change in availability
of crystal
methamphetamine (%)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=106)
Combined
modules
(n=69)
Combined
modules
(n=86)
Combined
modules
(n=65)
Combined
modules
(n=58)
Combined
modules
(n=57)
Combined
modules
(n=53)
Combined
modules
(n=33)
Easier [3]
10%
17%
14%
21%
14%
4%
21%
9%
Stable [2]
50%
53%
38%
49%
50%
68%
55%
71%
Fluctuates [2]
10%
5%
5%
9%
14%
12%
13%
11%
More difficult [1]
30%
25%
42%
21%
22%
17%
11%
9%
1.8
1.9
1.7
2.0
1.9
2.1
2.0
Stable/
more difficult
Stable/
more difficult
More difficult
/stable
Stable/
more difficult
Stable/
easier
Stable
Average change in
availability score
(1=more difficult –
3=easier)
Overall recent change
Stable/
More difficult
1.9
Stable/
more difficult
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 6. Crystal methamphetamine
109
Figure 6 2: Mean score of the change in availability of crystal methamphetamine by combined frequent
drug users, 2006-2013
3.0
1=more difficult - 3=easy
2.5
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
2010
2011
1.8
1.7
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2012
2013
Year
6.4 Price of crystal methamphetamine
Current price of crystal methamphetamine
The median price of a ‘point’ (0.1 grams) of crystal methamphetamine was reported to be $100 in
2013 (Table 6.3). The median price of a gram of crystal methamphetamine was $700. Overall, there
has been a small increase in the mean price of a ‘point’ of crystal methamphetamine from 2006 to
2013 (p=0.0657) (with a peak price reported in 2011) (Figure 6.3). The mean price of a gram of
crystal methamphetamine increased from $691 in 2007 to $1,113 in 2013, and this increase was
close to being statistically significant (p=0.0638 ) (Figure 6.4). The fairly low number of frequent drug
users providing gram prices in some of these years (i.e. n<20) means these results should be
interpreted with some caution.
110
6. Crystal methamphetamine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 6 3: Current median (mean) price for crystal methamphetamine (NZD) by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
Current price of
crystal
methamphetamine
($)
Number
knowledge
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
with
n=76
n=45
n=76
n=46
n=42
n=52
n=45
n=27
Median
(mean)
price ‘point’ (0.1
grams)
$100 ($100)
$100 ($106)
$100 ($105)
$100 ($104)
$100 ($109)
$100 (114)
$100 ($111)
$100 ($102)
Number
knowledge
with
-
n=36
n=14
n=16
n=21
n=16
n=24
n=14
Median
(mean)
price per gram
-
$700 ($691)
$800 ($802)
$800 ($764)
$700 ($763)
$900 ($914)
$700 ($798)
$700 ($1,113)
Number
knowledge
with
-
-
n=2
n=2
n=5
n=4
n=5
n=2
Median
(mean)
price per ounce
-
-
$14,000
($12,297)
$18,000
($16,009)
$14,000
($11,601)
$4,500
($9,889)
$21,000
($19,429)
$12,000
($12,906)
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 6. Crystal methamphetamine
111
Figure 6 3: Mean price of a ‘point’ of crystal methamphetamine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
$150
$140
$130
$120
Price (NZ dollars)
$110
$106
$105
$104
2007
2008
2009
$100
$109
$114
$111
$102
$100
$90
$80
$70
$60
$50
$40
$30
$20
$10
$0
2006
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Figure 6 4: Mean price of a gram of crystal methamphetamine by combined frequent drug users, 2007-2013
$1,200
$1,113
$1,100
$1,000
$914
Price (NZ dollars)
$900
$802
$800
$764
$763
2009
2010
$798
$691
$700
$600
$500
$400
$300
$200
$100
$0
2007
2008
2011
Year
112
6. Crystal methamphetamine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
2012
2013
Change in price
The frequent drug users reported that the price of crystal methamphetamine had been ’stable’ in the previous six
months in 2013 (Table 6.4). Overall, the frequent drug users were more likely to say the price of crystal
methamphetamine had been increasing from 2006 to 2013 (p=0.0002) (Figure 6.5).
Table 6 4: Change in the price of crystal methamphetamine in the past six months by combined frequent drug users,
2006-2013
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=98)
Combined
modules
(n=69)
Combined
modules
(n=86)
Combined
modules
(n=64)
Combined
modules
(n=58)
Combined
modules
(n=59)
Combined
modules
(n=51)
Combined
modules
(n=32)
Increasing [3]
17%
19%
6%
15%
22%
53%
20%
20%
Fluctuating [2]
10%
11%
6%
12%
3%
7%
15%
3%
Stable [2]
62%
61%
85%
69%
70%
39%
63%
71%
Decreasing [1]
11%
9%
4%
3%
5%
1%
2%
5%
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.5
2.2
2.1
Stable/
increasing
Stable/
increasing
Stable
Stable/
increasing
Stable
Increasing/
stable
Stable/
increasing
Stable
Change in price of
crystal
methamphetamine
(%)
Average change in
price
score
(1=decreasing
–
3=increasing)
Overall recent
change
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 6. Crystal methamphetamine
113
Figure 6 5: Mean score of the change in the price of crystal methamphetamine in the past six months by combined
frequent drug users, 2006-2013
3.0
1=decreasing - 3=increasing
2.5
2.5
2.2
2.1
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Year
114
6. Crystal methamphetamine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
2011
2012
2013
6.5 Strength of crystal methamphetamine
Current strength
The current strength of crystal methamphetamine was considered to be ‘high/medium’ in 2013 (Table 6.5). The
current strength of crystal methamphetamine decreased from 2012 to 2013 (down from 2.6 to 2.3, p=0.0469)
(Figure 6.5).
Table 6 5: Current purity of crystal methamphetamine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
Current purity of
crystal
methamphetamine
(%)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=103)
Combined
modules
(n=73)
Combined
modules
(n=86)
Combined
modules
(n=65)
Combined
modules
(n=59)
Combined
modules
(n=58)
Combined
modules
(n=56)
Combined
modules
(n=33)
High [3]
47%
52%
29%
46%
34%
63%
62%
38%
Medium [2]
25%
18%
13%
24%
30%
13%
13%
34%
Fluctuates [2]
18%
26%
52%
23%
25%
15%
20%
18%
Low [1]
9%
4%
6%
7%
11%
9%
5%
9%
Average
purity
score (1=low –
3=high)
2.4
2.5
2.2
2.4
2.2
2.6
2.3
High/
medium
High/
fluctuates
Fluctuates/
high
High/
medium
High/
medium
High/
fluctuates
High/
medium
Overall
status
current
2.6
High/
fluctuates
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 6. Crystal methamphetamine
115
Figure 6 6: Mean score of the current strength of crystal methamphetamine by combined frequent drug
users, 2006-2013
3.0
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.4
1=low - 3=high
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.0
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Change in strength
The strength of crystal methamphetamine was considered to have been ‘stable/decreasing’ during
the previous six months in 2013 (Table 6.6). There was no statistically significant difference in
reports of the change in the strength of crystal methamphetamine from 2006 to 2013 (p=0.2234).
116
6. Crystal methamphetamine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 6 6: Change in strength of crystal methamphetamine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
Change in
strength of crystal
methamphetamine
(%)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=102)
Combined
modules
(n=68)
Combined
modules
(n=86)
Combined
modules
(n=64)
Combined
modules
(n=59)
Combined
modules
(n=55)
Combined
modules
(n=53)
Combined
modules
(n=33)
Increasing [3]
15%
17%
11%
18%
10%
8%
18%
11%
Stable [2]
54%
52%
17%
54%
46%
56%
51%
64%
Fluctuating [2]
18%
22%
66%
21%
22%
25%
15%
12%
Decreasing [1]
13%
9%
6%
7%
22%
11%
15%
14%
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.1
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.0
Stable/
fluctuating
Stable/
fluctuating
Fluctuating/
stable
Stable/
fluctuating
Stable/
fluctuating
Stable/
fluctuating
Stable/
increasing
Stable/
decreasing
Average change in
purity score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
Overall recent
change
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 6. Crystal methamphetamine
117
6.6 Perceptions of the number of people using crystal methamphetamine
The number of people using crystal methamphetamine was described as the ’same/more’ in the past
six months in 2013 (Table 6.7). An increasing proportion of frequent drug users said ‘more’ people
were using crystal methamphetamine from 2006 to 2013 (up from 2.1 to 2.2, p=0.0419) (Figure 6.7).
There was no change in number of people was using crystal methamphetamine from 2012 to 2013
(p=0.9531).
Table 6 7: Perceptions of the number of people using crystal methamphetamine by combined frequent
drug users, 2006-2013
Number of people
using crystal
methamphetamine
(%)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=108)
Combined
modules
(n=71)
Combined
modules
(n=86)
Combined
modules
(n=64)
Combined
modules
(n=54)
Combined
modules
(n=47)
Combined
modules
(n=53)
Combined
modules
(n=32)
More [3]
38%
36%
32%
25%
40%
49%
39%
33%
Same [2]
37%
35%
48%
45%
41%
43%
45%
58%
Less [1]
25%
29%
18%
30%
19%
8%
15%
9%
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.2
2.2
More/
same
More/
same
Same/
more
Same/
less
Same/
more
More/
Same
Same/
more
Same/
more
Average number of
people using score
(1=less – 3=more)
Overall
change
recent
Figure 6 7: Mean score of the perceptions of the number of people using crystal methamphetamine by
combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
3.0
2.4
1=less - 3=more
2.5
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.2
2012
2013
2.1
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Year
118
6. Crystal methamphetamine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
2011
6.7 Summary of crystal methamphetamine trends
•
The current availability of crystal methamphetamine was reported to be ‘easy/difficult’ in
2013
•
The frequent drug users reported increasing availability of crystal methamphetamine from
2006 to 2013
•
There was a slight increase in the mean price of a ‘point’ of crystal methamphetamine
increased from 2006 to 2013
•
The mean price of a gram of crystal methamphetamine increased from $691 in 2007 to
$1,113 in 2013
•
Overall, the frequent drug users were more likely to say the price of crystal
methamphetamine had been increasing from 2006 to 2013
•
The current strength of crystal methamphetamine was described as ‘high/medium ’ in 2013
•
The strength of crystal methamphetamine decreased from 2012 to 2013
•
An increasing proportion of frequent drug users said more people were using crystal
methamphetamine from 2006 to 2013
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 6. Crystal methamphetamine
119
7. Ecstasy
7.1 Introduction
The term ‘ecstasy’ traditionally referred to MDMA (methylenedioxymethamphetamine), but due to
greater international controls of key MDMA precursors there has been a global shortage of MDMA
since the mid-2000s. As a consequence, drugs sold as ‘ecstasy’ increasingly contain a range of
substitute compounds which mimic the effects of MDMA, including BZP (benzylpiperazine),
mephedrone (methylmethcathinone), MEC (methylethcathinone), DMAA (dimethylamylamine) and
methylone (methylenedioxymethcathinone) (ESR, 2013). Many of these substitute compounds could
be easily purchased from Asia where they were manufactured, and this created the opportunity for
New Zealand based syndicates to import and blend these compounds and produce locally supplied
‘ecstasy’ tablets. The result was greater availability of lower quality cheaper ‘ecstasy’ pills and
increasing use of ecstasy.
The frequent drug users interviewed for the IDMS reported a decline in the strength of ecstasy in
New Zealand from around 2008 onwards (Wilkins, et al., 2011b). Laboratory analysis of ‘ecstasy’
seized in New Zealand in 2012/2013 confirmed the presence of a range of active compounds other
than MDMA (ESR, 2013; 2014). The expansion in the ecstasy market was particularly clear in
Auckland, with the price of an ecstasy tablet declining from $50 in 2009 to $41 in 2010, and the
proportion of frequent drug users who purchased ecstasy weekly or more often increasing from 3%
in 2009 to 22% in 2011 (Wilkins, et al., 2012).
The growing supply of locally made ‘ecstasy’ attracted the attention of New Zealand Police, and
following investigations they raided a large Auckland based ecstasy distributor in late 2011 that was
supplying ‘ecstasy’ to Auckland and Christchurch. This appears to have disrupted the local ‘ecstasy’
market, particularly in Auckland, where there was a reduction in availability, increase in price and
declines in strength in subsequent years. There were also sharp declines in perceptions of the
number of users in Auckland and Christchurch in 2012.
The supply of MDMA has improved in Europe in recent years and this may lead to resurgence in use
(EMCDDA, 2013b; UNODC, 2012, 2013). The return of higher purity MDMA suggests producers have
been able to circumvent the previously successful controls of the key MDMA precursor, such as
piperonylmethylketone (PMK) and safrole (EMCDDA, 2014; UNODC, 2014). Increasing levels of
120
7. Ecstasy | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
MDMA in ecstasy are thought to be behind the growing preference for ecstasy in Australia (Sindicich
& Burns, 2012). Improving supply of MDMA has also been noted by frequent drug users in Auckland
(Wilkins, et al., 2012).
7.2 Knowledge of ecstasy trends
Fifty percent of the frequent drug users interviewed for the 2013 IDMS (n=150) indicated they felt
confident enough to comment on the price, strength and availability of ecstasy in the previous six
months. This included 98% of the frequent ecstasy users (n=115), 27% of the frequent
methamphetamine users (n=21) and 19% of the frequent injecting drug users (n=14).
7.3 Drug types perceived to be in ecstasy
In response to the changing composition of ecstasy in recent years, we asked the frequent drug
users who answered the ecstasy section to name the drug types they thought were in the ecstasy
they had been using in the previous six months. They were read out a list of 11 substitute
compounds commonly found in ‘ecstasy’ tablets. They could name more than one compound if they
desired. Five percent of the frequent users (n=8) answered they ‘did not know’ what was in the
ecstasy they had used in 2013. Of those frequent drug users who thought they knew what was in
their ecstasy, 96% believed it contained MDMA, 47% BZP, 34% methamphetamine, 26%
mephedrone and 14% ketamine (Table 7.1). Nine percent thought their ecstasy contained ‘nothing
or almost nothing’. The proportion of frequent drug users who thought their ecstasy contained
‘MDMA’ increased from 88% in 2012 to 96% in 2013. In contrast, the proportion of frequent drug
users who thought their ecstasy contained mephedrone decreased from 43% in 2012 to 26% in
2013, and the proportion who thought it contained ketamine declined from 29% in 2012 to 14% in
2013. The proportion of respondents who thought their ecstasy contained ‘nothing or almost
nothing’ also decreased from 22% in 2012 to 9% in 2013.
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 7. Ecstasy
121
Table 7 1: Drug types thought to be in ecstasy (of the people who thought they knew), 2011-2013
Drug type (%)
2011
(n=109)
89
2012
(n=182)
88
2013
(n=141)
96
BZP
48
47
47
Methamphetamine
47
31
34
Caffeine
21
38
31
Mephedrone
28
43
26
Ketamine
29
29
14
Nothing/almost nothing
MDMA
19
22
9
Other research chemicals
5
7
5
MDPV
2
8
4
4-MEC
1
4
3
TFMPP
3
5
1
7.4 Availability of ecstasy
Current availability of ecstasy
The frequent drug users considered the current availability of ecstasy to be ‘easy/difficult’ in 2013
(Table 7.2). There was a decline in the current availability of ecstasy from 2006 to 2013 (p=0.0117)
(Figure 7.1). There was also a decline in the current availability of ecstasy from 2012 to 2013
(p=0.0300).
Table 7 2: Current availability of ecstasy by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
Current
availability
of ecstasy
(%)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=200)
Combined
modules
(n=157)
Combined
modules
(n=194)
Combined
modules
(n=159)
Combined
modules
(n=229)
Combined
modules
(n=215)
Combined
modules
(n=181)
Combined
modules
(n=148)
Very easy
[4]
19%
25%
32%
25%
29%
24%
28%
16%
Easy [3]
54%
54%
46%
46%
53%
47%
39%
46%
Difficult [2]
27%
20%
21%
27%
16%
26%
30%
33%
Very difficult
[1]
0%
1%
1%
2%
2%
2%
2%
5%
Average
availability
score
(1=very
difficult–
4=very
easy)
2.9
3.0
3.1
2.9
3.1
2.9
2.9
2.7
Easy/
difficult
Easy/
very easy
Easy/
very easy
Easy/
difficult
Easy/
very easy
Easy/
difficult
Easy/
difficult
Easy/
difficult
Overall
current
status
122
7. Ecstasy | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 7 1: Mean score of the current availability of ecstasy by combined frequent drug users, 20062013
4.0
1 = very difficult - 4 = very easy
3.5
3.0
2.9
3.1
3.0
3.1
2.9
2.9
2.9
2.7
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
In 2013, the current availability of ecstasy decreased in all three sites. The current availability of
ecstasy was still considered to be higher in Auckland than in Christchurch (2.9 vs. 2.5), but this
difference was not statistically significant (p=0.1540) (Table 7.3).
Table 7 3: Current availability of ecstasy by location, 2013
Current availability
of ecstasy (%)
Auckland
(n=65)
Wellington
(n=39 )
Christchurch
(n=44 )
Very easy [4]
16%
20%
9%
Easy [3]
54%
42%
41%
Difficult [2]
31%
31%
43%
Very difficult [1]
0%
7%
7%
Average availability
score (1=very
difficult – 4=very
easy)
2.9
2.7
2.5
Easy/
Easy/
Difficult/
Difficult
difficult
Easy
Overall current
status
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 7. Ecstasy
123
The current availability of ecstasy in Christchurch declined from 2006 to 2013 (down from 2.9 to 2.5,
p=0.0225). The current availability of ecstasy in Wellington declined from 2012 to 2013 (down from
3.1 to 2.7), and this decrease was very close to being statistically significant (p=0.0501) (Figure 7.2).
Figure 7 2: Mean score of the current availability of ecstasy by location, 2006-2013
4.0
1 = very difficult - 4 = very easy
3.5
3.0
Auckland
Wellington
2.5
Christchurch
2.0
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Change in availability of ecstasy
The frequent drug users reported the availability of ecstasy as being ‘stable/more difficult’ in the
previous six months in 2013 (Table 7.4). The frequent drug users increasingly described the
availability of ecstasy as ‘more difficult’ from 2006 to 2013 (down from 2.1 to 2.0), although this
decline was not statistically significant (p=0.1653) (Figure 7.3).
124
7. Ecstasy | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 7 4: Change in availability of ecstasy by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combine
d
modules
(n=194)
Combine
d
modules
(n=154)
Combine
d
modules
(n=191)
Combine
d
modules
(n=154)
Combine
d
modules
(n=223)
Combine
d
modules
(n=207)
Combine
d
modules
(n=181)
Combine
d
modules
(n=147)
Easier [3]
19%
28%
15%
20%
28%
24%
21%
18%
Stable [2]
44%
48%
54%
47%
41%
33%
46%
46%
Fluctuates
[2]
24%
6%
14%
12%
18%
20%
12%
15%
More
difficult [1]
13%
18%
17%
21%
13%
24%
21%
22%
Average
change in
availability
score
(1=more
difficult –
3=easier)
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.2
2.0
2.0
2.0
Stable/
fluctuates
Stable/
easier
Stable/
more
difficult
Stable/
more
difficult
Stable/
easier
Stable/
more
difficult
Stable/
easier/mor
e difficult
Stable/
more
difficult
Change
in
availabilit
y
of
ecstasy
(%)
Overall
recent
change
Figure 7 3: Mean score of the change in the availability of ecstasy by combined frequent drug users,
2006-2013
1 = more difficult - 3 = easier
3.0
2.5
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
2008
2009
2.0
2.0
2.0
2011
2012
2013
2.0
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2010
Year
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 7. Ecstasy
125
The frequent drug users in Auckland were more likely to report the availability of ecstasy had
become ‘more difficult’ from 2006 to 2013 (down from 2.0 to 1.9), and this decline was close to
being statistically significant (p=0.1384) (Figure 7.4).
Figure 7 4: Mean score of the change in the availability of ecstasy by location, 2006-2013
2.5
2.4
1 = more difficult - 3 = easier
2.3
2.2
2.1
Auckland
2.0
Wellington
1.9
Christchurch
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
7.5 Price of ecstasy
Current price of ecstasy
The median price of a tablet of ecstasy was $40 in 2013 (Table 7.5). The mean price of a tablet of
ecstasy declined from $59 in 2006 to $42 in 2013 (p<0.0001) (Figure 7.5). The mean price of a tablet
of ecstasy also decreased from $47 in 2012 to $42 in 2013 (p=0.0052).
Table 7 5: Current price of ecstasy (NZD) by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
Current
price of
ecstasy
($)
Median
(mean)
price
tablet
126
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=190)
Combined
modules
(n=122)
Combined
modules
(n=127)
Combined
modules
(n=122)
Combined
modules
(n=143)
Combined
modules
(n=180)
Combined
modules
(n=162)
Combined
modules
(n=121)
$60 ($59)
$60 ($55)
$60 ($56)
$60 ($55)
$43 ($47)
$50 ($48)
$40 ($47)
$40 ($42)
7. Ecstasy | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 7 5: Mean price of a tablet of ecstasy by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
$70
$59
$60
$55
$56
$55
$47
$50
$48
$47
Dollars (NZ$)
$42
$40
$30
$20
$10
$0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
In 2013, the mean price of a tablet of ecstasy was lower in Auckland than in Christchurch ($40 vs.
$46) and this difference was close to being statistically significant (p=0.1326) (Table 7.6 & Figure
7.6).
Table 7 6: Current median (mean) price for ecstasy (NZD) by location, 2013
Current price of
ecstasy
Median (mean)
price for a tablet
Auckland
(n=61)
$40 ($40 )
Wellington
(n=30)
Christchurch
(n=30)
$40 ($43)
$45 ($46)
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 7. Ecstasy
127
Figure 7 6: Mean price of a tablet of ecstasy by location, 2013
$100
$90
$80
Dollars (NZ$)
$70
$60
$46
$50
$43
$40
$40
$30
$20
$10
$0
Auckland
Wellington
Christchurch
Location
The mean price of an ecstasy tablet declined from 2006 to 2013 in Auckland (down from $52 to $40,
p<0.0001), Wellington ($63 to $43 p<0.0001) and Christchurch ($66 to $46, p<0.0001) (Figure 7.7).
The mean price of a tablet of ecstasy also declined in Wellington from 2012 to 2013 (down from $51
to $43, p=0.0358).
Figure 7 7: Mean price of a pill of ecstasy by location, 2006-2013
$90
$80
$70
66.0
68.0
67.0
61.0
Dollars (NZ$)
$60
63.0
54.0
60.0
59.0
$50
52.0
60.0
52.0
50.0
56.0
51.0
Auckland
46.0
56.0
50.0
51.0
41.0
42.0
42.0
40.0
2010
2011
2012
2013
50.0
$40
43.0
$30
$20
$10
$0
2006
2007
2008
2009
Year
128
7. Ecstasy | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Wellington
Christchurch
Change in price of ecstasy
The frequent drug users reported the price of ecstasy had been ‘stable/fluctuating’ over the
previous six months in 2013 (Table 7.7). A higher proportion of frequent drug users described the
price of ecstasy as ‘stable’ over the past eight years (up from 1.8 in 2006 to 2.0 in 2013, p=0.0052)
(Figure 7.8).
Table 7 7: Change in the price of ecstasy in the past six months by combined frequent drug users, 20062013
Change in
price of
ecstasy (%)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=187)
Combined
modules
(n=158)
Combined
modules
(n=194)
Combined
modules
(n=156)
Combined
modules
(n=224)
Combined
modules
(n=205)
Combined
modules
(n=177)
Combined
modules
(n=143)
Increasing [3]
7%
8%
12%
12%
17%
23%
11%
9%
Fluctuating [2]
13%
14%
20%
16%
14%
18%
11%
19%
Stable [2]
58%
64%
55%
60%
51%
44%
62%
63%
Decreasing
[1]
22%
14%
13%
13%
18%
15%
17%
8%
Average
change in
price score
(1=decreasing
–
3=increasing)
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.1
1.9
2.0
Overall recent
change
Stable/
decreasing
Stable
Stable/
fluctuating
Stable/
fluctuating
Stable/
decreasing
Stable/
increasing
Stable/
decreasing
Stable/
fluctuating
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 7. Ecstasy
129
Figure 7 8: Mean score of the change in the price of ecstasy in the past six months by combined
frequent drug users, 2006-2013
1 = decreasing - 3 = increasing
3.0
2.5
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
A higher proportion of frequent drug users in Auckland reported the price of ecstasy was ‘stable’
from 2006 to 2013 (up from 1.9 to 2.0, p=0.0076) (Figure 7.9). The frequent drug users in
Christchurch were less likely to say the price of ecstasy had ‘decreased’ from 2012 to 2013 (up from
1.8 to 2.1, p=0.0250).
130
7. Ecstasy | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 7 9: Mean score of the change in the price of ecstasy in the past six months by location, 20062013
1 = decreasing - 3 = increasing
3.0
2.5
Auckland
Wellington
2.0
Christchurch
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
7.6 Strength of ecstasy
Current strength of ecstasy
The frequent drug users were evenly split in regards to their opinion of the current strength of
ecstasy in 2013 (Table 7.8). Overall, the current strength of ecstasy declined from 2006 to 2013
(down from 2.2 to 2.0, p<0.0001) (Figure 7.10). However, the strength of ecstasy then increased
from 2012 to 2013 (up from 1.8 to 2.0), and this increase was very close to being statistically
significant (p=0.0560).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 7. Ecstasy
131
Table 7 8: Current strength of ecstasy by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
Current
strength
of ecstasy
(%)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=191)
Combined
modules
(n=156)
Combined
modules
(n=191)
Combined
modules
(n=157)
Combined
modules
(n=221)
Combined
modules
(n=213)
Combined
modules
(n=179)
Combined
modules
(n=147)
25%
23%
15%
17%
24%
28%
29%
30%
23%
25%
27%
27%
23%
28%
26%
High [3]
28%
31%
26%
Medium
[2]
32%
29%
30%
Fluctuates
[2]
32%
33%
32%
Low [1]
8%
8%
12%
19%
21%
23%
33%
25%
Average
strength
score
(1=low –
3=high)
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
1.8
2.0
Fluctuating/
medium
Fluctuating/
high
Fluctuating/
medium
Medium/
fluctuating
Medium/
fluctuating
Medium/
low
Low/
fluctuating
Fluctuating/
Medium/
low
Overall
current
status
Figure 7 10: Mean score of the current strength of ecstasy by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
3.0
2.5
1=low - 3=high
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Year
132
7. Ecstasy | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
2011
2012
2013
The current strength of ecstasy declined in Auckland from 2006 to 2013 (down from 2.3 to 2.1,
p=0.0041), and then increased from 2012 to 2013 (1.8 to 2.1, p=0.0359) (Figure 7.11). The current
strength of ecstasy also decreased in Christchurch from 2006 to 2013 (down from 2.2 in 2006 to 2.1
in 2013, p=0.0099), and then increased from 2012 to 2013 (up from 1.8 to 2.1, p=0.0054). Finally, the
current strength of ecstasy decreased in Wellington from 2006 to 2013 (2.1 to 1.9, p<0.0001).
Figure 7 11: Mean score of the current strength of ecstasy by location, 2006-2013
3.0
1 = low- 4 = high
2.5
Auckland
Wellington
2.0
Christchurch
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Change in strength of ecstasy
The strength of ecstasy was reported to have been ‘stable/fluctuating’ over the previous six months
in 2013 (Table 7.9). Overall, the frequent drug users were more likely to report the strength of
ecstasy was ‘decreasing’ from 2006 to 2013 (down from 2.0 to 1.9, p=0.0040) (Figure 7.12).
However, the frequent drug users reported some recovery in the strength of ecstasy from 2012 to
2013 (up from 1.7 to 1.9, p=0.0002).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 7. Ecstasy
133
Table 7 9: Change in strength of ecstasy (MDMA) by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=102)
Combined
modules
(n=68)
Combined
modules
(n=86)
Combined
modules
(n=64)
Combined
modules
(n=211)
Combined
modules
(n=197)
Combined
modules
(n=174)
Combined
modules
(n=141)
9%
10%
8%
9%
11%
10%
6%
12%
Stable [2]
36%
39%
29%
31%
33%
28%
28%
38%
Fluctuating [2]
42%
36%
40%
31%
28%
34%
31%
32%
Decreasing [1]
13%
15%
23%
29%
28%
27%
36%
18%
Average
change in
strength score
(1=decreasing
–
3=increasing)
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.9
Overall recent
change
Fluctuating/
stable
Stable/
fluctuating
Fluctuating/
stable
Fluctuating/
stable
Stable/
fluctuating
Fluctuating/
stable
Decreasing/
fluctuating
Stable/
fluctuating
Change in
strength of
ecstasy
(%)
Increasing [3]
Figure 7 12: Mean score of the change in strength of ecstasy by combined frequent drug users, 20062013
1 = decreasing - 3 = increasing
3.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Year
134
7. Ecstasy | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
2011
2012
2013
Similarly, overall the strength of ecstasy was reported to have been declining in Auckland from 2006
to 2013 (down from 2.0 to 1.9, p=0.0065), but then recovered somewhat from 2012 to 2013 (up
from 1.6 to 1.9, p=0.0018) (Figure 7.13). The strength of ecstasy declined in Wellington from 2006 to
2013 (down from 2.0 to 1.9, p=0.0.930). Finally, the frequent drug users from Christchurch reported
a fairly dramatic recovery in the strength of ecstasy from 2012 to 2013 (up from 1.8 to 2.1,
p=0.0042), following an overall downward trend since 2007.
Figure 7 13: Mean score of the change in strength of ecstasy by location, 2006-2013
1 = decreasing - 3 = increasing
3.0
2.5
Auckland
2.0
Wellington
Christchurch
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
7.7 Perceptions of the number of people using ecstasy
The number of people using ecstasy was reported to be ‘same/more’ in the previous six months in
2013 (Table 7.10). A lower proportion of frequent drug users reported that ‘more’ people were using
ecstasy from 2006 to 2013 (down from 2.3 to 2.1, p=0.0021) (Figure 7.14).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 7. Ecstasy
135
Table 7 10: Perceptions of the number of people using ecstasy by combined frequent drug users, 20062013
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Number
of
people
using
ecstasy
(%)
Combined
modules
(n=196)
Combined
modules
(n=159)
Combined
modules
(n=194)
Combined
modules
(n=156)
Combined
modules
(n=226)
Combined
modules
(n=218)
Combined
modules
(n=181)
Combined
modules
(n=149)
More [3]
39%
51%
44%
27%
54%
58%
35%
32%
Same
[2]
50%
43%
48%
60%
30%
31%
45%
44%
Less [1]
11%
6%
8%
14%
16%
12%
20%
24%
Average
number
of
people
using
score
(1=less
–
3=more)
2.3
2.5
2.4
2.1
2.4
2.5
2.1
2.1
Same/
More/
Same/
Same/
More/
More/
Same/
Same/
more
same
more
more
same
same
more
more
Overall
recent
change
Figure 7 14: Mean score of perceptions of the number of people using ecstasy by combined frequent
drug users, 2006-2013
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.4
1 = less - 3 = more
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.1
2.1
2.1
2012
2013
2.0
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Year
136
7. Ecstasy | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
2011
The frequent drug users in Auckland largely reported an increasing number of people using ecstasy
from 2006 to 2013 (Figure 7.15). Similarly, in Christchurch the frequent drug users largely said that
more people were using ecstasy from 2006 to 2013. A lower proportion of frequent drug users from
Wellington reported ‘more’ people using ecstasy from 2006 to 2013 (down from 2.3 to 2.0,
p=0.0027). A further decrease in the number of people using ecstasy in Wellington also happened
from 2012 to 2013 (down from 2.2 to 2.0), and this was close to being statistically significant
(p=0.1349).
Figure 7 15: Mean score of perceptions of the number of people using ecstasy by location, 2006-2013
3.0
1 = less - 3 = more
2.5
Auckland
2.0
Wellington
Christchurch
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
7.8 Purchase of ecstasy
Frequency of purchase of ecstasy
Ninety-three percent of the frequent drug users who answered the ecstasy section had purchased
ecstasy in the previous six months in 2013. Fifteen percent had done so weekly or more often over
the past six months (Table 7.11). The proportion of the frequent drug users who had purchased
ecstasy weekly or more often increased from 9% in 2006 to 15% in 2013 (p=0.0192) (with a peak of
28% in 2010) (Figure 7.16).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 7. Ecstasy
137
Table 7 11: Frequency of purchase of ecstasy in past six months by combined frequent drug users,
2006-2013
Frequency
purchase
in past six
months
(%)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=160)
Combined
modules
(n=127)
Combined
modules
(n=186)
Combined
modules
(n=140)
Combined
modules
(n=196)
Combined
modules
(n=187)
Combined
modules
(n=166)
Combined
modules
(n=139)
1-2 times
22
22
17
22
23
23
18
26
3-4 times
28
21
26
34
17
25
22
25
Once per
month
21
27
19
18
15
17
26
12
Twice per
month
20
15
23
11
17
21
15
23
Once per
week
8
13
13
14
18
12
14
10
2-3 times
per week
1
1
1
1
10
3
4
5
4-5 times
per week
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
Once per
day
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
More than
once per
day
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
138
7. Ecstasy | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 7 16: Proportion of frequent drug users who purchased ecstasy weekly or more often, 2006-2013
100%
90%
% frequent drug users
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
28%
30%
20%
20%
16%
15%
15%
2007
2008
2009
15%
15%
9%
10%
0%
2006
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
In 2013, a lower proportion of frequent drug users in Christchurch had purchased ecstasy weekly or
more often compared to those in Auckland (3% vs. 17%) and Wellington (3% vs. 19%) (Figure 7.17).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 7. Ecstasy
139
Figure 7 17: Proportion of frequent drug users who purchased ecstasy weekly or more often by
location, 2013
100%
% frequent drug users
80%
60%
40%
20%
17%
19%
3%
0%
Auckland
Wellington
Christchurch
Location
Overall, the proportion of frequent drug users in Auckland who purchased ecstasy weekly or more
often increased from 11% in 2006 to 17% in 2013 (p=0.0003) (Figure 7.18). However, clearly there
has been a substantial decline in the frequency of ecstasy purchase in Auckland since a peak in 2010
(i.e. 46% had purchased weekly or more often in 2010). The proportion of frequent drug users from
Christchurch who purchased ecstasy weekly or more often decreased from 15% in 2006 to 3% in
2013 (p=0.0097). Only a very small number of frequent drug users had purchased ecstasy in
Christchurch in 2007 (n=6) and so this proportion has been removed from Figure 7.18.
140
7. Ecstasy | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 7 18: Proportion of frequent drug users who purchased ecstasy weekly or more often by
location, 2006-2013
100%
90%
% frequent drug users
80%
70%
60%
Auckland
50%
Wellington
40%
Christchurch
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Dollar amount spent on ecstasy
The frequent drug users reported spending a median of $60 on ecstasy on a typical occasion (mean
$109) in 2013 (Table 7.12). The mean dollar amount spent on ecstasy on a typical occasion
decreased from $232 in 2006 to $109 in 2013 (p<0.0001).
Table 7 12: Median (mean) dollar amount spent on ecstasy (NZD) on a typical occasion by combined
frequent drug users, 2006-2013
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Number
with
knowledge
n=159
n=128
n=184
n=139
n=192
n=185
n=167
n=140
Median
(mean)
amount
spent
$70
($232)
$70
($129)
$60
($125)
$60
($169)
$60
($195)
$60 ($80)
$60
($101)
$60
($109)
Dollar
amount
spent on
ecstasy ($)
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 7. Ecstasy
141
The mean dollar amount spent on ecstasy on a typical occasion by frequent drug users in Auckland
declined from $400 in 2006 to $91 in 2013 (p<0.0001). The mean dollar amount spent on ecstasy by
frequent drug users in Christchurch decreased from $126 in 2006 to $81 in 2013 (p=0.0467), and
from $104 in 2012 to $81 in 2013 (p=0.0467).
Time taken to purchase ecstasy
Twenty percent of the frequent drug users who had purchased ecstasy in the past six months were
able to do so in one hour or less in 2013 (Table 7.13). The proportion of frequent drug users who
were able to purchase ecstasy in one hour or less decreased from 32% in 2012 to 20% in 2013
(p=0.0198) (Figure 7.19). Previously, the proportion that could purchase ecstasy in one hour or less
had been increasing from 19% in 2006 to 34% in 2009.
Table 7 13: Time taken to purchase ecstasy by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
Time to
purchase
(%)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=158)
Combined
modules
(n=126)
Combined
modules
(n=186)
Combined
modules
(n=139)
Combined
modules
(n=196)
Combined
modules
(n=187)
Combined
modules
(n=165)
Combined
modules
(n=136)
6
5
4
4
4
5
5
10
Days
37
37
34
31
22
18
28
18
About
one day
24
18
22
12
26
28
18
34
Hours
14
16
13
17
19
17
16
19
One
Hour
11
14
11
22
14
22
18
15
8
10
16
14
16
10
14
5
Weeks
Less
than 20
mins
142
7. Ecstasy | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 7 19: Proportion of frequent drug users who could purchase ecstasy in one hour or less, 20062013
100%
90%
% frequent drug users
80%
70%
60%
50%
34%
40%
30%
24%
30%
27%
32%
32%
20%
19%
20%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
The proportion of frequent drug users in Christchurch who could purchase ecstasy in one hour or
less in Christchurch declined from 33% in 2006 to 12% in 2013, although this decrease was not
statistically significant (p=0.1380). The proportion of frequent drug users in Wellington who could
purchase ecstasy in one hour or less decreased from 42% in 2012 to 17% in 2013 (p=0.0040) (Figure
7.20).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 7. Ecstasy
143
Figure 7 20: Proportion of frequent drug users who could purchase ecstasy in one hour or less by
location, 2006-2013
100%
90%
% frequent drug users
80%
70%
60%
Auckland
50%
Wellington
40%
Christchurch
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Location of purchase of ecstasy
Seventy-five percent of the frequent drug users had purchased ecstasy from a ‘private house’, 29%
had purchased ecstasy from a ‘pub, bar or club’ and 29% had purchased it from an ‘agreed public
location’ in 2013 (Table 7.14). A higher proportion of the frequent drug users had purchased ecstasy
from a ‘pub, bar or club’ (up from 13% in 2009 to 29% in 2013, p=0.0209) and a ‘public area, like a
park’ (up from 2% in 2009 to 19% in 2013, p=0.0217). Seven percent of the frequent drug users
reported purchasing ecstasy from the ‘internet’ in 2013. The frequent drug users were less likely to
have purchased ecstasy from a private house from 2012 to 2013 (down from 85% to 75%, p=0.0375).
144
7. Ecstasy | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 7 14: Location from which ecstasy purchased in the past six months by combined frequent drug
users, 2009-2013
Location (%)
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=139)
Combined
modules
(n=184)
Combined
modules
(n=187)
Combined
modules
(n=164)
Combined
modules
(n=134)
Private house
83
82
68
85
75
Pub/bar/club
13
17
33
31
29
Agreed public
location
23
33
31
30
29
10
11
19
Public area (e.g.
park)
2
Educational
institute
0
4
12
2
7
Internet
0
2
<1
4
7
Street market
5
4
6
8
5
‘Tinny’ house
3
3
3
6
5
Work
3
6
7
8
4
9
Types of sellers of ecstasy
Sixty-three percent of the frequent drug users had purchased ecstasy from a ‘friend’, 53% had
purchased ecstasy from a ‘social acquaintance’, and 51% had purchased ecstasy from a ‘drug dealer’
in 2013 (Table 7.15). The proportion of frequent drug users who had purchased ecstasy from a
‘friend’ declined from 79% in 2009 to 63% in 2013 (p=0.0102).
Table 7 15: People from whom ecstasy purchased in the past six months by combined frequent drug
users, 2009-2013
Type of person (%)
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=140)
Combined
modules
(n=189)
Combined
modules
(n=185)
Combined
modules
(n=165)
Combined
modules
(n=136)
Friend
79
76
77
70
63
Social acquaintance
40
51
46
52
53
Drug dealer
50
38
38
46
51
Gang
member/associate
9
6
8
10
6
Partner/family
member
8
12
8
11
5
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 7. Ecstasy
145
7.9 Seizures of ecstasy
Seizures of ecstasy made by the New Zealand Police and New Zealand Customs Service increased
dramatically from 2001 onwards and remained high until 2004. Ecstasy seizures then declined to a
low level for the next five years (Figure 7.21). MDMA became difficult to obtain in the mid-2000s and
seizures of ‘ecstasy’ increasingly were found to contained substitute compounds. There was a
dramatic increase in seizures of these ecstasy substitutes in 2011 when 202,208 (equivalent) tablets
were detected. A substantial proportion of the seizures made in 2011 (i.e. 111,881 tablets) were
from a single New Zealand Police operation conducted in mid-November 2011 which dismantled a
large Auckland based syndicate. The high number of ‘ecstasy’ seizures continued in 2013 with
291,884 (equivalent) tablets seized.
Figure 7 21: Thousands of (equivalent) ecstasy tablets seized in New Zealand, 2000-2013
300
291.9
266.2
257.0
250
Thousands of tablets
218.8
202.2
200
150
115.3
100
83.4
45.1
50
28.7
9.4
25.8
8.8
15.5
4.1
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Source: NDIB, 2014
146
7. Ecstasy | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
7.10 Summary of ecstasy trends
•
The proportion of frequent drug users who thought their ecstasy contained MDMA
increased from 88% in 2012 to 96% in 2013
•
The availability of ecstasy was reported to be ‘easy/difficult’ in 2013
•
The availability of ecstasy declined in Christchurch from 2006 to 2013
•
The availability of ecstasy declined in Wellington from 2012 to 2013
•
The availability of ecstasy was described as ‘stable/more difficult’ in the previous six months
•
The median price of a tablet of ecstasy was $40 in 2013
•
The mean price of a tablet of ecstasy declined from $59 in 2006 to $42 in 2013, and from
$47 in 2012 to $42 in 2013
•
The mean price of a tablet of ecstasy declined in Auckland and Christchurch from 2006 to
2013
•
The mean price of a tablet of ecstasy declined in Wellington from 2012 to 2013
•
Overall, the strength of ecstasy declined from 2006 to 2013. However, there was an increase
in the strength of ecstasy in Auckland and Christchurch from 2012 to 2013
•
The frequent drug users fairly consistently said that the ‘same/more’ people were using
ecstasy from 2006 to 2013.
•
The proportion of frequent drug users who had purchased ecstasy weekly or more often
increased from 9% in 2006 to 15% in 2013
•
The proportion of frequent drug users in Auckland who had purchased ecstasy weekly or
more often increased from 11% in 2006 to 17% in 2013, but there was a substantial decline
from a peak of 46% in 2010
•
The proportion of frequent drug users from Christchurch who had purchased ecstasy weekly
or more often decreased from 15% in 2006 to 3% in 2013
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 7. Ecstasy
147
•
The proportion of frequent drug users who were able to purchase ecstasy in one hour or less
decreased from 32% in 2012 to 20% in 2013. Previously, the proportion that could purchase
ecstasy in one hour or less had been increasing from 19% in 2006 to 34% in 2009.
•
The proportion of frequent drug users in Wellington who were able to purchase ecstasy in
one hour or less decreased from 42% in 2012 to 17% in 2013
•
A higher proportion of frequent drug users purchased ecstasy from a ‘pub, bar or club’,
‘public area like a park’ and from the ‘internet’ from 2009 to 2013
•
The high level of ‘ecstasy’ seizures made in 2011 (202,208 tablets) and 2012 (218,789
tablets) continued in 2013 (291,884 tablets)
148
7. Ecstasy | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
8. Cannabis
8.1 Introduction
Cannabis use has been linked to a number of health and social problems, including respiratory
illness, low educational achievement, mental illness, drug dependency and vehicle crashes (Room et
al., 2010). Cannabis has been the most widely used illegal drug in New Zealand and many other
Western countries for many decades now (Wilkins & Casswell, 2002). However, some decline in
cannabis use was reported in many countries in the latter 2010s, including Australia, the United
Kingdom, Western Europe and the United States (AIHW, 2008, 2011; EMCDDA, 2009; Wilkins &
Sweetsur, 2008). This decrease in cannabis use may reflect greater concern about the health risks of
smoking, the declining social acceptability of smoking, and the increase in the availability of
synthetic stimulants (e.g. methamphetamine, ecstasy) and more recently synthetic cannabinoids
(UNODC, 2012, 2013).
The supply of cannabis in New Zealand is largely met entirely through domestic cultivation, either via
outdoor cultivation or indoor cannabis growing operations (Wilkins et al., 2002a; Wilkins & Casswell,
2003; Yska, 1990). The retail black market for cannabis in New Zealand was estimated to have a
value of $131-$190 million per year (NZD) in the mid-2000s (Wilkins & Casswell, 2002; Wilkins et al.,
2005e). The principal enforcement operation against cannabis in New Zealand has been the annual
cannabis crop eradication operations, and these operations have been shown to achieve fairly high
seizure rates (e.g. 26% in 2009) (Wilkins & Sweetsur, 2011c). Analysis of the structure of the illegal
market for cannabis in New Zealand indicates that many cannabis users receive their cannabis for
‘free’ during group consumption sessions, and that many heavy cannabis users finance their
spending on cannabis through selling cannabis to others (Wilkins & Sweetsur, 2006). Cannabis is
largely sold via personal social networks, but in New Zealand it is also available from semi-public
drug houses, known as ‘tinny’ houses, and these are popular locations for adolescents to purchase
cannabis (Wilkins et al., 2005d).
In recent years a range of synthetic cannabinoid products have been sold in New Zealand and many
other countries as ‘legal’ alternatives to natural cannabis (e.g. ‘K2’, ‘Kronic’, ‘Spice’) (UNODC, 2011;
Wilkins, et al., 2012). Synthetic cannabinoid use has been found to be popular among groups subject
to regular drug testing, including those working in hazardous industries, military personal, offenders
on parole, those in mental health and drug treatment programmes, and youth under institutional
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 8. Cannabis
149
supervision (Perrone et al., 2013). High levels of synthetic cannabinoid use were found among police
arrestees in New Zealand in 2013 and this coincided with reductions in the use and availability of
natural plant cannabis, suggesting some substitution of synthetic cannabinoids for natural cannabis
may be occurring. However, it is not clear that greater use of synthetic cannabinoids will result in
reduced health harm as these products have been associated with serious adverse effects including
vomiting, seizure, agitation and psychosis (Ministry of Health, 2014).
8.2 Knowledge of cannabis trends
Eighty-two percent of the frequent drug users interviewed for the 2013 IDMS (n=255) indicated they
felt confident enough to comment on the price, strength and availability of cannabis in the previous
six months. This included 84% of the frequent ecstasy users (n=96), 84% of the frequent
methamphetamine users (n=78) and 79% of the frequent injecting drug users (n=81). The large
number of respondents answering the cannabis section can mean small changes in variables can
achieve statistical significance. Consequently, the reader is encouraged to note the magnitude of the
variable change, as well as the statistical significance of the test, when interpreting the importance
of the change. Note, the statistical tests are of the mean scores of variables to a number of decimal
places, whereas the mean scores presented in the graphs and tables are rounded to one decimal
place only.
8.3 Availability of cannabis
Current availability of cannabis
The current availability of cannabis was reported to be ‘very easy/easy’ in 2013 (Table 8.1). Sixty-two
percent of the frequent drug users described the current availability of cannabis as ‘very easy’.
Overall, the current availability of cannabis declined slightly from 2006 to 2013 (p=0.0003) (Figure
8.1).
150
8. Cannabis | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 8 1: Current availability of cannabis by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=276)
Combined
modules
(n=263)
Combined
modules
(n=318)
Combined
modules
(n=245)
Combined
modules
(n=344)
Combined
modules
(n=323)
Combined
modules
(n=280)
Combined
modules
(n=258)
Very easy
[4]
60%
64%
82%
73%
69%
56%
59%
62%
Easy [3]
36%
30%
16%
23%
27%
38%
30%
31%
Difficult [2]
4%
5%
3%
3%
3%
5%
10%
7%
Very
difficult [1]
0%
1%
0%
0%
1%
2%
1%
1%
Average
availability
score
(1=very
difficult –
4=very
easy)
3.5
3.6
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.5
3.5
Very easy/
easy
Very easy/
easy
Very easy
Very easy
Very easy/
easy
Very easy/
easy
Very easy/
easy
Very easy/
easy
Current
availability
of
cannabis
(%)
Overall
current
status
Figure 8 1: Current availability of cannabis by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
4.0
3.8
1=very difficult - 4=very easy
3.5
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.5
3.5
2011
2012
2013
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Year
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 8. Cannabis
151
In 2013, the current availability of cannabis was reported to be lower in Christchurch than in
Auckland (3.3 vs. 3.6, p=0.0155). There was a decrease in the current availability of cannabis in
Christchurch from 2006 to 2013 (down from 3.6 to 3.3, p<0.0001) (Figure 8.2). There was an increase
in the current availability of cannabis in Wellington from 2012 to 2013 (up from 3.5 to 3.7), and this
increase was close to being statistically significant (p=0.1009).
Figure 8 2: Current availability of cannabis by combined frequent drug users by location, 2006-2013
4.0
1 = very difficult - 4 = very easy
3.5
3.0
Auckland
2.5
Wellington
Christchurch
2.0
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Year
152
8. Cannabis | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
2011
2012
2013
Change in availability of cannabis
The frequent drug users reported the availability of cannabis had been ‘stable’ over the previous six
months in 2013 (Table 8.2). There was no statistically significant difference in the reported change in
availability of cannabis from 2006 to 2013 (p=0.4583) (Figure 8.3).
Table 8 2: Change in availability of cannabis by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=274)
Combined
modules
(n=261)
Combined
modules
(n=318)
Combined
modules
(n=242)
Combined
modules
(n=337)
Combined
modules
(n=311)
Combined
modules
(n=279)
Combined
modules
(n=257)
Easier [3]
7%
11%
14%
18%
16%
16%
13%
9%
Stable [2]
68%
72%
71%
66%
67%
61%
61%
70%
Fluctuates [2]
16%
8%
9%
10%
11%
12%
12%
12%
More difficult
[1]
9%
9%
6%
5%
6%
12%
14%
10%
Average
change in
availability
score
(1=more
difficult –
3=easier)
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
Stable/
fluctuates
Stable
Stable
Stable/
easier
Stable/
easier
Stable/
easier
Stable/
more
difficult
Stable
Change in
availability
of cannabis
(%)
Overall recent
change
Figure 8 3: Change in availability of cannabis by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
1=more difficult - 3=easier
3.0
2.5
2.1
2.0
2.0
2006
2007
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2011
2012
2013
2.0
1.5
1.0
2008
2009
2010
Year
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 8. Cannabis
153
There was a slight increase in the proportion of frequent drug users in Christchurch who said the
availability of cannabis had become ‘more difficult’ from 2006 to 2013 (p=0.0461) (Figure 8.4).
However, there was a recovery in the availability of cannabis in Christchurch from 2012 to 2013 (up
from 1.9 to 2.0, p=0.0461).
Figure 8 4: Change in availability of cannabis by location, 2006-2013
1=more difficult - 3=easier
3.0
2.5
Auckland
2.0
Wellington
Christchurch
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
8.4 Price of cannabis
Current price of cannabis
The current median price of a ‘tinny’ of cannabis (approximately 1.5 grams) was $20 in 2013, and the
median price of an ounce of cannabis (approximately 28 grams) was $320 in 2013 (Table 8.3). There
was no change in the mean price of a ‘tinny’ of cannabis from 2006 to 2013 (i.e. $20 in all years). The
mean price of an ounce of cannabis increased from $299 in 2006 to $322 in 2013 (p<0.0001) (Figure
8.5).
154
8. Cannabis | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 8 3: Current price of cannabis (NZD) by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
Current price
of cannabis
($)
Number with
knowledge
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
n=229
n=207
n=281
n=195
n=306
n=293
n=248
n=229
$20 ($20)
$20 ($20)
$20 ($20)
$20 ($20)
$20 ($20)
$20 ($20)
$20 ($20)
$20 ($20)
Number with
knowledge
n=175
n=101
n=111
n=101
n=135
n=157
n=161
n=115
Median
(mean) price
for an ounce
(28 grams)
$300 ($299)
$300 ($313)
$300 ($315)
$325 ($317)
$300 ($316)
$350 ($324)
$350 ($326)
$320 ($322)
Number with
knowledge
-
-
n=33
n=24
n=26
n=36
n=40
n=30
Median
(mean) price
for an pound
(16 ounces)
-
-
$3000
($3046)
$3500
($3389)
$3000
($2832)
$3000
($3020)
$3500
($3587)
$4000
($4079)
Median
(mean) price
for a ‘tinny/foil’
(1.5 grams)
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 8. Cannabis
155
Figure 8 5: Price of an ounce of cannabis by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
$400
$350
$299
$313
$315
$317
$316
2007
2008
2009
2010
$324
$326
$322
2011
2012
2013
Price (NZ dollars)
$300
$250
$200
$150
$100
$50
$0
2006
Year
The mean price of an ounce of cannabis was higher in Auckland than in Wellington ($326 vs. $296,
p=0.0267) and higher in Christchurch than in Wellington ($342 vs. $296, p=0.0010) (Table 8.4 and
Figure 8.6).
Table 8 4: Current median (mean) price for cannabis (NZD) by location, 2013
Current price of cannabis
Auckland
Wellington
Christchurch
Number with knowledge
n=89
n=40
n=100
Median (mean) price for a
‘tinny/foil’ (1.5 grams)
$20 ($20)
$20 ($20)
$20 ($20)
Number with knowledge
n=49
n=20
n=46
$350 ($326)
$300 ($296)
$350 ($342)
Median (mean) price for an
ounce (28 grams)
156
8. Cannabis | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 8 6: Mean price paid for an ounce of cannabis (NZD) by location, 2013
$400
$342
$350
$326
$296
Dollars (NZ$)
$300
$250
$200
$150
$100
$50
$0
Auckland
Wellington
Christchurch
Location
The mean price of an ounce of cannabis increased in Auckland from $295 in 2006 to $326 in 2013
(p<0.0001) and in Christchurch from $308 in 2006 to $342 in 2013 (p=0.0004) (Figure 8.7). The price
of an ounce of cannabis in Christchurch also increased from $320 in 2012 to $342 in 2013
(p=0.0252). The mean price of an ounce of cannabis in Wellington decreased from $328 in 2012 to
$296 in 2013, and this decrease was close to being statistically significant (p=0.0967).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 8. Cannabis
157
Figure 8 7: Mean price paid for an ounce of cannabis (NZD) by location, 2006-2013
$400
$350
Price (NZ dollars)
$300
$250
Auckland
$200
Wellington
Christchurch
$150
$100
$50
$0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Change in price of cannabis
The price of cannabis was reported to have been ‘stable’ in the past six months in 2013, and this did
not change from previous years (Table 8.5). The frequent drug users in Auckland were more likely to
describe the price as ‘stable’ from 2006 to 2013 (up from 74% to 93%, p=0.0446). Similarly, the
frequent drug users in Wellington were more likely to say the price of cannabis had been ‘stable’
from 2012 to 2013 (down from 2.1 to 2.0, p=0.0207). A higher proportion of frequent drug users in
Christchurch thought the price of cannabis had increased from 2012 to 2013 (up from 2.1 to 2.2,
p=0.0085).
158
8. Cannabis | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 8 5: Change in the price of cannabis in the past six months by combined frequent drug users,
2006-2013
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Change in
price of
cannabis (%)
Combined
modules
(n=269)
Combined
modules
(n=253)
Combined
modules
(n=312)
Combined
modules
(n=241)
Combined
modules
(n=328)
Combined
modules
(n=315)
Combined
modules
(n=273)
Combined
modules
(n=255)
Increasing [3]
11%
9%
8%
6%
10%
10%
9%
9%
Fluctuating [2]
10%
4%
7%
4%
6%
8%
2%
4%
Stable [2]
75%
82%
84%
89%
81%
81%
88%
86%
1%
3%
2%
1%
2%
4%
4%
1%
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Decreasing
[1]
Average
change in
price score
(1=decreasing
–
3=increasing)
Overall recent
change
8.5 Strength of cannabis
Current strength of cannabis
The current strength of cannabis was reported to be ‘high/medium/fluctuates’ in 2013 (Table 8.6).
There was a small decrease in the current strength of cannabis from 2006 to 2013 (down from 2.42
to 2.36, p=0.0090). The strength of cannabis also decreased slightly from 2012 to 2013 (down from
2.5 to 2.4) and this decline was close to being statistically significant (p=0.0809).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 8. Cannabis
159
Table 8 6: Current strength of cannabis by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
Current
strength
of
cannabis
(%)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=267)
Combined
modules
(n=258)
Combined
modules
(n=309)
Combined
modules
(n=240)
Combined
modules
(n=334)
Combined
modules
(n=306)
Combined
modules
(n=269)
Combined
modules
(n=250)
52%
37%
38%
48%
40%
21%
23%
24%
26%
29%
26%
38%
35%
23%
29%
2%
1%
2%
4%
3%
3%
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.5
2.4
High/
fluctuating
High/
fluctuating
High/
fluctuating
Fluctuating/
high
High/
fluctuating
High/
medium
High/med/
fluctuates
High [3]
46%
51%
49%
Medium
[2]
17%
13%
21%
Fluctuate
s [2]
33%
33%
28%
Low [1]
4%
2%
Average
purity
score
(1=low –
3=high)
2.4
High/
fluctuating
Overall
current
status
Figure 8 8: Mean score of the current strength of cannabis by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.5
2.4
2.4
1=low - 3=high
2.3
2.0
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
There was no change in the current strength of cannabis in Auckland from 2006 to 2013 (p=0.4905).
The strength of cannabis in Wellington declined from 2012 and 2013 (down from 2.5 to 2.3), and this
160
8. Cannabis | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
decrease was close to being statistically significant (p=0.0701). There was a clearer decline in the
strength of cannabis in Christchurch from 2006 to 2013 (down from 2.5 to 2.2, p<0.0001), and
further a further decline from 2012 to 2013 (down from 2.4 to 2.2, p=0.0054) (Figure 8.9).
Figure 8 9: Mean score of the current strength of cannabis by location, 2006-2013
3.0
1=low - 3=high
2.5
Auckland
Wellington
2.0
Christchurch
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Change in strength of cannabis
The strength of cannabis was reported to be ‘stable/fluctuating’ in the previous six months in 2013
(Table 8.7). There was no difference in the perception of the change in the strength of cannabis from
2006 to 2013 (p=0.3175).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 8. Cannabis
161
Table 8 7: Change in strength of cannabis by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=262)
Combined
modules
(n=254)
Combined
modules
(n=303)
Combined
modules
(n=240)
Combined
modules
(n=321)
Combined
modules
(n=292)
Combined
modules
(n=263)
Combined
modules
(n=248)
Increasing [3]
18%
17%
14%
19%
16%
15%
14%
14%
Stable [2]
46%
49%
45%
51%
45%
51%
61%
60%
Fluctuating [2]
31%
30%
39%
26%
34%
30%
19%
24%
Decreasing
[1]
5%
4%
3%
4%
5%
4%
6%
2%
Average
change in
purity score
(1=decreasing
–
3=increasing)
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
Overall recent
change
Stable/
fluctuating
Stable/
fluctuating
Stable/
fluctuating
Stable/
fluctuating
Stable/
fluctuating
Stable/
fluctuating
Stable/
fluctuating
Stable/
fluctuating
Change in
strength of
cannabis
(%)
8.6 Perceptions of the number of people using cannabis
The number of people using cannabis was reported to be the ‘same/more’ in the previous six
months in 2013 (Table 8.8). Overall, a slightly higher proportion of frequent drug users said ‘more’
people were using cannabis from 2006 to 2013 (up from 2.07 to 2.11), and this increase was close to
being statistically significant (p=0.0768) (Figure 8.10).
162
8. Cannabis | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 8 8: Perceptions of the number of people using cannabis by combined frequent drug users, 20062013
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=279)
Combined
modules
(n=261)
Combined
modules
(n=312)
Combined
modules
(n=244)
Combined
modules
(n=341)
Combined
modules
(n=320)
Combined
modules
(n=278)
Combined
modules
(n=259)
More [3]
17%
22%
25%
26%
32%
35%
21%
23%
Same [2]
73%
66%
68%
69%
61%
57%
71%
65%
Less [1]
10%
11%
7%
4%
7%
8%
8%
12%
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.1
2.1
Same/
Same/
Same/
Same/
more
more
more
more
Same/
more
Same
Number
of
people
using
cannabis
(%)
Average
number
of people
using
score
(1=less –
3=more)
Overall
recent
change
Same
Same/
more
Figure 8 10: Perceptions of the number of people using cannabis by combined frequent drug users,
2006-2013
3.0
2.5
1=less - 3=more
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.1
2006
2007
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.1
2012
2013
2.0
1.5
1.0
2008
2009
2010
2011
Year
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 8. Cannabis
163
A higher proportion of frequent drug users in Auckland said ‘more’ people were using cannabis over
the previous eight years (up from 2.0 in 2006 to 2.1 in 2013, p=0.0001) (Figure 8.11).
Figure 8 11: Perceptions of the number of people using cannabis by location, 2006-2013
3.0
1=less - 3=more
2.5
Auckland
2.0
Wellington
Christchurch
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
8.7 Purchase of cannabis
Frequency of purchase of cannabis
Eighty-seven percent of the frequent drug users who answered the cannabis section had purchased
cannabis in the past six months in 2013. Sixty-eight percent of the frequent drug users who had
purchased cannabis had done so weekly or more often in the previous six months in 2013 (Table
8.10). The proportion of frequent drug users who had purchased cannabis weekly or more often
increased from 60% in 2012 to 68% in 2013, and this increase was close to being statistically
significant (p=0.0862).
164
8. Cannabis | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 8 9: Frequency of purchase of cannabis in past six months by combined frequent drug users,
2006-2013
Frequency
purchase
in past six
months
(%)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=202)
Combined
modules
(n=202)
Combined
modules
(n=284)
Combined
modules
(n=193)
Combined
modules
(n=276)
Combined
modules
(n=254)
Combined
modules
(n=227)
Combined
modules
(n=226)
1-2 times
14
13
9
8
12
18
11
10
3-4 times
7
6
9
10
9
9
4
8
Once per
month
11
12
11
9
10
10
14
5
Twice per
month
11
10
11
12
8
12
11
9
Once per
week
27
28
27
30
22
17
19
27
2-3 times
per week
16
17
22
22
20
21
19
27
4-5 times
per week
5
4
5
4
5
5
8
5
Once per
day
8
10
6
4
11
6
11
9
More than
once per
day
1
1
2
0
2
1
2
0.3
The proportion of frequent drug users in Christchurch who purchased cannabis weekly or more
often increased slightly from 65% in 2006 to 67% in 2013 (p=0.0484), and increased more
substantially from 48% in 2012 to 67% in 2013 (p=0.0115). The proportion of frequent drug users in
Auckland who purchased cannabis weekly or more often increased from 52% in 2006 to 71% in 2013
(p=0.0443) (Figure 8.12). The proportion of frequent drug users in Wellington who purchased
cannabis weekly or more often also increased from 51% in 2006 to 66% in 2013, but this increase
was not statistically significant (p=0.1238).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 8. Cannabis
165
Figure 8 12: Proportion of frequent drug users who purchased cannabis weekly or more often by
location, 2006-2013
100%
% frequent drug users who purchased
90%
80%
70%
Auckland
60%
50%
Wellington
40%
Christchurch
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Dollar amount spent on cannabis
The frequent drug users reported spending a median of $20 on cannabis on a typical occasion in the
past six months in 2013 (mean $97) (Table 8.11). The mean dollar amount spent on cannabis on a
typical occasion decreased from $117 in 2006 to $97 in 2013 (p=0.0008).
Table 8 10: Median (mean) dollar amount spent on cannabis (NZD) on typical occasion by combined
frequent drug users, 2006-2013
Amount
spent on
cannabis
($)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
n=202
n=202
n=280
n=192
n=266
n=251
n=228
n=228
$40 ($117)
$50 ($118)
$20 ($70)
$40 ($95)
$30 ($112)
$20 ($86)
$40 ($83)
$20 ($97)
Number
with
knowledge
Median
(mean)
amount
spent
166
8. Cannabis | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
There was a decrease in the mean amount spent on cannabis in Auckland (down from $210 in 2006
to $171 in 2013, p=0.0017). There was also a decrease in the mean amount spent on cannabis in
Christchurch from $72 in 2012 to $39 in 2013 (p=0.0009).
Time taken to purchase cannabis
Eighty -two percent of the frequent drug users were able to purchase cannabis in one hour or less in
the past six months in 2013 (Table 8.11). The proportion of frequent drug users who could purchase
cannabis in one hour or less increased from 75% in 2006 to 82% in 2013 (p=0.0066).
Table 8 11: Time taken to purchase cannabis by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
Time to
purchase
(%)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=203)
Combined
modules
(n=202)
Combined
modules
(n=283)
Combined
modules
(n=193)
Combined
modules
(n=272)
Combined
modules
(n=250)
Combined
modules
(n=227)
Combined
modules
(n=226)
Weeks
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
Days
4
4
1
3
2
3
5
4
About
one day
7
6
6
8
10
12
11
6
Hours
14
17
11
7
14
17
13
8
1 Hour
30
26
28
29
19
26
25
38
Less than
20 mins
45
47
53
53
55
41
45
44
The proportion of frequent drug users in Christchurch who could purchase cannabis in one hour or
less increased sharply from 61% in 2012 to 91% in 2013 (p<.0001) (Figure 8.13).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 8. Cannabis
167
Figure 8 13: Proportion of frequent drug users who could purchase cannabis in one hour or less by
location, 2006-2013
% frequent drug users who purchased
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Auckland
50%
Wellington
40%
Christchurch
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Location of purchase of cannabis
In 2013, 82% of the frequent drug users had purchased cannabis from a ‘private house’, 49% from a
‘tinny house’, and 33% from an ‘agreed public location’ (Table 8.13). A higher proportion of the
frequent drug users purchased cannabis from a ‘public area’ (up from 12% in 2009 to 27% in 2013,
p<0.0001) and from the internet (up from 1% in 2009 to 3% in 2013), with the latter increase close
to being statistically significant (p=0.0921). Conversely, the proportion who purchased cannabis from
a ‘street drug market’ declined from 21% in 2012 to 13% in 2013 (p=0.0437).
168
8. Cannabis | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 8 12: Location from which cannabis purchased in the past six months by combined frequent drug
users, 2009-2013
Location (%)
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
(n=193)
(n=267)
Combined
modules
(n=249)
Combined
modules
(n=225)
Combined
modules
(n=228)
Private house
85
79
72
86
82
‘Tinny’ house
44
51
38
46
49
Agreed public
location
29
29
29
38
33
Public area (e.g.
park)
12
12
15
24
27
Pub/bar/club
10
12
9
14
17
Street drug market
12
8
13
21
13
Work
11
7
11
8
9
Educational
institute
2
6
7
8
8
Internet
1
2
2
6
3
Types of sellers of cannabis
In 2013, 71% of the frequent drug users had purchased cannabis from a ‘friend’, 61% had purchased
from a ‘drug dealer’ and 57% had purchased from a ‘social acquaintance’ (Table 8.13). The
proportion of frequent drug users who had purchased cannabis from a ‘gang member or gang
associate’ increased from 27% in 2012 to 35% in 2013 (p=0.0627). A lower proportion of frequent
drug users had purchased cannabis from a ‘friend’ (down from 79% in 2012 to 71% in 2013,
p=0.0541).
Table 8 13: People from whom cannabis purchased in the past six months by combined frequent drug
users, 2009-2013
Type of person (%)
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=1193)
Combined
modules
(n=265)
Combined
modules
(n=248)
Combined
modules
(n=226)
Combined
modules
(n=226)
Friend
74
73
74
79
71
Drug dealer
67
55
45
63
61
Social acquaintance
46
54
45
55
57
Gang
member/associate
19
25
21
27
35
Partner/family
member
19
23
18
22
21
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 8. Cannabis
169
8.8 Seizures of cannabis plants
There was a dramatic increase in the number of cannabis plants seized in 2003 (Figure 8.14). The
number of plant seizures then declined slowly over the next four years. Over recent years the annual
cannabis crop recovery operation has developed a greater focuses on criminal groups involved in
cannabis cultivation and related offending, rather than merely volume of seizures. In 2013, 155,319
cannabis plants were located and destroyed, and this total was 30% higher than the number seized
in the previous year.
Figure 8 14: Annual number of cannabis plants destroyed in New Zealand, 2000-2013
220,000
193,740
200,000
189,390
182,606
161,516
180,000
Number of cannabis plants
170,104
158,058
160,000
160,643
155,319
144,039
140,000
128,414
119,059
120,000
100,000
105,131
90,857
73,772
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Source: NDIB, 2014
170
8. Cannabis | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
8.9 Summary of cannabis trends
•
The current availability of cannabis was reported to be ‘very easy/easy’ in 2013
•
Overall, the current availability of cannabis declined slightly from 2006 to 2013
•
The current availability of cannabis declined in Christchurch from 2006 to 2013
•
The frequent drug users described the availability of cannabis as ‘stable’ in 2013
•
The median price of a ‘tinny’ of cannabis was $20, and the median price of an ounce of
cannabis was $320, in 2013
•
The mean price of an ounce of cannabis increased from $299 in 2006 to $322 in 2013
•
The mean price of an ounce of cannabis increased from 2006 to 2013 in Auckland (up from
$295 to $326) and in Christchurch (up from $308 to $342)
•
The current strength of cannabis was described as ‘high/medium/fluctuates ’ in 2013
•
The current strength of cannabis decreased in Christchurch from 2006 to 2013
•
A slightly higher proportion of frequent drug users in Auckland said ‘more’ people were
using cannabis from 2006 to 2013
•
The proportion of frequent drug users in Christchurch who purchased cannabis weekly or
more often increased slightly from 65% in 2006 to 67% in 2013
•
The proportion of frequent drug users in Auckland who purchased cannabis weekly or more
often increased fairly steadily from 52% in 2006 to 71% in 2013
•
Eighty two percent of the frequent drug users could purchase cannabis in one hour or less in
2013
•
The proportion of frequent drug users who could purchase cannabis in one hour or less
increased from 71% in 2006 to 82% in 2013
•
In 2013, the New Zealand Police seized 155,319 cannabis plants, and this total was 30%
higher than the number seized in the previous year
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 8. Cannabis
171
9. LSD
9.1 Introduction
Lysergic acid diethylamide or LSD (‘trips’ or ‘acid’) is a hallucinogen which became popular in many
Western countries during the 1960s. LSD is taken in minute amounts dissolved into everyday
materials, such as small pieces of blotting paper (known as ‘tabs’). While the use of LSD waned in
many countries in the decades following the 1960s, it remained relatively popular in New Zealand up
until the late 1990s. LSD use began to decline during the early 2000s following the emergence of
ecstasy and methamphetamine (Wilkins, et al., 2002b; Wilkins, et al., 2003).
A number of synthetic psychedelics from the NBOMe family have emerged in recent years, which are
often presumed by users to be LSD, including 25I-NBOMe, 25C-NBOMe, 25B-NBOMe and 25HNBOMe (EMCDDA, 2014). These compounds are often sold on blotter tabs similar to LSD, but
NBOMe compounds are many times more potent than LSD (i.e. active in sub-milligram doses)
(EMCDDA, 2014). The high potency of these compounds increase the risk of overdose and makes
them difficult to detect (EMCDDA, 2014). NBOMe compounds appear to be responsible for a number
of overdoses and related fatalities in the United States and Europe (ACMD, 2013; EMCDDA, 2014).
The ESR reported a substantial increase in detections of NBOMe among drug seizures from February
to October 2013 (ESR, 2014).
9.2 Knowledge of LSD trends
Twenty-eight percent of the frequent drug users interviewed for the 2013 IDMS (n=88) indicated
they felt confident enough to comment on the price, purity and availability of LSD in the previous six
months. This included 53% of the frequent ecstasy users (n=55), 17% of the frequent
methamphetamine users (n=15) and 22% of the frequent injecting drug users (n=18).
9.3 Availability of LSD
Current availability
The frequent drug users reported the current availability of LSD was ‘difficult/easy’ in 2013 (Table
9.1). There was no statistically significant change in the current availability of LSD from 2006 to 2013
172
9. LSD | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
(Figure 9.1). However, the current availability of LSD increased from 2012 to 2013 (up from 2.5 to
2.7), and this increase was close to being statistically significant (p=0.1566).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 9. LSD
173
Table 9 1: Current availability of LSD by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
Current
availability
of LSD (%)
Very easy [4]
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=124)
Combined
modules
(n=102)
Combined
modules
(n=111)
Combined
modules
(n=97)
Combined
modules
(n=113)
Combined
modules
(n=93)
Combined
modules
(n=96)
Combined
modules
(n=88)
9%
16%
19%
9%
12%
10%
13%
19%
Easy [3]
46%
34%
48%
49%
43%
39%
33%
35%
Difficult [2]
38%
42%
32%
36%
36%
48%
48%
43%
7%
8%
2%
7%
9%
2%
6%
3%
Average
availability
score (1=very
difficult
–
4=very easy)
2.6
2.6
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.7
Overall
current status
Easy/
difficult
Difficult/
easy
Easy/
difficult
Easy/
difficult
Easy/
difficult
Difficult/
easy
Difficult/
easy
Difficult/
easy
Very
[1]
difficult
174
9. LSD | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 9 1: Mean score of the current availability of LSD by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
4.0
1=very difficult - 4=very easy
3.5
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Change in availability
The frequent drug users described the availability of LSD as ‘stable/more difficult’ over the previous
six months in 2013 (Table 9.2). There was no statistically significant change in the availability of LSD
from 2006 to 2013 (Figure 9.2).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 9. LSD
175
Table 9 2: Change in availability of LSD by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
Change in
availability
of LSD (%)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=119)
Combined
modules
(n=96)
Combined
modules
(n=107)
Combined
modules
(n=90)
Combined
modules
(n=110)
Combined
modules
(n=94)
Combined
modules
(n=96)
Combined
modules
(n=81)
Easier [3]
16%
20%
17%
24%
12%
17%
13%
17%
Stable [2]
33%
41%
53%
41%
35%
45%
37%
52%
Fluctuates
[2]
32%
20%
20%
12%
25%
21%
27%
13%
More difficult
[1]
19%
20%
10%
23%
29%
18%
24%
19%
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.0
1.8
2.0
1.9
2.0
Stable/
fluctuates
Stable/
easier
Stable/
fluctuates
Stable/
easier
Stable/
more
difficult
Stable/
fluctuates
Stable/
fluctuates
Stable/
more
difficult
Average
change in
availability
score
(1=more
difficult –
3=easier)
Overall
recent
change
176
9. LSD | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 9 2: Mean score of the change in availability of LSD by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
1=more difficult - 3=easier
3.0
2.5
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.9
2.0
1.8
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
9.4 Price of LSD
Current price
The median price of a ‘tab’ of LSD was $40 in 2013 (Table 9.3). The mean price of a ‘tab’ of LSD
decreased from $38 in 2012 to $35 in 2013, and this decline was very close to being statistically
significant (p=0.0592) (Figure 9.3).
Table 9 3: Current median (mean) price for LSD (NZD) by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Current
Combined
Combined
Combined
Combined
Combined
Combined
Combined
Combined
price of
modules
modules
modules
modules
modules
modules
modules
modules
LSD ($)
(n=117)
(n=75)
(n=79)
(n=77)
(n=88)
(n=81)
(n=80)
(n= 72)
Median
(mean)
price for
$35 ($35)
$40 ($36)
$40 ($39)
$40 ($37)
$40 ($37)
$40 ($37)
$40 ($38)
$40 ($35)
a ‘tab’
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 9. LSD
177
Figure 9 3: Mean price of a ‘tab’ of LSD by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
$45
$39
$40
$35
$37
$36
$37
$38
$37
$35
NZ Dollars ($)
$35
$30
$25
$20
$15
$10
$5
$0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Change in price
The price of LSD was reported to be ‘stable’ over the previous six months in 2013 (Table 9.4). There
was no statistically significant difference in the reported change in price of LSD from 2006 to 2013.
The frequent drug users were less likely to described the price as increasing from 2012 to 2013
(down from 2.1 to 2.0), but this decline was not statistically significant (p=0.1509).
178
9. LSD | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 9 4: Change in the price of LSD in the past six months by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
Change in
price of LSD
(%)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=117)
Combined
modules
(n=96)
Combined
modules
(n=103)
Combined
modules
(n=88)
Combined
modules
(n=107)
Combined
modules
(n=91)
Combined
modules
(n=87)
Combined
modules
(n=80)
Increasing [3]
11%
13%
6%
7%
13%
12%
14%
8%
Fluctuating [2]
10%
11%
10%
13%
16%
13%
8%
12%
Stable [2]
70%
70%
73%
71%
58%
68%
73%
72%
Decreasing [1]
10%
6%
11%
9%
13%
7%
5%
8%
Average
change in price
score
(1=decreasing
– 3=increasing)
2.0
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.0
Overall recent
change
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable/
fluctuating
Stable/
fluctuating
Stable
Stable
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 9. LSD
179
9.5 Strength of LSD
Current strength
The current strength of LSD was reported to be ‘medium/high’ in 2013 (Table 9.5). There was no
statistically significant change in the current strength of LSD from 2006 to 2013 (Figure 9.4).
Table 9 5: Current strength of LSD by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
Current
strength
of LSD
(%)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=121)
Combined
modules
(n=92)
Combined
modules
(n=99)
Combined
modules
(n=90)
Combined
modules
(n=106)
Combined
modules
(n=84)
Combined
modules
(n=90)
Combined
modules
(n=82)
High [3]
25%
35%
31%
38%
16%
24%
26%
31%
Medium [2]
41%
23%
35%
33%
34%
34%
47%
33%
Fluctuates
[2]
25%
27%
27%
17%
37%
31%
21%
22%
Low [1]
8%
16%
8%
13%
13%
11%
7%
15%
Average
purity
score
(1=low
–
3=high)
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.2
Medium/
fluctuates
High/
fluctuates
Medium/
high
High/
medium
Fluctuates/
medium
Medium/
fluctuates
Medium/
high
Medium/
high
Overall
current
status
Figure 9 4: Mean score of the current strength of LSD by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
3.0
2.5
1=low - 3=high
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2012
2013
2.1
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Year
180
9. LSD | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
2011
Change in strength
The strength of LSD was reported to be ‘stable/fluctuating’ in the previous six months in 2013 (Table
9.6). Overall, the frequent drug users were more likely to say the strength of LSD was slightly
declining from 2006 to 2013 (down from 2.0 to 1.9, p=0.0195) (Figure 9.5). Some recovery in the
strength of LSD was noted from 2012 to 2013 (up from 1.8 to 1.9), but this increase was not
statistically significant (p=0.1384).
Table 9 6: Change in strength of LSD by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=109)
Combined
modules
(n=85)
Combined
modules
(n=91)
Combined
modules
(n=81)
Combined
modules
(n=95)
Combined
modules
(n=76)
Combined
modules
(n=82)
Combined
modules
(n=74)
Increasing [3]
15%
15%
10%
10%
9%
9%
3%
12%
Stable [2]
44%
38%
42%
55%
36%
24%
51%
44%
Fluctuating [2]
29%
30%
34%
24%
37%
46%
25%
26%
Decreasing
[1]
12%
17%
13%
12%
18%
21%
21%
18%
Average
change in
purity score
(1=decreasing
–
3=increasing)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.9
Overall recent
change
Stable/
fluctuating
Stable/
fluctuating
Stable/
fluctuating
Stable/
fluctuating
Fluctuating/
stable
Fluctuating/
stable
Stable/
fluctuating
Stable/
fluctuating
Change in
strength of
LSD (%)
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 9. LSD
181
Figure 9 5: Change in the mean score of the strength of LSD by combined frequent drug users, 20062013
1=decreasing - 3=increasing
3.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
9.6 Perceptions of the number of people using LSD
The number of people using LSD was reported to be the ‘same/less’ compared to six months ago in
2013. There was no statistically significant difference in reports of the change in the number of
people using LSD from 2006 to 2013 (p=0.7478).
182
9. LSD | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 9 7: Perceptions of the number of people using LSD by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
Number
of people
using
LSD (%)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=125)
Combined
modules
(n=101)
Combined
modules
(n=111)
Combined
modules
(n=99)
Combined
modules
(n=111)
Combined
modules
(n=92)
Combined
modules
(n=93)
Combined
modules
(n=85)
More [3]
22%
27%
26%
28%
30%
25%
20%
17%
Same [2]
50%
51%
57%
55%
42%
54%
53%
66%
Less [1]
28%
22%
17%
17%
26%
22%
27%
18%
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
1.9
2.0
Same/
less
Same/
more
Same/
more
Same/
more
Same/
more
Same/
more
Same/
less
Same/
less
Average
number of
people
using
score
(1=less –
3=more)
Overall
recent
change
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 9. LSD
183
9.7 Seizures of LSD
LSD is a particularly difficult drug to detect as only a minute amount is required for a typical dose.
Seizures of LSD were low from 2001 to 2008. This changed dramatically in 2009 when a record
53,177 tabs was seized. This figure was largely made up of a single large seizure of 50,000 tabs made
in November 2009. Collating seizures of LSD has become more difficult in recent years with the
emergence of synthetic psychedelics, such as the NBOMe family of compounds, as these are sold in
the same tab format as LSD. As a consequence, the seizure figure for 2013 (i.e. 18,981 tabs) includes
LSD and other synthetic psychedelics. The total number of tabs seized in 2013 is considerable higher
that the seizures made in the previous three years.
Figure 9 6: Number of tabs of LSD and other synthetic psychedelics seized in New Zealand, 1999-2013
60,000
53,177
50,000
Number (tabs)
40,000
30,000
20,000
19,331
18,981
13,687
7,033
10,000
1,057 434
745 1,529
3,483
1,031
2,672
836
928 1,290
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Source : NDIB, 2014
184
9. LSD | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
9.8 Summary of LSD trends
•
The current availability of LSD was reported to be ‘difficult/easy’ in 2013
•
There was no change in the current availability of LSD from 2006 to 2013, but some evidence
of an increase in availability in 2013
•
The median price of a ‘tab’ of LSD was $40 in 2013
•
The price of LSD was reported to be ‘stable’ over the past six months in 2013
•
The mean price of a ‘tab’ of LSD declined slightly from $38 in 2012 to $35 in 2013
•
The current strength of LSD was described as ‘medium/high’ in 2013
•
The frequent drug users described the strength of LSD as ‘declining’ from 2009 onwards, but
there was some recovery in strength in 2013
•
A higher proportion of frequent drug users described the number of people using LSD as the
‘same’ in 2013
•
A three year record of 18,981 tabs of LSD and other synthetic psychedelics were seized in
2013 compared to just 1,290 tabs in 2012
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 9. LSD
185
10. Street Morphine
10.1 Introduction
Morphine is a potent opiate analgesic which acts directly on the central nervous system, and has a
high potential for creating physical dependency. Pharmaceutical morphine is one of the principal
opioids used by injecting drug users in New Zealand, primarily due to the on-going poor supply of
internationally sourced heroin (Wilkins, et al., 2010a; Wilkins, et al., 2011a). The international supply
of heroin to New Zealand was substantially disrupted in the late 1970s by the arrest of the ‘Mr Asia’
heroin syndicate (New Zealand Customs Service, 2002; Newbold, 2000). Three domestic sources of
opioids emerged in the subsequent decades to largely replace heroin: (1) ‘street morphine’ pharmaceutical
morphine
illicitly
diverted
from
the
medical
system;
(2)
‘homebake
heroin/morphine’ – morphine made by users from diverted codeine in make-shift ‘kitchen’
laboratories; and (3) opium extracted on a seasonal basis from locally grown opium poppies
(Adamson & Sellman, 1998; New Zealand Customs Service, 2002).The IDMS has collected separate
trend data on the four main opioid groups used in New Zealand since 2008 (i.e. ‘street’ morphine,
‘street’ methadone, heroin and ‘homebake’ heroin/morphine).
The 2012 IDMS found some fairly dramatic changes in the ‘street’ morphine market (Wilkins, et al.,
2013). The availability of morphine declined sharply, and the price and strength increased compared
to previous years (Wilkins, et al., 2013). Most of the frequent injecting drug users interviewed for the
2012 IDMS came from Christchurch, as this area has a large injecting drug using population, and so
the observed market changes may have reflected local conditions there, including on-going social
disruption caused by the 2011 earthquakes, lifestyle changes brought about by the earthquakes,
changes in prescription practices as a result of earthquake related trauma, and local enforcement
operations.
10.2 Knowledge of street morphine
Thirty percent of the frequent drug users interviewed for the 2013 IDMS (n=97) indicated they felt
confident enough to comment on the price, strength and availability of ‘street’ morphine in the
previous six months. This included 74% of the frequent injecting drug users (n=77), 14% of the
frequent methamphetamine users (n=12) and 10% of the frequent ecstasy users (n=8).
186
10. Street Morphine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
10.3 Availability of street morphine
Current availability of street morphine
The frequent drug users reported the current availability of street morphine to be ‘difficult/easy’ in
2013 (Table 10.1). There was a substantial decline in the current availability of street morphine from
2008 to 2013 (down from 3.3 to 2.6, p<0.0001) (Figure 10.1). The current availability of street
morphine also declined from 2012 to 2013 (down from 2.8 to 2.6), but this decrease was not
statistically significant (p=0.2502).
Table 10 1: Current availability of street morphine by combined frequent drug users, 2008-2013
Current availability
of street morphine
(%)
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=110)
Combined
modules
(n=108)
Combined
modules
(n=116)
Combined
modules
(n=96)
Combined
modules
(n=97)
Combined
modules
(n=95)
Very easy [4]
40%
50%
33%
40%
23%
23%
Easy [3]
52%
40%
54%
41%
32%
29%
Difficult [2]
7%
9%
12%
17%
45%
35%
Very difficult [1]
1%
1%
1%
1%
0%
13%
Average availability
score (1=very difficult
– 4=very easy)
3.3
3.4
3.2
3.2
2.8
2.6
Overall current status
Easy/
very easy
Very easy/
easy
Easy/
very easy
Easy/
very easy
Difficult/
easy
Difficult/
easy
Figure 10 1: Current availability of street morphine by combined frequent drug users, 2008-2013
1=very difficult - 4=very easy
4.0
3.5
3.3
3.4
3.2
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 10. Street Morphine
187
The current availability of street morphine declined sharply in Christchurch from 3.4 in 2008 to 2.5 in
2013 (p<0.0001) (Figure 10.2). There was no similar change in the availability of street morphine in
Wellington from 2008 to 2013 (p=0.4597), although the numbers answering the questions in this
section from Wellington in 2013 were fairly modest (n=17).
Figure 10 2: Current availability of street morphine in Wellington and Christchurch, 2008-2013
4.0
3.6
1 = very difficult - 4 = very easy
3.5
3.0
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.2
3.0
3.0
3.2
3.1
2.5
2.6
Wellington
2.9
Christchurch
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Change in availability of street morphine
The frequent drug users reported the availability of street morphine had been ‘more difficult/stable’
over the past six months in 2013 (Table 10.2). A greater proportion of frequent drug users reported
that street morphine was ‘more difficult’ to obtain from 2008 to 2013 (up from 11% to 44%,
p<0.0001) (Figure 10.3). There was no statistically significant change in the availability of street
morphine from 2012 to 2013 (p=0.6330).
188
10. Street Morphine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 10 2: Change in availability of street morphine by combined frequent drug users, 2008-2013
Change in
availability of street
morphine (%)
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=110)
Combined
modules
(n=109)
Combined
modules
(n=113)
Combined
modules
(n=93)
Combined
modules
(n=97)
Combined
modules
(n=96)
Easier [3]
13%
16%
16%
7%
1%
12%
Stable [2]
62%
60%
53%
65%
44%
26%
Fluctuates [2]
14%
7%
12%
16%
18%
18%
More difficult [1]
11%
17%
19%
12%
37%
44%
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.6
1.7
Stable/
fluctuates
Stable/
more difficult
Stable/
more difficult
Stable/
fluctuates
Stable/
more difficult
More difficult/
stable
Average change in
availability score
(1=more difficult –
3=easier)
Overall recent change
Figure 10 3: Change in availability of street morphine by combined frequent drug users, 2008-2013
1=more difficult - 3=easier
3.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
A greater proportion of frequent drug users in Christchurch reported that street morphine was
‘more difficult’ to obtain from 2008 to 2013 (up from 3% to 59%, p<0.0001) (Figure 10.4). A greater
proportion of frequent drug users in Wellington reported the availability of street morphine had
become ‘easier’ from 2008 to 2013 (up from 1.7 to 2.2, p=0.0043, n=18). The Wellington frequent
drug users also reported an increase in availability from 2012 to 2013 (up from 1.9 to 2.2), but this
increase was not statistically significant (p=0.1450).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 10. Street Morphine
189
Figure 10 4: Change in availability of street morphine in Wellington and Christchurch, 2008-2013
1 = more difficult- 3 = easier
3.0
2.5
Wellington
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
Christchurch
1.9
2.0
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
10.4 Price of street morphine
Current price of street morphine
The current median price for one milligram of street morphine was $1 (or $100 per 100 milligrams)
in 2013 (Table 10.3). The mean price of 100 milligrams of street morphine increased from $99 in
2008 to $104 in 2013, and this increase was very close to being statistically significant (p=0.0520).
The mean price of morphine also increased from $98 in 2012 to $104 in 2013, and this increase was
also close to being statistically significant (p=0.0706) (Figure 10.5)
Table 10 3: Current median (mean) price for street morphine (NZD) by combined frequent drug users,
2008-2013
Current price of
street morphine
($)
Median (mean)
price for a
milligram
190
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules(n=103)
Combined
modules
(n=109)
Combined
modules
(n=109)
Combined
modules
(n=84)
Combined
modules
(n=93)
Combined
modules
(n=87)
$1.00
($0.99)
$1.00
($0.96)
$1.00
($0.84)
10. Street Morphine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
$1.00
($0.95)
$1.00
($0.98)
$1.00
($1.04)
Figure 10 5: Current mean price paid for 100 milligrams of street morphine (NZD), 2008-2013
$200
$180
Dollars (NZ$)
$160
$140
$120
$99
$96
$100
$95
$98
$104
2011
2012
2013
$84
$80
$60
$40
$20
$0
2008
2009
2010
Year
The price of morphine in Christchurch increased from $102 in 2008 to $114 in 2013 (p=0.0063), and
from $98 in 2012 to $114 in 2013 (p<0.0001). In contrast, the frequent drug users in Wellington
reported the price of morphine had decreased from $104 in 2012 to $88 in 2013, and this decline
was very close to being statistically significant (p=0.0508).
Figure 10 6: Current mean price paid for 100 milligrams of street morphine in Wellington and
Christchurch (NZD), 2008-2013
$120
$110
$110
$104
$110
$100
$100
$102
$90
Dollars ($NZD)
$114
$97
$88
$98
$94
$88
$86
$80
Wellington
$70
Christchurch
$60
$50
$40
$30
$20
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 10. Street Morphine
191
Change in price of street morphine
The price of street morphine was considered to have been ‘increasing/stable’ over the past six
months in 2013 (Table 10.4). A higher proportion of frequent drug users thought the price of street
morphine was ‘increasing’ from 2008 to 2013 (up from 2% to 41%, p<0.0001) (Figure 10.7). The
proportion of frequent drug users who said the price of morphine was ‘increasing’ also increased
from 2012 to 2013 (up from 30% to 41%), but this increase was not statistically significant
(p=0.2437).
Table 10 4: Change in the price of street morphine in the past six months by combined frequent drug
users, 2008-2013
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules(n=106)
Combined
modules(n=107)
Combined
modules
(n=114)
Combined
modules
(n=95)
Combined
modules
(n=93)
Combined
modules
(n=92)
Increasing [3]
2%
2%
12%
7%
30%
41%
Fluctuating [2]
6%
4%
8%
3%
5%
14%
Stable [2]
80%
77%
70%
80%
62%
40%
Decreasing
[1]
18%
10%
8%
4%
5%
12%
1.9
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.3
2.4
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable/
increasing
Increasing/
stable
Change in
price of
street
morphine
(%)
Average
change in
price score
(1=decreasing
–
3=increasing)
Overall recent
change
192
10. Street Morphine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 10 7: Change in the price of street morphine in the past six months by combined frequent drug
users, 2008-2013
1 = decreasing - 3 = increasing
3.0
2.4
2.5
2.3
2.0
2.0
2.0
2010
2011
1.9
1.8
1.5
1.0
2008
2009
2012
2013
Year
There was no statistically significant difference in perceptions of the change in the price of morphine
in Wellington from 2008 to 2013 (2.0 to 1.9, p=0.9550, n=17) (Figure 10.8). In contrast, the frequent
drug users in Christchurch were much more likely to describe the price as ‘increasing’ from 2008 to
2013 (up from 1% to 66%, p<0.0001).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 10. Street Morphine
193
Figure 10 8: Change in the price of street morphine in the past six months in Wellington and
Christchurch, 2008-2013
3.0
1 = decreasing - 3= increasing
2.7
2.4
2.5
Wellington
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.9
Christchurch
2.0
1.9
1.7
1.5
1.0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
10.5 Strength of street morphine
Current strength of street morphine
The current strength of street morphine was considered to be ‘medium/high’ in 2013 (Table 10.5).
The strength of street morphine declined sharply from 2012 to 2013 (down from 2.7 to 2.3,
p<0.0001), and now more closely resembles the strength levels reported in previous years (Figure
10.9).
194
10. Street Morphine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 10 5: Current strength of street morphine by combined frequent drug users, 2008-2013
Current strength
of street
morphine (%)
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=111)
Combined
modules
(n=100)
Combined
modules
(n=75)
Combined
modules
(n=83)
Combined
modules
(n=87)
Combined
modules
(n=78)
High [3]
57%
40%
44%
41%
74%
33%
Medium [2]
29%
41%
33%
42%
21%
54%
Fluctuates [2]
11%
9%
18%
17%
4%
13%
Low [1]
4%
10%
5%
0%
1%
0%
Average strength
score (1=low –
3=high)
2.5
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.7
2.3
High/
medium
Medium/
high
High/
medium
Medium/
high
High
Medium/
high
Overall current
status
Figure 10 9: Current strength of street morphine in the past six months by combined frequent drug
users, 2008-2013
3.0
2.7
2.5
1=low - 3=high
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.3
2.3
2.0
1.5
1.0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
The frequent drug users in Wellington reported a decline in the current strength of street morphine
from 2008 to 2013 (down from 2.9 to 2.3, p=0.0001), and from 2012 to 2013 (down from 2.6 to 2.3),
and the latter was very close to being statistically significant (p=0.0685) (Figure 10.10). The frequent
drug users in Christchurch also reported a decline in the strength of morphine from 2012 to 2013
(down from 2.8 to 2.3, p<0.0001).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 10. Street Morphine
195
Figure 10 10: Current strength of street morphine in Wellington and Christchurch, 2008-2013
2.9
3.0
2.8
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.5
1 = low - 3 = high
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.3
Wellington
2.0
Christchurch
1.5
1.0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Change in strength of street morphine
The strength of street morphine was reported to have been ‘stable’ in the past six months in 2013
(Table 10.6). There was no statistically significant difference in the change in strength of street
morphine from 2008 to 2013 (2.0 in all the years) (p=0.1286).
Table 10 6: Change in strength of street morphine by combined frequent drug users, 2008-2013
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules(n=110)
Combined
modules(n=106)
Combined
modules
(n=108)
Combined
modules
(n=92)
Combined
modules
(n=91)
Combined
modules
(n=84)
2%
3%
2%
2%
0%
3%
88%
89%
88%
86%
97%
91%
Fluctuating [2]
6%
5%
8%
10%
3%
5%
Decreasing [1]
5%
3%
3%
2%
0%
1%
Average change
in strength score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Change in
strength of
street morphine
(%)
Increasing [3]
Stable [2]
Overall recent
change
196
10. Street Morphine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
10.6 Perceptions of the number of people using street morphine
The number of people using street morphine was reported to be the ‘same/more’ in 2013 (Table
10.7). A higher proportion of frequent drug users reported ‘more’ people using street morphine
from 2012 to 2013 (up from 1.9 to 2.1, p=0.0204).
Table 10 7: Perceptions of the number of people using street morphine, 2008-2013
Number of people
using street
morphine (%)
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=109)
Combined
modules(n=108)
Combined
modules
(n=109)
Combined
modules
(n=89)
Combined
modules
(n=92)
Combined
modules
(n=94)
More [3]
22%
18%
26%
29%
15%
27%
Same [2]
59%
62%
54%
46%
61%
59%
Less [1]
19%
19%
20%
25%
23%
14%
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.0
1.9
2.1
Same/
more
Same/
less
Same/
more
Same/
more
Same/
less
Same/
more
Average number of
people using score
(1=less – 3=more)
Overall recent change
The frequent drug users in Wellington reported ‘more’ people using morphine from 2008 to 2013
(up from 1.9 to 2.3, p=0.0146), and from 2012 to 2013 (up from 1.9 to 2.3), and the latter was close
to being statistically significant (p=0.0770) (Figure 10.11). There was no change in perceptions of the
number of people using morphine in Christchurch from 2008 to 2013 (2.1 to 2.0, p=0.2991).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 10. Street Morphine
197
Figure 10 11: Perceptions of the number of people using street morphine in Wellington and
Christchurch, 2008-2013
3.0
1 = less - 3 = more
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
Wellington
2.0
2.0
Christchurch
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.6
1.5
1.0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
10.7 Purchase of street morphine
Frequency of purchase of street morphine
Seventy two percent of the frequent drug users who purchased street morphine had done so weekly
or more often in the previous six months in 2013 (Table 10.8). The proportion of the frequent drug
users who purchased street morphine weekly or more often increased from 55% in 2008 to 72% in
2013, but this increase was not statistically significant (p=0.1874).
198
10. Street Morphine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 10 8: Frequency of purchase of street morphine in past six months by combined frequent drug
users, 2008-2013
Frequency purchase in
past six months (%)
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=94)
Combined
modules
(n=89)
Combined
modules
(n=90)
Combined
modules
(n=67)
Combined
modules
(n=85)
Combined
modules
(n=83)
1-2 times
7
10
12
18
12
9
3-4 times
18
7
10
12
8
1
Once per month
12
6
15
8
7
8
Twice per month
8
6
6
7
11
10
Once per week
14
17
11
13
11
19
2-3 times per week
18
19
21
14
24
15
4-5 times per week
6
8
10
7
7
6
13
17
10
19
16
28
4
10
4
3
4
4
Once per day
More than once per day
There was no change in the proportion of frequent drug users from Wellington who purchased
morphine weekly or more often from 2008 to 2013 (50% to 46%, p=0.3352). In contrast, the
proportion of frequent drug users from Christchurch who purchased morphine weekly or more often
increased 59% from 2008 to 83% in 2013 (p=0.0040).
Figure 10 12: Proportion of frequent drug users who purchased street morphine weekly or more often
in Wellington and Christchurch, 2008-2013
100%
% frequent drug users who purchased
90%
80%
83%
75%
80%
70%
63%
Wellington
59%
Christchurch
62%
59%
67%
60%
60%
50%
50%
40%
43%
46%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 10. Street Morphine
199
Dollar amount spent on street morphine
The frequent drug users reported spending a median of $80 on street morphine (mean $105) on a
typical occasion in 2013 (Table 10.9). The mean dollar amount spent on street morphine decreased
slightly from 2008 to 2013 (down from $109 to $105, p=0.0114). The dollar amount spent on
morphine by frequent drug users in Wellington increased from $114 in 2008 to $168 in 2013
(p=0.0112), although the number of respondents providing prices in 2013 was very low (n=11). In
contrast, the dollar amount spent on morphine by the frequent drug users in Christchurch declined
from $122 in 2008 to $81 in 2013, and this decrease was close to being statistically significant
(p=0.0635).
Table 10 9: Median (mean) dollar amount spent on street morphine (NZD) on typical occasion by
combined frequent drug users, 2008-2013
Amount spent on
street morphine
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Number with
knowledge
Median (mean)
amount spent
n=91
n=85
$100
($109)
$100 ($103)
n=86
n=65
$100 ($121)
$80 ($101)
n=87
n=81
$80 ($91)
$80 ($105)
Time taken to purchase street morphine
Eighty-one percent of the frequent drug users could purchase street morphine in one hour or less in
2013 (Table 10.10). The proportion of frequent drug users who could purchase street morphine in
one hour increased from 66% in 2012 to 81% in 2013, and this increase was very close to being
statistically significant (P=0.0521) (Figure 10.13).
Table 10 10: Time taken to purchase street morphine by combined frequent drug users, 2008-2013
Time to
purchase (%)
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=95)
Combined
modules
(n=90)
Combined
modules
(n=89)
Combined
modules
(n=68)
Combined
modules
(n=86)
Combined
modules
(n=81)
Months
0
0
1
0
0
0
Weeks
0
0
3
0
1
0
Days
2
1
2
1
6
5
About one day
17
4
15
6
12
2
Hours
14
11
14
16
15
12
1 Hour
38
39
20
37
30
51
Less than 20
mins
29
44
44
40
36
30
200
10. Street Morphine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
% frequent drug users who purchased
Figure 10 13: Proportion of frequent drug users who could purchase street morphine in one hour or
less, 2008-2013
100%
84%
90%
77%
80%
67%
66%
64%
70%
81%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
There was no statistically significant change in the proportion of frequent drug users from
Wellington who could purchase morphine in one hour or less from 2008 to 2013 (44% to 58%,
p=0.6851) (Figure 10.14). In contrast, the proportion of frequent drug users in Christchurch who
were able to purchase morphine in one hour or less increased from 68% in 2008 to 91% in 2013
(p=0.0762), and from 71% in 2012 to 91% in 2013 (p=0.0072).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 10. Street Morphine
201
Figure 10 14: Proportion of frequent drug users who could purchase street morphine in one hour or
less, 2008-2013
% frequent drug users who purchased
100%
91%
90%
76%
80%
70%
91%
88%
71%
68%
76%
60%
Wellington
62%
58%
50%
40%
58%
53%
Christchurch
44%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Location of purchase of street morphine
In 2013, 95% of the frequent drug users had purchased street morphine from a ‘private house’, 51%
had purchased morphine from an ‘agreed public location’, 27% from a ‘public area’, such as a park,
and 18% from a ‘pub/bar/club’ (Table 10.11). The proportion of frequent drug users from
Christchurch who purchased morphine from an ‘agreed public location’ increased from 12% in 2012
to 53% in 2013 (p<0.0001, n=67). There was no such increase reported in Wellington (p=0.4884).
202
10. Street Morphine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 10 11: Location from which street morphine purchased in the past six months by combined
frequent drug users, 2013
Location (%)
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=88)
Combined
modules
(n=87)
Combined
modules
(n=64)
Combined
modules
(n=84)
Combined
modules
(n=82)
Private house
89
90
78
91
95
Agreed public location
22
27
26
25
51
Public area (e.g. park)
11
4
18
15
27
Pub/bar/club
2
5
11
6
18
‘Tinny’ house
2
4
6
5
9
Work
0
0
1
4
7
Street drug market
3
6
16
5
3
Educational institute
1
2
1
0
1
Internet
0
1
1
0
0
Types of sellers of street morphine
In 2013, 71% of the frequent drug users had purchased street morphine from a ‘drug dealer’, 56%
had purchased morphine from a ‘social acquaintance’, 46% had purchased morphine from a ‘friend’
and 32% had purchased from a ‘gang member or gang associate’ (Table 10.12). The proportion of
frequent drug users from Christchurch who purchased street morphine from a ‘gang member or
gang associate’ increased substantially from 7% in 2012 to 36% in 2013 (p=0.0007, n=67), and the
proportion who purchased morphine from a ‘partner/family member’ increased from 7% in 2012 to
19% in 2013 (p=0.0588).
Table 10 12: People from whom street morphine was purchased in the past six months by combined
frequent drug users, 2008-2013
Type of person (%)
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=94)
Combined
modules
(n=89)
Combined
modules
(n=88)
Combined
modules
(n=65)
Combined
modules
(n=84)
Combined
modules
(n=82)
Drug dealer
73
67
57
49
75
71
Social acquaintance
47
51
42
45
49
56
Friend
57
53
57
51
56
46
Gang member/associate
19
10
13
11
10
32
Partner/family member
10
3
9
8
4
18
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 10. Street Morphine
203
10.8 Seizures of opioids
The opioid category includes a wide range of opioid products which come in liquids, tablets and
powders of varying potencies and combinations, making comparisons between years problematic.
Table 10.13 is a summary of the opioid products seized from 2009-2013 provided by the National
Drug Intelligence Bureau (NDIB). In 2013, there were notable increases in the amount of morphine
seized, and the number of seizure incidents and amount of oxycodone seized. In contrast, there
were decreases in the incidents and amount of codeine and methadone seized in 2013.
Table 10 13: Opioid products seized from 2009-2012
2009
COMMODITY & CLASSIFICATION
Codeine [
Class C2 or C6
Methadone
Class B3
Morphine
Class B1
Oxycodone
2010
2013
1,532 TE
1,800 TE
1,341 TE
4,457.5 TE & 30ml & 1,305.5 TE
9g
Number of
Incidents
26
30
24
46
25
Amount Seized
135 TE, 1,100 mg
16 TE & 290 ml
& 153 ml
65 ml
452 TE & 354 ml
18 TE & 115 ml
Number of
Incidents
11
8
3
14
12
Amount Seized
732 TE & 86 ml
1,006 TE, 455 ml
&21.5 mg
758.5 TE & 990
ml
433 TE, 11.3g &
1,418.5 ml
1,144 TE & 5,367.5
ml & 6.1 g
Number of
Incidents
59
50
30
40
44
Amount Seized
-
-
-
205 TE & 100 ml
Number of
Incidents
-
-
-
8
Source: NDIB, 2014
includes panadeine
204
2012
Amount Seized
TE = tablet equivalent
[1]
2011
10. Street Morphine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
681 TE & 1 ml
20
10.9 Summary of street morphine trends
•
The current availability of street morphine was described as ‘difficult/easy’ in 2013
•
There was a substantial decline in the current availability of street morphine in Christchurch
from 2011 onwards
•
The proportion of frequent drug users in Christchurch who reported the availability of street
morphine had become ‘more difficult’ increased from 3% in 2008 to 59% in 2013
•
In contrast, a greater proportion of frequent drug users from Wellington reported the
availability of street morphine had become easier from 2008 to 2013
•
The current median price paid for street morphine was $1 per milligram (or $100 per 100
milligrams) in 2013
•
The mean price of street morphine increased in Christchurch from $102 in 2008 to $114 in
2013
•
In contrast, the mean price of street morphine in Wellington declined from $104 in 2012 to
$88 in 2013
•
The proportion of frequent drug users in Christchurch who thought the price of street
morphine was ‘increasing’ increased from 1% in 2008 to 66% in 2013
•
In contrast there was no statistically significant change in perceptions of a change in the
price of street morphine in Wellington from 2008 to 2013
•
The current strength of street morphine was described as ‘medium/high’ in 2013
•
There was a decline in the current strength of street morphine in Wellington and
Christchurch from 2012 to 2013
•
The number of people using street morphine was reported to be the ‘same/more’ in 2013
•
The frequent drug users in Wellington reported ‘more’ people using morphine from 2008 to
2013
•
There was no change in the number of people using morphine in Christchurch from 2008 to
2013
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 10. Street Morphine
205
•
Seventy-two percent of the frequent drug users who purchased street morphine had done
so weekly or more often in the past six months in 2013
•
The proportion of frequent drug users from Christchurch who purchased morphine weekly
or more often increased from 59% in 2008 to 83% in 2013
•
There was no change in the proportion of frequent drug users in Wellington who purchased
morphine weekly or more often
•
Eighty-one percent of the frequent drug users could purchase street morphine in one hour
or less in 2013
•
The proportion of frequent drug users in Christchurch who could purchase street morphine
in one hour or less increased from 68% in 2008 to 91% in 2013
•
There was no change in Wellington in the proportion of frequent drug users who could
purchase morphine in one hour or less
•
The proportion of frequent drug users in Christchurch who purchased street morphine from
an ‘agreed public location’ increased from 12% in 2012 to 53% in 2013
•
The proportion of frequent drug users from Christchurch who purchased street morphine
from a ‘gang member or gang associate’ increased from 12% in 2012 to 53% in 2013
•
Although comparisons are somewhat problematic, there were notable increases in seizures
of morphine and oxycodone from 2012 to 2013
206
10. Street Morphine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
11. Cocaine
11.1 Introduction
Cocaine use is a serious problem in many countries around the world, including the United States
and Europe, but its use is largely unknown in New Zealand (Field & Casswell, 1999; Wilkins &
Sweetsur, 2008). A number of factors appear to contribute to the low level of cocaine use in New
Zealand including its high price, uncertain purity, short duration of pharmacological action (i.e.
around 20 minutes), the ready availability of longer lasting stimulants such as methamphetamine,
and New Zealand’s geographical isolation and tight border controls (New Zealand Customs Service,
2002). International experience suggests that cocaine and methamphetamine are close substitutes
for each other, and one tends to dominate in a locality at the expense of the other (Weisheit &
White, 2009). Seizures of cocaine have been sporadic in New Zealand over the past decade with
some of the bigger seizures thought to be destined for the larger Australian market (NDIB, 2012). To
date, the IDMS has found much little evidence to suggest the cocaine market is expanding in New
Zealand (Wilkins, et al., 2013). Nevertheless, the epidemic nature of many illegal drug trends means
demand and supply conditions can change rapidly over a short period of time.
11.2 Knowledge of cocaine trends
Only 6% of the frequent drug users interviewed for the 2013 IDMS (n=17) indicated they felt
confident enough to comment on the price, purity and availability of cocaine in the previous six
months. This included 8% of the frequent ecstasy users (n=9), 5% of the frequent methamphetamine
users (n=4) and 3% of the frequent injecting drug users (n=4). The low number of frequent drug
users answering the cocaine section indicates the findings should be interpreted with caution.
11.3 Availability of cocaine
Current availability of cocaine
The current availability of cocaine was reported to be ‘very difficult/difficult’ in 2013 (Table 11.1).
Fifty-seven percent of the frequent drug users described the availability of cocaine as ‘very difficult’.
There was no statistically significant change in the current availability of cocaine from 2006 to 2013
(p=0.3908), although as discussed in the previous section the number of respondents is low (Figure
11.1).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 11. Cocaine
207
Table 11 1: Current availability of cocaine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=29)
Combined
modules
(n=29)
Combined
modules
(n=31)
Combined
modules
(n=20)
Combined
modules
(n=24)
Combined
modules
(n=33)
Combined
modules
(n=25)
Combined
modules
(n=17)
Very easy
[4]
10%
3%
12%
0%
24%
0%
13%
9%
Easy [3]
18%
16%
10%
9%
22%
16%
8%
10%
Difficult [2]
47%
52%
42%
35%
31%
57%
40%
24%
Very
difficult [1]
25%
28%
37%
56%
23%
27%
39%
57%
Average
availability
score
(1=very
difficult –
4=very
easy)
2.1
2.0
2.0
1.5
2.5
2.0
1.7
Difficult/
very
difficult
Difficult/
very
difficult
Difficult/
very
difficult
Very
difficult/
difficult
Difficult/
very easy
Difficult/
very
difficult
Very
difficult/
difficult
Current
availability
of cocaine
(%)
Overall
current
status
1.9
Difficult/
very
difficult
Figure 11 1: Mean score of the current availability of cocaine by combined frequent drug users, 20062013
4.0
1=very difficult - 4=very easy
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.1
2.0
2.0
1.9
2.0
2.0
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Year
208
11. Cocaine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
2011
2012
2013
Change in availability of cocaine
The frequent drug users reported the availability of cocaine had been ‘stable/fluctuating’ in the
previous six months in 2013 (Table 11.2). There was no statistically significant difference in the
change in the availability of cocaine from 2006 to 2013 (p=0.9694) (Figure 11.2).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 11. Cocaine
209
Table 11 2: Change in availability of cocaine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
Change in
availability of
cocaine (%)
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=30)
Combined
modules
(n=28)
Combined
modules
(n=29)
Combined
modules
(n=16)
Combined
modules
(n=23)
Combined
modules
(n=32)
Combined
modules
(n=32)
Combined
modules
(n=15)
Easier [3]
7%
0%
27%
0%
21%
5%
13%
9%
Stable [2]
56%
65%
55%
56%
38%
61%
47%
65%
Fluctuates [2]
13%
14%
3%
12%
18%
12%
7%
14%
More difficult [1]
23%
21%
15%
32%
22%
22%
33%
12%
Average change
in availability
score (1=more
difficult –
3=easier)
1.8
1.8
2.1
1.7
2.0
1.8
1.8
2.0
Stable/
more difficult
Stable/
more difficult
Stable/
easier
Stable/
more difficult
Stable/
more difficult
Stable/ more
difficult
Stable/ more
difficult
Stable/
fluctuates
Overall recent
change
210
11. Cocaine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 11 2: Mean score of the change in availability of cocaine by combined frequent drug users, 20062013
1=more difficult - 3=easier
3.0
2.5
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
2011
2012
1.7
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2013
Year
11.4 Price of cocaine
Current price of cocaine
The median price paid for a gram of cocaine was $500 in 2013 (Table 11.3). The mean price of a
gram of cocaine increased from $353 in 2006 to $617 in 2013 (p=0.0211), and from $383 in 2012 to
$617 in 2013 (p=0.0307) (Figure 11.3).
Table 11 3: Current price of cocaine (NZD) by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
Current
price of
cocaine
($)
Median
(mean)
price for
a gram
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=25)
Combined
modules
(n=20)
Combined
modules
(n=25)
Combined
modules
(n=16)
Combined
modules
(n=17)
Combined
modules
(n=29)
Combined
modules
(n=17)
Combined
modules
(n=14)
$300
($353)
$350
($431)
$400
($422)
$350
($560)
$350
($357)
$400
($383)
$500
($617)
$500
($585)
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 11. Cocaine
211
Figure 11 3: Mean price of a gram of cocaine (NZD) by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
$1,000
$900
$800
NZ Dollars ($)
$700
$600
$431
$500
$400
$617
$585
$560
$422
$383
$357
$353
$300
$200
$100
$0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Change in price of cocaine
The price of cocaine was reported to be ‘stable/increasing’ over the previous six months in 2013
(Table 11.4). Thirty-six percent of the frequent drug users described the price as ‘increasing’. The
frequent drug users were more likely to report the price of cocaine was increasing from 2006 to
2013 (p=0.0445), and from 2012 to 2013, with the latter being close to being statistical significant
(p=0.0859) (Figure 11.4).
212
11. Cocaine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 11 4: Change in the price of cocaine in the past six months by combined frequent drug users,
2006-2013
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=24)
Combined
modules
(n=22)
Combined
modules
(n=22)
Combined
modules
(n=16)
Combined
modules
(n=22)
Combined
modules
(n=29)
Combined
modules
(n=17)
Combined
modules
(n=14)
Increasing [3]
8%
18%
4%
32%
18%
46%
25%
36%
Fluctuating [2]
20%
9%
15%
12%
17%
16%
0%
6%
Stable [2]
64%
69%
65%
50%
65%
29%
44%
58%
9%
4%
16%
6%
0%
9%
31%
0%
Average
change in
price score
(1=decreasing
–
3=increasing)
2.0
2.1
1.9
2.3
2.2
1.9
2.4
Overall recent
change
Stable/
fluctuating
Stable/
increasing
Stable/
decreasing
Stable/
increasing
Stable/
increasing
Stable/
decreasing
Stable/
increasing
Change in
price of
cocaine (%)
Decreasing
[1]
2.4
Increasing/
stable
Figure 11 4: Mean score of the change in price of cocaine in the previous six months by combined
frequent drug users, 2006-2013
1=decreasing - 3=increasing
3.0
2.4
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.9
2.0
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 11. Cocaine
213
11.5 Purity of cocaine
Current purity of cocaine
The current purity of cocaine was described as ‘low/medium’ in 2013 (Table 11.5). Forty-three
percent described the current purity as ‘low’. There was no statistically significant change in the
purity of cocaine from 2006 to 2013 (p=0.4010).
Table 11 5: Current purity of cocaine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=24)
Combined
modules
(n=26)
Combined
modules
(n=28)
Combined
modules
(n=16)
Combined
modules
(n=23)
Combined
modules
(n=29)
Combined
modules
(n=21)
Combined
modules
(n=15)
High [3]
13%
26%
28%
24%
35%
40%
15%
24%
Medium
[2]
21%
27%
25%
24%
27%
40%
38%
28%
Fluctuates
[2]
17%
16%
25%
6%
17%
8%
4%
5%
Low [1]
49%
31%
23%
46%
21%
12%
42%
43%
1.6
1.9
2.1
1.8
2.1
2.3
1.7
1.8
Low/
medium
Low/
medium
High/
medium
Low/
medium
High/
medium
High/
medium
Low/
medium
Low/
medium
Current
purity of
cocaine
(%)
Average
purity
score
(1=low –
3=high)
Overall
current
status
214
11. Cocaine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 11 5: Mean score of the current purity of cocaine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
3.0
2.5
1=low - 3=high
2.3
2.1
2.1
1.9
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Change in purity of cocaine
The purity of cocaine was described as having been ‘stable’ in the previous six months in 2013 (Table
11.6). Seventy-seven percent of the frequent drug users reported the price had been ‘stable’ in
2013. There was no statistically significant difference in the change in purity of cocaine from 2006 to
2013 (p=0.5845), although the number of respondents is particularly low in 2013 (n=12).
Table 11 6: Change in purity of cocaine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2013
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Change in
purity of
cocaine
(%)
Increasing [3]
Stable [2]
Fluctuating [2]
Decreasing [1]
Average
change in
purity score
(1=decreasing
–
3=increasing)
Combined
modules
(n=20)
Combined
modules
(n=25)
Combined
modules
(n=21)
Combined
modules
(n=14)
Combined
modules
(n=22)
Combined
modules
(n=29)
Combined
modules
(n=16)
Combined
modules
(n=12)
Overall recent
change
5%
36%
24%
35%
4%
48%
31%
17%
18%
37%
23%
21%
7%
58%
14%
21%
9%
54%
28%
9%
3%
52%
23%
22%
14%
62%
0%
24%
0%
77%
8%
15%
1.7
1.9
2.0
1.9
2.0
1.8
1.9
1.9
Stable/
decreasing
Stable/
fluctuating
Stable/
decreasing
Stable/
fluctuating
Stable/
fluctuating
Stable/
decreasing
Stable
Stable/
fluctuating
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 11. Cocaine
215
11.6 Perceptions of the number of people using cocaine
The number of people using cocaine was described as the ‘same/more’ compared to six months ago
in 2013 (Table 11.7). Sixty-nine percent reported ‘the same’ and 23% said ‘more’ people were using
cocaine compared to six months ago. There was no statistically significant difference in perceptions
of the change in the number of people using cocaine from 2006 and 2013 (p=0.5736), although again
the number of respondents answering the question in 2013 is low (n=14) (Figure 11.6). The
proportion who said ‘less’ people were using cocaine decreased from 53% in 2011 to 7% in 2013.
Table 11 7: Perceptions of the number of people using cocaine by combined frequent drug users, 20062013
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Number
of
people
using
cocaine
(%)
Combined
modules
(n=27)
Combined
modules
(n=25)
Combined
modules
(n=23)
Combined
modules
(n=18)
Combined
modules
(n=23)
Combined
modules
(n=27)
Combined
modules
(n=21)
Combined
modules
(n=14)
More [3]
23%
16%
30%
17%
16%
18%
19%
23%
Same
[2]
47%
57%
62%
51%
70%
29%
47%
69%
Less [1]
29%
27%
8%
32%
14%
53%
34%
7%
Average
number
of
people
using
score
(1=less
–
3=more)
1.9
1.9
2.2
1.8
2.0
1.6
1.8
2.2
Same/
Same/
Same/
Same/
Same/
less
more
less
Less/
same
Same/
less
Same
less
more
Overall
recent
change
216
11. Cocaine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 11 6: Mean score of the perceptions of the number of people using cocaine by combined
frequent drug users, 2006-2013
1=decreasing - 3=increasing
3.0
2.5
2.2
2.0
1.9
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
11.7 Seizures of cocaine
Many of the larger cocaine seizures in New Zealand are made at the border on transit to the larger
Australian market (New Zealand Customs Service, 2002). There has been considerable variation in
the quantity of cocaine seized from year-to-year over the past ten years or so (Figure 11.7). The
largest seizures were made in 2004 (i.e. 30,270 grams), 2006 (32,954 grams) and 2012 (16,304
grams). A total of only 229 grams of cocaine was seized in 2013, of which the largest single seizure
was only 130 grams made by Police in the Bay of Plenty (NDIB, 2014). The remaining incidents each
consisted of quantities of less than 10 grams and may have been ordered from internet websites
such as Silk Road (NDIB, 2014).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 11. Cocaine
217
Figure 11 7: Grams of cocaine seized in New Zealand, 1999-2013
35000
32,954
30,270
30000
Weight (grams)
25000
20000
16,304
14,112
15000
9,900
10000
7,859
4,127
5000
2,984
415
895
8
267
25
752
229
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Source: NDIB, 2014
218
11. Cocaine | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
11.8 Summary of cocaine trends
•
The low number of frequent drug users answering the cocaine section (n<20) indicates the
findings should be interpreted with caution
•
The current availability of cocaine was reported to be ‘very difficult/difficult’ in 2013
•
The availability of cocaine was described to have been ‘stable/fluctuates’ in the previous six
months in 2013
•
The median price paid for a gram of cocaine was $500 in 2013
•
The mean price of a gram of cocaine increased $353 in 2006 to $617 in 2013
•
The frequent drug users were more likely to report the price of cocaine was increasing from
2006 to 2013
•
The current purity of cocaine was considered to be ‘low/medium’ in 2013
•
The number of people using cocaine was described as ‘same/more’ in 2013
•
Twenty-three percent of the frequent drug users reported ‘more’ people were using cocaine
compared to six months ago
•
Only 229 grams of cocaine was seized in 2013, and this was substantially less than the
16,304 grams seized in 2012
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 11. Cocaine
219
12. Heroin
12.1 Introduction
The supply of heroin to New Zealand has been poor following the dismantling of the ‘Mr Asia’
international heroin trafficking group in the late 1970s (Newbold, 2000). As a consequence, injecting
drug users in New Zealand largely use pharmaceuticals opioids illicitly diverted from the health
system, principally morphine, or make their own heroin from morphine and codeine, commonly
known as ‘homebake’ heroin (Wilkins, et al., 2011a). However, some heroin continues to be
available in New Zealand and there remains a risk that a larger heroin market could develop if
conditions become more conducive (New Zealand Customs Service, 2002).
12.2 Knowledge of heroin trends
Six percent of the frequent drug users interviewed for the 2013 IDMS (n=15) indicated they felt
confident enough to comment on the price, purity and availability of heroin in the previous six
months. This included 11% of the frequent injecting drug users (n=10), 5% of the frequent
methamphetamine users (n=3) and 3% of the frequent ecstasy users (n=2). The small number of
frequent drug users answering the heroin section indicates the findings in this chapter should be
interpreted with caution.
12.3 Availability of heroin
Current availability of heroin
The frequent drug users reported the current availability of heroin was ‘very difficult/very easy’ in
2013 (Table 12.1). There was no statistically significant trend in the availability of heroin from 2008
to 2013 (p=0.4391), although as outlined above the number of respondents was particularly low in
2013 (n=14).
220
12. Heroin | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 12 1: Current availability of heroin by combined frequent drug users, 2008-2013
Current availability
of heroin (%)
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=38)
Combined
modules
(n=40)
Combined
modules
(n=47)
Combined
modules
(n=34)
Combined
modules
(n=20)
Combined
modules
(n=14)
Very easy [4]
20%
27%
18%
26%
30%
31%
Easy [3]
23%
22%
38%
18%
25%
10%
Difficult [2]
27%
23%
28%
37%
35%
25%
Very difficult [1]
30%
29%
16%
20%
10%
34%
Average availability
score (1=very
difficult– 4=very easy)
2.3
2.5
2.6
2.5
2.8
2.4
Overall current status
Very difficult/
difficult
Very difficult/
very easy
Easy/
difficult
Difficult/
very easy
Difficult/
very easy
Very
difficult/
very easy
Change in availability of heroin
The frequent drug users reported the availability of heroin had been ‘stable/easier’ in the previous
six months in 2013 (Table 12.2). There was no statistically significant difference in the change in
availability of heroin from 2012 to 2013 (p=0.9350).
Table 12 2: Change in availability of heroin by combined frequent drug users, 2008-2013
Change in
availability of heroin
(%)
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=37)
Combined
modules
(n=40)
Combined
modules
(n=45)
Combined
modules
(n=34)
Combined
modules
(n=20)
Combined
modules
(n=13)
Easier [3]
17%
7%
11%
11%
6%
30%
Stable [2]
62%
55%
43%
46%
49%
44%
7%
7%
13%
17%
21%
6%
14%
30%
33%
26%
24%
20%
2.0
1.8
1.8
1.8
2.1
Stable/
easier
Stable/
more difficult
Stable/
more
difficult
Stable/
easier
Fluctuates [2]
More difficult [1]
Average change in
availability score
(1=more difficult –
3=easier)
Overall recent change
Stable/
more difficult
1.8
Stable/
more
difficult
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 12. Heroin
221
12.4 Price of heroin
Current price of heroin
The median price of a milligram of heroin was $1 in 2013 (or $100 per 100 milligrams) and the mean
price was $0.92 in 2013 (Table 12.3). There was no statistically significant change in the mean price
of a milligram of heroin from 2008 to 2013 (p=0.5070).
Table 12 3: Current median (mean) price of heroin (NZD) by combined frequent drug users, 2008-2013
Current price of
heroin
Median (mean)
price for a
milligram
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules(n=32)
Combined
modules
(n=39)
Combined
modules
(n=39)
Combined
modules
(n=22)
Combined
modules
(n=17)
Combined
modules
(n=10)
$1.00 ($1.06)
$1.00
($1.01)
$1.00
($1.11)
$1.00
($1.11)
$1.00
($0.95)
$1.00
($0.92 )
Change in price of heroin
The price of heroin was reported to have been ‘stable’ over the past six months in 2013 (Table 12.4).
The frequent drug users fairly consistently described the price of heroin as ‘stable’ from 2008 to
2013. However, 27% of those who commented reported the price had been ‘decreasing in 2013. A
higher proportion of frequent drug users described the price of heroin as ‘decreasing’ in 2013, and
this decline was close to being statistically significant (p=0.0802). This result should be treated with
caution as the number of respondents answering the question was very low (n=9).
222
12. Heroin | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 12 4: Change in the price of heroin in the past six months by combined frequent drug users, 20082013
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules(n=31)
Combined
modules(n=37)
Combined
modules
(n=37)
Combined
modules
(n=29)
Combined
modules
(n=20)
Combined
modules
(n=9)
Increasing [3]
20%
8%
13%
26%
4%
0%
Fluctuating [2]
7%
0%
5%
2%
11%
0%
Stable [2]
60%
77%
73%
64%
81%
73%
Decreasing [1]
13%
16%
8%
8%
5%
27%
2.1
1.9
2.1
2.2
2.0
1.7
Stable/
increasing
Stable
Stable
Stable/
increasing
Stable
Stable
Change in price
of heroin (%)
Average change
in price score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
Overall recent
change
12.5 Purity of heroin
Current purity of heroin
The current purity of heroin was described as ‘fluctuates/high’ in 2013 (Table 12.5). There was little
change in the current purity of heroin from 2008 to 2013.
Table 12 5: Current purity of heroin by combined frequent drug users, 2008-2013
Current purity of
heroin (%)
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules(n=36)
Combined
modules
(n=35)
Combined
modules
(n=40)
Combined
modules
(n=32)
Combined
modules
(n=18)
Combined
modules
(n=9)
High [4]
55%
38%
32%
30%
38%
29%
Medium [3]
17%
42%
18%
45%
34%
16%
Fluctuates [2]
11%
11%
42%
17%
22%
45%
Low [1]
17%
8%
8%
8%
6%
10%
2.4
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.2
High/
Medium/ low
Medium/
high
Fluctuates/
high
Medium/
high
High/
medium
Fluctuates/
High
Average purity score
(1=low – 4=high)
Overall current
status
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 12. Heroin
223
Change in purity of heroin
The purity of heroin was described as ‘stable/increasing’ over the past six months in 2013 (Table
12.6).
Table 12 6: Change in purity of heroin by combined frequent drug users, 2008-2013
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules(n=35)
Combined
modules(n=35)
Combined
modules
(n=37)
Combined
modules
(n=31)
Combined
modules
(n=17)
Combined
modules
(n= 10)
Increasing [3]
16%
14%
5%
9%
0%
16%
Stable [2]
61%
67%
70%
53%
64%
65%
Fluctuating [2]
23%
6%
22%
29%
23%
12%
Decreasing [1]
0%
13%
3%
10%
12%
8%
Average change
in purity score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
2.2
2.0
2.0
1.9
2.1
Stable/
fluctuating
Stable/
increasing
Stable
Stable/
fluctuating
Stable/
increasing
Change in purity
of heroin (%)
Overall recent
change
2.0
Stable/
fluctuating
12.6 Perceptions of the number of people using heroin
The number of people using heroin was described as ‘more/same’ compared to six months ago in
2013 (Table 12.7). A higher proportion of frequent drug users reported ‘more’ people using heroin
from 2008 to 2013 (p=0.0069), and from 2012 to 2013 (p=0.0302). However, the low number of
respondents answering the question in 2013 (n=12) means this result should be treated with
caution.
Table 12 7: Perceptions of the number of people using heroin by combined frequent drug users, 20082013
Number of
people using
heroin (%)
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=32)
Combined
modules(n=41)
Combined
modules
(n=46)
Combined
modules
(n=29)
Combined
modules
(n=18)
Combined
modules
(n=12)
More [3]
22%
7%
23%
44%
15%
61%
Same [2]
45%
59%
46%
23%
63%
27%
Less [1]
33%
34%
31%
33%
22%
12%
1.9
1.7
1.9
1.9
2.5
Same/
less
Same/
less
Same/
less
Same/
less
More/
same
Average number
of people using
score (1=less –
3=more)
Overall recent
change
224
12. Heroin | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
2.1
More/
Less
12.7 Summary of heroin trends
•
The low number of frequent drug users with knowledge of heroin trends in 2013 (n<20)
indicates the findings in this chapter should be interpreted with some caution
•
The current availability of heroin was described as ‘very difficult/very easy’ in 2013
•
The availability of heroin was reported to have been ‘stable/easier’ in the previous six
months
•
The median price of a milligram of heroin was $1 (or $100 per 100 milligrams) in 2013
•
The price of heroin was reported to have been ‘stable/decreasing’ in the past six months in
2013
•
The current purity of heroin was described as ‘fluctuates/high’ in 2013
•
The number of people using heroin was described as ‘more/same’ in 2013
•
A higher proportion of frequent drug users reported ‘more’ people using heroin from 2008
to 2013, and from 2012 to 2013
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 12. Heroin
225
13. Homebake morphine/heroin
13.1 Introduction
‘Homebake’ morphine or heroin is an opioid manufactured by drug users in makeshift ‘kitchen’
laboratories from a codeine base (Newbold, 2000). Homebake morphine emerged in New Zealand in
the early 1980s in response to the major disruption of internationally sourced heroin brought about
by the arrest of the ‘Mr Asia’ heroin smuggling gang (Newbold, 2000). Detections of ‘homebake’
heroin laboratories have been spasmodic in recent years. Eight ‘homebake’ laboratories were
detected in 2006, one laboratory was detected in each of 2007 and 2008, none were detected in
2011, and four were detected in 2012 (NDIB, 2013).
13.2 Knowledge of homebake morphine/heroin trends
Fifteen percent of the frequent drug users interviewed for the 2013 IDMS (n=47) indicated they felt
confident enough to comment on the price, purity and availability of homebake morphine/heroin in
the previous six months. This included 40% of the frequent injecting drug users (n=39), 3% of the
frequent methamphetamine users (n=4) and 6% of the frequent ecstasy users (n=4). The fairly low
number of frequent drug users who responded to the homebake section in 2008 and 2012 reduces
the ability of the statistical tests to establish reliable trends over time.
13.3 Availability of homebake morphine/heroin
Current availability of homebake morphine/ heroin
The frequent drug users reported the current availability of homebake morphine/heroin was ‘very
difficult/very easy’ in 2013 (Table 13.1). There was some decline in the current availability of
homebake morphine/heroin from 2008 to 2013, and this trend was close to being statistically
significant (p=0.0763).
226
13. Homebake morphine/heroin | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 13 1: Current availability of homebake morphine/heroin by combined frequent drug users, 20082013
Current availability of
homebake
morphine/heroin (%)
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=27)
Combined
modules
(n=45)
Combined
modules
(n=58)
Combined
modules
(n=58)
Combined
modules
(n=20)
Combined
modules
(n=46)
Very easy [4]
19%
6%
20%
19%
21%
22%
Easy [3]
30%
43%
32%
33%
33%
16%
Difficult [2]
44%
43%
37%
33%
22%
18%
Very difficult [1]
7%
8%
11%
15%
24%
43%
Average availability
score (1=very difficult –
4=very easy)
2.6
2.5
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.2
Difficult/
easy
Easy/
difficult
Difficult/
easy
Easy/
difficult
Easy/
Very
difficult
Very
difficult/
very easy
Overall current status
Change in availability of homebake morphine/heroin
The frequent drug users reported the availability of homebake morphine/heroin had been ‘more
difficult/stable’ in the previous six months in 2013 (Table 13.2). There was no statistically significant
difference in the change in availability of homebake morphine/heroin from 2008 to 2013.
(p=0.8398).
Table 13 2: Change in availability of homebake morphine/heroin by combined frequent drug users,
2008-2013
Change in availability of
homebake
morphine/heroin (%)
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=26)
Combined
modules
(n=45)
Combined
modules
(n=57)
Combined
modules
(n=55)
Combined
modules
(n=20)
Combined
modules
(n=46)
Easier 3]
11%
4%
11%
6%
11%
12%
Stable [2]
38%
46%
46%
58%
49%
32%
9%
9%
4%
10%
10%
7%
42%
41%
39%
25%
30%
49%
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.6
More
difficult/
stable
Stable/
more
difficult
Stable/
more
difficult
Stable/
more
difficult
Stable/
more
difficult
More
difficult/
stable
Fluctuates [2]
More difficult [1]
Average change in
availability score (1=more
difficult – 3=easier)
Overall recent change
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 13. Homebake morphine/heroin
227
13.4 Perceptions of the number of people using homebake morphine/
heroin
The number of people using homebake morphine/heroin was described as the ‘less/more’ in 2013
(Table 13.3). There was no statistically significant difference in perceptions of the change in the
number of people using homebake morphine/heroin from 2008 to 2013 (p=0.7517) (Figure 13.1).
Table 13 3: Perceptions of the number of people using homebake morphine/ heroin by combined
frequent drug users, 2008-2013
Number of people
using homebake
morphine/heroin
(%)
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=26)
Combined
modules
(n=46)
Combined
modules
(n=58)
Combined
modules
(n=54)
Combined
modules
(n=18)
Combined
modules
(n=45)
More [3]
32%
15%
16%
29%
21%
31%
Same [2]
46%
53%
50%
49%
50%
25%
Less [1]
22%
31%
34%
21%
34%
45%
2.1
1.8
1.8
2.1
1.9
1.9
Same/
more
Same/
less
Same/
less
Same/
more
Same/
less
Average number of
people using score
(1=less – 3=more)
Overall recent
change
Less/
more
Figure 13 1: Mean score of the perceptions of the number of people using homebake morphine/heroin
by combined frequent drug users, 2008-2013
3.0
1 = less - 3 = more
2.5
2.1
2.0
2.1
1.8
1.8
2009
2010
1.9
1.9
1.5
1.0
2008
2011
Year
228
13. Homebake morphine/heroin | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
2012
2013
Summary of homebake morphine/heroin trends
•
The low number of frequent drug users answered the homebake morphine/heroin section in
some years indicates the results from this chapter should be interpreted with some caution
•
The current availability of homebake morphine/heroin was described as ‘very difficult/very
easy’ in 2013
•
There was some decline in the current availability of homebake morphine/heroin from 2008
to 2012
•
The frequent drug users described the number of people using homebake morphine/heroin
as the ‘less/more’ in 2012
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 13. Homebake morphine/heroin
229
14. Street methadone
14.1 Introduction
Methadone is a synthetic opioid which is prescribed as an opioid substitute to treat opioid
dependency. Methadone is a slow release opioid (i.e. it typically has a half-life of 24 hours or more)
which allows an opiate addict to take it only once per day without experiencing opioid withdrawal
symptoms (Rassool, 2009). Methadone maintenance allows dependent opioid users to stabilise their
lives, improve their health, complete a treatment programme, improve their relationships and
pursue employment without experiencing problems associated with opioid withdrawal or having to
purchase opioids from the black market. Methadone is generally prescribed as a liquid syrup or
tablet to be swallowed. Methadone is sometimes diverted from its treatment purpose and sold on
the ‘streets’ as an illegal drug. The IDMS tracks trends in ‘street’ methadone, that is, methadone
which has been diverted and illegally sold or bartered. When the interviewers ask the frequent drug
users if they have knowledge about recent trends in ‘street’ methadone they specify that they are
not referring to methadone which has been prescribed to the frequent drug user as part of a
methadone maintenance program.
14.2 Knowledge of street methadone trends
Twenty percent of the frequent drug users interviewed for the 2013 IDMS (n=60) indicated they felt
confident enough to comment on the price, purity and availability of ‘street’ methadone in the
previous six months. This included 46% of the frequent injecting drug users (n=47), 10% of the
frequent methamphetamine users (n=8) and 7% of the frequent ecstasy users (n=5).
230
14. Street methadone | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
14.3 Availability of street methadone
Current availability of street methadone
The frequent drug users reported the current availability of street methadone was ‘easy/very easy’
in 2013 (Table 14.1). Overall, the current availability of street methadone declined from 2008 to
2013 (down from 3.2 to 3.0, p=0.0323) (Figure14.1). There was no statistically significant change in
the current availability of street methadone from 2012 to 2013 (p=0.6918).
Table 14 1: Current availability of street methadone by combined frequent drug users, 2008-2013
Current availability of
street methadone (%)
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=86)
Combined
modules
(n=78)
Combined
modules
(n=91)
Combined
modules
(n=72)
Combined
modules
(n=47)
Combined
modules
(n=60)
Very easy [4]
32%
30%
30%
16%
26%
35%
Easy [3]
55%
47%
45%
50%
40%
36%
Difficult [2]
12%
21%
20%
33%
35%
22%
Very difficult [1]
1%
2%
4%
1%
0%
8%
Average availability
score (1=very difficult –
4=very easy)
3.2
3.0
3.0
2.8
2.9
3.0
Easy/
very easy
Easy/
very easy
Easy/
very easy
Easy/
difficult
Easy/
difficult
Easy/
very easy
Overall current status
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 14. Street methadone
231
Figure 14 1: Current availability of street methadone by combined frequent drug users, 2008-2013
1=very difficult - 4=very easy
4.0
3.5
3.2
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.9
3.0
2.8
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Change in availability of street methadone
The frequent drug users reported the availability of street methadone had been ‘stable/fluctuating’
in the past six months in 2013 (Table 14.2). There was no statistically significant difference in the
change in availability of street methadone from 2008 to 2013 (p=0.9576).
Table 14 2: Change in availability of street methadone by combined frequent drug users, 2008-2013
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=85)
Combined
modules
(n=75)
Combined
modules
(n=91)
Combined
modules
(n=70)
Combined
modules
(n=47)
Combined
modules
(n=59)
Easier [3]
7%
13%
12%
4%
7%
13%
Stable [2]
74%
67%
60%
67%
65%
55%
8%
5%
14%
12%
17%
21%
11%
14%
14%
17%
12%
11%
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
2.0
Stable
Stable/
more
difficult
Stable/
fluctuates
Stable/
more
difficult
Stable/
fluctuates
Stable/
fluctuates
Change in availability of
street methadone(%)
Fluctuates [2]
More difficult [1]
Average change in
availability score (1=more
difficult – 3=easier)
Overall recent change
232
14. Street methadone | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
14.4 Perceptions of the number of people using street methadone
The number of people using street methadone was described as being ‘more/same’ in 2013 (Table
14.3). Overall, the frequent drug users reported ‘more’ people were using street methadone from
2008 to 2013, and this trend was very close to being statistically significant (p=0.0598) (Table 14.3).
The proportion of frequent drug users who reported ‘more’ people using street morphine also
increased from 2012 to 2013 (p=0.0018).
Table 14 3: Perceptions of the number of people using street methadone by combined frequent drug
users, 2008-2013
Number of people using
street methadone (%)
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=82)
Combined
modules
(n=77)
Combined
modules
(n=91)
Combined
modules
(n=66)
Combined
modules
(n=46)
Combined
modules
(n=60)
More [3]
31%
25%
36%
32%
23%
56%
Same [2]
65%
60%
56%
57%
67%
38%
Less [1]
4%
15%
9%
11%
10%
6%
Average number of
people using score
(1=less – 3=more)
2.3
2.1
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.5
Same/
more
Same/
more
Same/
more
Same/
more
Same/
more
More/
same
Overall recent change
14.5 Summary of street methadone trends
•
The current availability of street methadone was described as ‘easy/very easy’ in 2013
•
The current availability of street methadone declined from 2008 to 2013
•
The availability of street methadone was reported to have been ‘stable/fluctuates’ in 2013
•
The number of people using street methadone was described as the ‘more/same’ in 2013
•
The proportion of frequent drug users who reported ‘more’ people using street methadone
increased from 2012 to 2013
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 14. Street methadone
233
15. Street BZP
15.1 Introduction
Benzylpiperazine (BZP) was the principal psychoactive ingredient in a range of “legal highs”, known
as ‘party pills, which were legally sold and widely used in New Zealand during the mid-2000s. BZP
has effects similar to low potency amphetamine (i.e. approximately 10% the potency of
dexamphetamine) (Bye et al., 1973; Campbell et al., 1973; Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs,
2004, p.5; Gee et al., 2005). Users reported a range of physical and psychological problems from BZP
including insomnia, poor appetite, nausea, loss of energy, mood swings and confusion (Wilkins, et
al., 2008). A small number of users experienced more serious symptoms including seizure and renal
failure (Gee et al., 2005). BZP was prohibited in April 2008 following the release of a number of
studies linking its use to health risks (Gee, et al., 2005; Sheridan, et al., 2007; Wilkins, et al., 2008).
Following the prohibition of BZP, the prevalence of BZP use among the general population (aged 1345 years) fell from 15.3% in 2006 to 3.2% in 2009. The most common reason(s) provided by this
general population sample for stopping BZP use were ‘it’s illegal now’ (43%), ‘just
experimenting’(26%), ‘don’t know where to get it now it’s illegal’ (24%) and ‘bad hangover effect’
(18%). The use of BZP also declined among frequent methamphetamine users from 32% in 2006 to
7% in 2010; among frequent ecstasy users from 65% in 2006 to 11% in 2010; and among frequent
injecting drug users from 30% in 2007 to 20% in 2010 (Wilkins & Sweetsur, 2013).
15.2 Knowledge of street BZP trends
Only 5% of the frequent drug users interviewed for the 2013 IDMS (n=13) indicated they felt
confident enough to comment on the price, purity and availability of street BZP in the previous six
months. This included 6% of the frequent injecting drug users (n=4), 8% of the frequent ecstasy
users (n=7) and 3% of the frequent methamphetamine users (n=2). The low numbers of frequent
drug users answering the BZP section mean the trends identified in this chapter should be treated
with some caution.
234
15. Street BZP | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
15.3 Availability of street BZP
Current availability of street BZP
The frequent drug users described the current availability of street BZP as difficult/easy’ in 2013
(Table 15.1). There was a substantial decline in the current availability of street BZP from 2007 to
2013 (down from 4.0 to 2.1, p<0.0001) with a particularly large decline observed following the
imposition of the prohibition in 2008 (Figure 15.1). There was a further statistically significant
decline in the current availability of BZP from 2012 to 2013 (p=0.0282).
Table 15 1: Current availability of street BZP by combined frequent drug users, 2007-2013
Current
availability
of BZP (%)
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=54)
Combined
modules
(n=49)
Combined
modules
(n=48)
Combined
modules
(n=39)
Combined
modules
(n=37)
Combined
modules
(n=20)
Combined
modules
(n=12)
98%
15%
44%
42%
33%
35%
12%
Easy [3]
2%
47%
29%
32%
34%
35%
29%
Difficult [2]
0%
36%
20%
19%
30%
31%
33%
Very difficult
[1]
2%
6%
8%
4%
0%
Very easy [4]
Average
availability
score
(1=very
difficult –
4=very easy)
Overall
current
status
4.0
2.7
3.1
Very easy
Easy/
difficult
Very easy/
easy
3.1
Very easy/
easy
3.0
Easy/
very easy
0%
26%
3.0
2.3
Easy/
very easy
Difficult/
Easy
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 15. Street BZP
235
Figure 15 1: Current availability of street BZP by combined frequent drug users, 2007-2013
1=very difficult - 4=very easy
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.1
3.1
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.7
2.5
2.3
2.0
1.5
1.0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Change in availability of street BZP
The frequent drug users reported the availability of street BZP had been ‘more difficult/stable’ in the
previous six months in 2013 (Table 15.2). Overall, there was no statistically significant change in the
availability of BZP from 2007 to 2013, although there was clearly a large decline in availability
following the prohibition in 2008 (Figure 15.2). A higher proportion said availability was ‘more
difficult’ from 2012 to 2013 (p=0.0325).
Table 15 2: Change in availability of street BZP by combined frequent drug users, 2007-2013
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=53)
Combined
modules
(n=48)
Combined
modules
(n=49)
Combined
modules
(n=38)
Combined
modules
(n=29)
Combined
modules
(n=18)
Combined
modules
(n=12)
Easier [3]
3%
12%
11%
15%
7%
23%
0%
Stable [2]
92%
22%
51%
66%
60%
45%
46%
Fluctuates [2]
0%
2%
0%
0%
3%
10%
5%
More difficult [1]
5%
65%
38%
19%
30%
21%
49%
Average change
in availability
score (1=more
difficult –
3=easier)
2.0
1.5
1.7
2.0
1.8
2.0
1.5
Stable
More
difficult/
stable
Stable/
more
difficult
Stable/
more
difficult
Stable/
more
difficult
Stable/
easier
More
difficult/
Stable
Change in
availability of
BZP (%)
Overall recent
change
236
15. Street BZP | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 15 2: Change in the availability of street BZP by combined frequent drug users, 2007-2013
1=more difficult - 3=easier
3.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
15.4 Perceptions of the number of people using street BZP
The number of people using street BZP was described as being ‘same/less’ in 2013 (Table 15.3).
Overall, many frequent drug users reported that ‘less’ people were using BZP from 2007 to 2013
(down from 1.9 to 1.6). There was a large increase in the proportion of frequent drug users who said
‘less’ people were using BZP in 2008, the year of the BZP prohibition, and again in 2013 (Figure 15.3).
Table 15 3: Perceptions of the number of people using street BZP by combined frequent drug users,
2007-2013
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Combined
modules
(n=53)
Combined
modules
(n=50)
Combined
modules
(n=48)
Combined
modules
(n=40)
Combined
modules
(n=33)
Combined
modules
(n=20)
Combined
modules
(n=13)
More [3]
29%
15%
36%
37%
33%
9%
0%
Same [2]
30%
12%
17%
26%
34%
60%
58%
Less [1]
40%
74%
48%
37%
33%
31%
42%
1.9
1.4
1.9
2.0
1.8
1.6
Less/
Less
Less/
More/
Same/
Same/
Same/
more
less
less
less
less
Number of
people using
street BZP (%)
Average number
of people using
score (1=less –
3=more)
Overall recent
change
same
2.0
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 15. Street BZP
237
Figure 15 3: Perceptions of the number of people using street BZP by combined frequent drug users,
2007-2013
3.0
1=less - 3=more
2.5
2.0
2.0
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.0
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
15.5 Summary of street BZP trends
•
The current availability of street BZP was described as ‘difficult/easy’ in 2013
•
There was a substantial decline in the current availability of street BZP from 2007 to 2013,
with a particularly large decline observed following the prohibition of BZP in 2008
•
There was a further decline in the current availability of BZP from 2012 to 2013
•
A higher proportion of frequent drug users said the availability of BZP was ‘more difficult’ in
2008 and 2013
•
The number of people using street BZP was described as ‘same/less’ in 2013
•
Seventy-four percent of the frequent drug users reported that ‘less’ people were using BZP
following its prohibition in 2008
•
Forty-two percent of the frequent drug users reported that ‘less’ people were using BZP in
2013
238
15. Street BZP | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
16. Health risks and the social harm of drug use
16.1 Introduction
Drug and alcohol use is associated with a range of health and social problems including physical and
psychological illness, drug dependency, relationship breakdown, family dysfunction, poor
educational achievement, violence, property crime, poverty, sexual assault, accidents, unsafe work
practices, dangerous driving, unemployment, social welfare dependency and low work productivity
(Ministry of Health, 2009; Wilkins, et al., 2011b). Psychoactive substances are used to provide
temporary relief from stress, depression, anxiety, trauma, alienation and poverty. A number of
vulnerable social groups are particularly ‘at risk’ from alcohol and drug related harm including
adolescents, those suffering from mental illness, the already drug dependent, and those living on
social welfare benefits (Ministry of Health, 2009). Stimulant drugs are used to extend hours of
partying, drinking, work, study and to enhance aggression. Opioid drugs are used to alleviate chronic
physical pain and illness (Sheridan & Butler, 2008). Some psychoactive drugs are associated with
psychological and physical dependency which makes it difficult for users to stop even when they
experience serious consequences.
16.2 Drug-related life impacts
The frequent drug users were asked if they had experienced any of a range of negative social
consequences from their drug use in the previous six months. The interviewer explained that these
questions only referred to incidents they had experienced ‘due to your drug use’. Table 16.3
presents the incidences of drug related harm for each of the three frequent drug user groups for
2013
Most of the frequent methamphetamine users reported ‘arguing with others’ (84%), ‘having no
money for luxuries’ (75%), ‘damaging a friendship’ (74%), ‘losing their tempers’ (72%), and ‘doing
something under the influence of drugs which they later regretted’ (70%) as a result of their drug
use. The frequent methamphetamine users also commonly reported ‘ending a personal relationship’
(51%), ‘having reduced work/study performance’ (50%), ‘passing out’ (47%), ‘physically hurting
themselves’ (44%), and ‘having unprotected sex’ (44%).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 16. Health risks and the social harm of drug use
239
Table 16 1: Drug-related incidents by frequent drug user group, 2013
Drug related incident (%)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=93)
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n=118 )
Intravenous
drug users
(IDU)
(n= 101)
Argued with others
84
45
77
No money for luxuries
75
38
79
Damaged a friendship
74
17
71
Lost your temper
72
25
65
Did something under the influence of
drugs and later regretted it
70
60
63
Got into debt/owing money
62
22
79
Upset a family relationship
62
25
70
No money for food or rent
60
14
62
Couldn’t remember what happened the
night before
57
70
50
Ended a personal relationship
51
14
49
Had reduced work/study performance
50
55
38
Verbally or physically threatened
50
33
40
Passed out
47
30
43
Physically hurt yourself
44
27
43
Had unprotected sex
44
48
24
Spent some nights sleeping rough (i.e.
living on the streets)
43
16
32
Damaged property (you)
43
19
32
Were physically assaulted
42
17
28
Had sex and later regretted it
40
24
20
Physically hurt someone else
39
8
29
Got arrested
38
17
31
Took sick leave/did not attend classes
31
46
30
Someone gave you a drug without your
knowledge
31
11
13
Was kicked out of where I was living
29
10
22
Stole property (you)
28
11
35
Were sexually harassed
21
8
9
Sacked/lose business/quit study course
20
6
21
Someone spiked your drink
20
6
9
Overdosed on drugs
15
6
9
Were sexually assaulted
12
3
2
240
16. Health risks and the social harm of drug use | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
A higher proportion of frequent methamphetamine users reported that as a result of their drug use
they had ‘physically hurt themselves’ (up from 30% in 2007 to 44% in 2013, p=0.0094 ), had been
‘given a drug without [their] knowledge’ (up from 9% in 2008 to 31% in 2013, p<0.0001), ‘damaged a
friendship’ (up from 68% in 2007 to 74% in 2013, p=0.0183), ‘had their drink spiked’ (up from 8% in
2008 to 20% in 2013, p=0.0070), ‘passed out’ (up from 45% in 2007 to 47% in 2013, p=0.0088),
‘arguing with others’ (up from 68% in 2012 to 84% in 2013, p=0.0048), had ‘no money for food or
rent’ (up from 55% in 2007 to 60% in 2013, p=0.0319), ‘were sexually harassed’ (up from 11% in
2007 to 21% in 2013, p=0.0236) and ‘spent some nights sleeping rough’ (up from 41% in 2007 to
43% in 2013, p=0.0366) (Figure 16.1 and Figure 16.2).
A lower proportion of frequent methamphetamine users had as a result of their drug use ‘damaged
property’ (down from 56% in 2007 to 43% in 2013, p=0.0371), ‘stolen property’ (down from 45% in
2007 to 28% in 2013, p=0.0220) and ‘took sick leave or did not attend classes’ (down from 60% in
2007 to 31% in 2013, p=0.0116) (Figure 16.3).
Figure 16 1: Proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had been ‘given a drug without their
knowledge’, ‘passed out’, no money for rent/food’, ‘sexually harassed’, and ‘slept rough’ due to their
drug use, 2007 -2013
100%
Given a drug
without your
knowledge
Passing out
% frequent methamphetamine users
90%
80%
70%
60%
55%
50%
45%
55%
38%
40%
25%
30%
40%
46%
24%
Sleeping rough
25%
21%
18%
11%
11%
2007
2008
2009
Sexually harassed
43%
14%
11%
47%
52%
31%
26%
9%
No money for
food/rent
39%
21%
20%
10%
43%
60%
16%
11%
0%
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 16. Health risks and the social harm of drug use
241
Figure 16 2: Proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had their ‘drink spiked’, ‘physically
hurt themselves’, and ‘damaged a friendship’ due to their drug use, 2007 -2013
100%
% frequent methamphetamine users
90%
74%
80%
68%
66%
70%
67%
Drink
spiked
54%
60%
48%
50%
46%
40%
43%
Physically
hurt
yourself
44%
40%
30%
30%
31%
33%
28%
20%
10%
16%
14%
19%
20%
16%
8%
0%
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Figure 16 3: Proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had ‘damaged property’, ‘stole
property’, and ‘took sick leave’ due to their drug use, 2007-2013
100%
% frequent methamphetamine users
90%
80%
Damaged
property
70%
60%
Stole property
50%
Took Sick leave
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
242
16. Health risks and the social harm of drug use | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
The frequent ecstasy users commonly reported that as a result of their drug use they were ‘not able
to remember what happened the night before’ (70%), had ‘done something under the influence of a
drug which they later regretted’ (60%), had ‘reduced work/study performance’ (55%), ‘had
unprotected sex’ (48%),‘took sick leave or did not attend classes’ (46%) and ‘argued with others’
(45%) (Table 16.1).
The frequent ecstasy users were more likely to say that they had been ‘physically or verbally
threatened’ (up from 12% in 2008 to 33% in 2013, p<0.0001), ‘physically assaulted’ (up from 8% in
2008 to 17% in 2013, p=0.0132) and ‘had [their] drink spiked’ (up from 4% in 2008 to 6% in 2013,
p=0.0442) (Figure 16.4).
Figure 16 4: Proportion of frequent ecstasy users who were ‘physically/verbally threatened’, ‘physically
assaulted’, and ‘had their drink spiked’ due to their drug use, 2008-2013
100%
90%
Physically/
verbally
threatened
% frequent ecstasy users
80%
70%
Physically
assaulted
60%
50%
Drink
spiked
37%
40%
26%
30%
15%
20%
10%
0%
12%
8%
29%
18%
12%
29%
18%
33%
21%
14%
3%
6%
4%
2008
2009
17%
9%
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
The proportion of frequent ecstasy users who reported ‘having unprotected sex’ due to their drug
use increased from 40% in 2007 to 48% in 2013 (p=0.0119), and the proportion who reported
‘upsetting a family relationship’ due to their drug use increased from 14% in 2007 to 25% in 2013
(p=0.0009) (Figure 16.5).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 16. Health risks and the social harm of drug use
243
Figure 16 5: Proportion of frequent ecstasy users who ‘upset a family relationship’, and had
‘unprotected sex’ due to their drug use, 2007-2013
100%
90%
% frequent ecstasy users
80%
Upset a
family
relationship
70%
60%
52%
46%
50%
39%
40%
37%
48%
43%
37%
25%
30%
20%
Unprotected
sex
14%
10%
11%
2008
2009
20%
20%
19%
2010
2011
2012
10%
0%
2007
2013
Year
The frequent ecstasy users were less likely to report as a result of their drug use to ‘getting into
debt/owing money’ (down from 37% in 2007 to 22% in 2013, p=0.0375), ‘damaging property’ (down
from 32% in 2012 to 19% in 2013, p=0.0335), ‘losing their temper’ (down from 45% in 2012 to 25% in
2013, p=0.0020), having ‘no money for food or rent’ (down from 24% in 2012 to 14% in 2013,
p=0.0484), ‘passing out’ (down from 46% in 2012 to 30% in 2013, p=0.0169), ‘physically hurting
themselves’ (down from 47% in 2012 to 27% in 2013, p=0.0028) and ‘stealing property’ (down from
21% in 2012 to 11% in 2013, p=0.0466).
Most of the frequent injecting drug users reported that as a result of their drug use to having ‘no
money for luxuries’ (79%), ‘getting into debt’ (79%), ‘arguing with others’ (77%), ‘damaging a
friendship’ (71%), ‘upsetting a family relationship’ (70%), ‘losing their temper’ (65%), ‘doing
something under the influence of a drug and later regretted’ (63%) and having ‘no money for food or
rent’ (62%). The frequent injecting drug users were more likely to report ‘arguing with others’ (up
from 68% in 2007 to 77% in 2013, p=0.0412), ‘damaging a friendship’ (up from 50% in 2007 to 71% in
2013, p=0.0047), ‘physically hurting themselves’ (up from 28% in 2007 to 43% in 2013, p=0.0233),
having to ‘sleep rough’ (up from 28% in 2007 to 32% in 2013, p=0.0471), ‘upsetting a family
relationship’ (up from 50% in 2007 to 70% in 2013, p=0.0059), having ‘no money for food or rent’
(up from 40% in 2012 to 62% in 2013, p=0.0029), ‘passing out’ (up from 28% in 2012 to 43% in 2013,
244
16. Health risks and the social harm of drug use | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
p=0.0289), ‘stealing property’ (up from 20% in 2012 to 35% in 2013,p=0.0229) and getting into ‘debt
or owing money’ (up from 56% in 2012 to 79% in 2013, p=0.0007) (Figure 16.6).
Figure 16 6: Proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had ‘no money for food or rent’, ‘stole
property’, ‘got into debt’ and ‘physically hurt themselves’ due to their drug use, 2007-2013
90%
79%
% frequent injecting drug users
80%
69%
67%
70%
59%
62%
66%
56%
60%
60%
53%
50%
49%
40%
39%
31%
28%
62%
Stealing
property
43%
34%
26%
30%
20%
56%
60%
28%
26%
No money for
food/rent
42%
32%
35%
Getting into
debt
Physically hurt
yourself
27%
19%
19%
2009
2010
20%
10%
0%
2007
2008
2011
2012
2013
Year
Conversely, there was a decrease in the proportion of frequent injecting drug users who reported
having ‘unprotected sex’ as a result of their drug use (down from 40% in 2007 to 24% in 2013,
p=0.0234).
16.3 Drug type responsible for drug-related life impacts
The frequent drug users who had experienced a drug related harmful incident were asked what drug
type they considered to be ‘mainly responsible’ for the problem. Respondents were asked to name
only one drug type; however a small number of respondents provide more than one drug type. Table
16.2 presents the findings for each of the three groups of frequent drug users for 2013. The
overwhelming majority of methamphetamine users nominated methamphetamine (73%) as the
drug type mainly responsible for their drug-related problems, followed by alcohol (17%). The
frequent ecstasy users named three drug types as mainly responsible for their drug-related
problems; alcohol (52%), ecstasy (24%) and cannabis (14%). The frequent injecting drug users named
morphine (48%), methamphetamine (14%), alcohol (11%), methylphenidate (Ritalin™) (9%) and
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 16. Health risks and the social harm of drug use
245
benzodiazepines (6%). There was no change in the drug types nominated as responsible for drugrelated problems among any of the frequent drug user groups.
Table 16 2: Drug types mainly responsible for drug related incidents by frequent drug user group, 2013
Drug type (%)
Methamphetamine
users
(n= 93 )
Morphine
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n=116 )
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n= 100 )
3
0
48
Methamphetamine
73
3
14
Alcohol
17
52
11
Methylphenidate (Ritalin)
2
2
9
Benzodiazepines
0
2
6
Methadone
2
0
3
Heroin
0
0
3
Ecstasy (MDMA)
1
24
2
Other
0
2
2
Homebake heroin
0
0
2
Amphetamine
0
0
1
Oxycodone
0
0
1
Cannabis
3
14
0
Codeine
1
0
0
Tobacco
2
0
0
LSD
0
3
0
Crystal methamphetamine
1
0
0
Mephedrone
0
0
0
Street BZP
0
1
0
Cocaine
0
0
0
Non-BZP party pills
0
0
0
Synthetic cannabis
2
1
0
Tramadol
0
1
0
16.4 Medical and health services
The frequent drug users were asked if they had accessed a range of medical and other health
services ‘in relation to their drug use’ in the previous six months in 2013. The same question was
asked in previous IDMS surveys, although several additional help services were included in 2010,
reflecting a number of initiatives undertaken as part of the Government’s Methamphetamine Action
Plan.
246
16. Health risks and the social harm of drug use | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
The frequent injecting drug users had the highest level of contact with medical and other health
services. The health services they most commonly accessed in 2013 were a ‘needle exchange’ (82%),
‘drug and alcohol worker’ (51%), ‘counsellor’ (50%), ‘electronic needle dispenser’ (48%), ‘pharmacy’
(39%), ‘social worker’ (36%) and ‘General Practitioner’ (i.e. medical doctor) (32%) (Table 16.3). The
proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had accessed a ‘counsellor’ in relation to their drug
use increased from 11% in 2006 to 50% in 2013 (p<0.0001 ) and from 22% in 2012 to 50% in 2013
(p<0.0001) (Figure 16.7). There was ‘an increasing proportion of frequent injecting drug users who
had accessed a ‘social worker’ (up from 4% in 2006 to 36% in 2013, p<0.0001, and from 16% in 2012
to 36% in 2013, p=0.0025). A higher proportion of frequent injecting drug users had accessed ‘First
Aid’ (up from 4% in 2012 to 13% in 2013, p=0.0293), a ‘psychologist’ (up from 8% in 2012 to 18% in
2013, p=0.0462), the ‘alcohol and drug help line’ (up from 5% in 2012 to 12% in 2013, p=0.0832) and
‘drug and alcohol worker’ (up from 39% in 2012 to 51% in 2013, p=0.0789), with the latter two
increases close to being statistically significant.
Conversely, a lower proportion of frequent injecting drug users had accessed a ‘General Practitioner’
(down from 49% in 2012 to 32% in 2013, p=0.0173), were ‘admitted to hospital’ (down from 14% in
2012 to 6% in 2013, p=0.0658), accessed an ‘Accident and Emergency Department’ (down from 20%
in 2012 to 10% in 2013, p=0.0868) and accessed a pharmacy (down from 58% in 2007 to 39% in
2013, p=0.0479) in relation to their drug use (Figure 16.8).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 16. Health risks and the social harm of drug use
247
Table 16 3: Proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had accessed medical and health services
in relation to drug use in the past six months, 2006-2013
Medical
and health
service (%)
2006
(n=92)
2007
(n=108)
2008
(n=130)
2009
(n=99)
2010
(n=128)
2011
(n=99)
2012
(n=104)
2013
(n=101)
Needle
exchange
-
93
69
87
83
87
89
82
Drug and
Alcohol
worker
39
54
29
42
46
37
39
51
Counsellor
11
21
24
31
33
32
22
50
Electronic
needle
dispenser
-
47
46
44
40
28
41
48
Pharmacy
-
58
49
52
62
55
46
39
Social
worker
4
11
13
12
9
15
16
36
General
Practitioner
36
35
43
52
56
44
49
32
Psychologist
6
10
10
10
8
7
8
18
Psychiatrist
8
11
13
8
7
8
14
13
First Aid
9
7
6
5
13
13
4
13
Alcohol and
Drug
Helpline
-
-
-
-
6
6
5
12
Accident
and
Emergency
13
10
11
9
19
11
20
10
Hospital
(admitted)
9
9
10
6
13
14
14
6
Ambulance
12
9
6
6
13
15
11
6
-
-
-
-
2
6
6
4
Meth-Help
or DrugHelp
websites
248
16. Health risks and the social harm of drug use | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 16 7: Proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had accessed a ‘General Practitioner’,
‘counsellor’ and ‘social worker’ in relation to drug use in the past six months, 2006-2013
100%
% frequent injecting drug users
90%
Counsellor
80%
70%
60%
Social
worker
54%
51%
46%
50%
42%
39%
39%
37%
40%
29%
30%
21%
33%
31%
50%
32%
24%
Drug &
alcohol
worker
36%
22%
20%
11%
10%
0%
11%
4%
2006
2007
13%
12%
2008
2009
15%
16%
9%
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Figure 16 8: Proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had accessed an ‘Accident and Emergency
Department’ and had been ‘admitted to hospital’ in relation to drug use in the past six months, 20062013
100%
90%
% frequent injecting drug users
80%
Accident and
Emergency
70%
60%
50%
40%
36%
13%
Hospitalisation
49%
44%
43%
General
Practitioner
35%
30%
20%
56%
52%
10%
11%
10%
20%
19%
9%
32%
10%
11%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 16. Health risks and the social harm of drug use
249
Many of the frequent methamphetamine users also had contact with medical and other health
services in relation to their drug use. The services which the frequent methamphetamine users had
most commonly accessed in 2013 were a ‘General Practitioner’ (37%), ‘drug and alcohol worker’
(36%), ‘counsellor’ (28%), ‘Accident and Emergency Department’ (23%), ‘alcohol and drug help line’
(22%) and ‘needle exchange’ (20%) (Table 16.4). The frequent methamphetamine users were more
likely to have been ‘admitted to hospital’ (up from 4% in 2006 to 17% in 2013, p=0.0003), accessed a
‘social worker’ (up from 7% in 2006 to 18% in 2013, p=0.0228), ‘ambulance’ (up from 3% in 2006 to
15% in 2013, p=0.0074 ), received ‘First Aid’ (up from 2% in 2006 to 10% in 2013, p=0.0003),
accessed ‘Accident and Emergency Department’ services (up from 6% in 2006 to 23% in 2013,
p=0.0191), the ‘Alcohol and Drug Helpline’ (up from 7% in 2012 to 22% in 2013, p=0.0023) and a
psychologist (up from 5% in 2012 to 17% in 2013, p=0.0057) in relation to their drug use (Figure
16.9).
250
16. Health risks and the social harm of drug use | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 16 4: Proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had accessed medical and health
services in relation to drug use in the past six months, 2006-2013
Medical
and 2006
health service (n=114)
(%)
2007
(n=110)
2008
(n=137)
2009
(n=105)
2010
(n=130)
2011
(n=110)
2012
(n=100)
2013
(n=93)
General
Practitioner
27
38
22
26
22
29
32
37
Drug and
Alcohol worker
37
36
25
33
33
29
26
36
Counsellor
34
40
24
31
29
30
29
28
Accident and
Emergency
6
17
11
10
18
15
10
23
Alcohol and
Drug Helpline
-
-
-
-
5
13
7
22
Needle
exchange
-
36
22
29
31
27
26
20
Social worker
7
13
6
11
12
7
14
18
Electronic
needle
dispenser
-
19
10
17
16
10
15
17
Hospital
(admitted)
4
12
5
8
19
22
9
17
Psychologist
9
14
3
4
7
12
5
17
Pharmacy
-
27
15
20
29
23
25
16
Ambulance
3
15
7
9
10
14
12
15
Psychiatrist
9
10
7
8
6
10
8
15
Meth-Help or
Drug-Help
websites
-
-
-
-
5
8
10
12
First Aid
2
7
9
3
16
22
12
10
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 16. Health risks and the social harm of drug use
251
Figure 16 9: Proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who received ‘First Aid’, ‘accessed an
ambulance’ and were ‘admitted to hospital’ in relation to drug use in the past six months, 2006-2013
% frequent methamphetaminme users
50%
40%
Hospitalisation
30%
First Aid
20%
Ambulance
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
The frequent ecstasy users had a fairly low level of contact with medical and other health services in
relation to their drug use. The services which the frequent ecstasy users most commonly accessed in
2013 were a ‘General Practitioner’ (11%), ‘First Aid’ (8%), ‘pharmacy’ (8%), ‘Accident and Emergency
Department’ (6%), ‘counsellor’ (6%) and ‘drug and alcohol worker’ (6%) (Table 16.5). A higher
proportion of frequent ecstasy users reported accessing a ‘General Practitioner’ (up from 4% in 2006
to 11% in 2013, p=0.0142), ‘First Aid’ (up from 2% in 2006 to 8% in 2013, p=0.0675), a ‘social worker’
(up from 0% in 2006 to 4% in 2013, p=0.0548) and ‘psychologist’ (up from 0% in 2006 to 5% in 2013,
p=0.0220) in relation to their drug use (Figure 16.10). A lower proportion of frequent ecstasy users
had accessed an ‘electronic needle dispenser’ (down from 5% in 2007 to 1% in 2013, p=0.0397) and
a hospital (down from 7% in 2012 to 2% in 2013, p=0.0963).
252
16. Health risks and the social harm of drug use | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 16 10: Proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had been ‘admitted to hospital’, ‘received First
Aid’ and ‘accessed a General Practitioner’ in relation to drug use in the past six months, 2006-2013
% frequent ecstasy users
50%
40%
Hospitalisation
30%
First Aid
20%
General
Practitioner
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Year
2011
2012
2013
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 16. Health risks and the social harm of drug use
253
Table 16 5: Proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had accessed medical and health services in
relation to drug use in the past six months, 2006-2013
Medical and health
service (%)
2006
(n=111)
2007
(n=105)
2008
(n=135)
2009
(n=111)
2010
(n=153)
2011
(n=160)
2012
(n=126)
2013
(n=118)
General Practitioner
4
5
6
9
9
8
11
11
First Aid
2
7
5
8
6
6
10
8
Pharmacy
-
12
4
5
3
5
8
8
Counsellor
5
8
7
3
9
6
11
6
Accident and
Emergency
8
5
6
11
5
5
9
6
Drug and Alcohol
worker
2
6
4
3
6
3
6
6
Ambulance
4
3
4
6
5
4
7
5
Psychologist
0
2
2
0
3
2
3
5
Social worker
0
2
1
1
4
1
3
4
Needle exchange
-
6
1
3
1
3
1
3
Hospital (admitted)
2
1
3
6
3
3
7
2
Psychiatrist
0
2
1
0
3
2
1
2
Alcohol and Drug
Helpline
-
-
-
-
3
1
6
1
Meth-Help or DrugHelp websites
-
-
-
-
3
0
6
1
Electronic needle
dispenser
-
5
1
2
1
1
1
1
16.5 Reasons for using drugs
The frequent drug users were asked about the reasons they used drugs and were read a list of
twenty reasons for drug use. The reasons most commonly provided by the frequent
methamphetamine users for using drugs were ‘to get high’ (92%), ‘to socialise/party’ (82%),
‘because it’s fun’ (77%), ‘to stay awake to party’ (65%), ‘to get over boredom’ (62%), ‘to help with
emotional problems’ (62%), ‘to help with depression and unhappiness’ (62%) and ‘because I am
addicted’ (61%) (Table 16.6).
The frequent methamphetamine users were more likely to say they used to drugs ‘to help with
physical pain’ (up from 28% in 2008 to 42% in 2013, p=0.0004), ‘to fit in with friends or partner’ (up
from 28% in 2008 to 50% in 2013, p<0.0001), ‘to help with emotional problems’ (up from 40% in
2008 to 62%, p<0.0001), ‘to help with depression and unhappiness’ (up from 49% in 2008 to 62% in
254
16. Health risks and the social harm of drug use | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
2013, p=0.0023), to ‘stay awake to get things done’ (up from in 45% in 2008 to 60% in 2013,
p=0.0096), because they have ‘more time to party' (up from 24% in 2008 to 37% in 2013, p=0.0017),
because ‘drugs are cheaper now’ (up from 13% in 2008 to 24% in 2013, p=0.0205) and because
‘drugs are more available now’ (up from 37% in 2008 to 45% in 2013), with the latter increase close
to being statistically significant (p=0.0922) (Figure 16.11).
There was a decrease in the proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who said they used
drugs because ‘it’s fun’ (down from 86% in 2008 to 77% in 2013, p=0.0479), ‘to get high’ (down from
95% in 2008 to 92% in 2013, p=0.0444), and to ‘get over boredom’ (down from 74% in 2008 to 62%
in 2013, p=0.0027), to ‘increase confidence’ (down from 72% in 2012 to 56% in 2013, p=0.0127), just
‘experimenting’ ( down from 67% in 2012 to 43% in 2013, p=0.0002) and because they ‘like to try
new drugs or things’ (down from 65% to 40%, p=0.0002).
Table 16 6: Self-reported reasons for using drugs by frequent methamphetamine users, 2008-2013
Reason for using drugs (%)
2008
(n=137)
2009
(n=105)
2010
(n=129)
2011
(n=110)
2012
(n=99)
2013
(n=91)
To get high
95
99
87
83
90
92
To socialise/party
81
84
85
69
82
82
It’s fun
86
91
83
73
89
77
To stay awake to party
69
69
58
53
67
65
To get over boredom
74
80
71
57
70
62
To help with depression/unhappiness
49
48
59
53
68
62
To help with emotional problems
40
42
62
53
63
62
Because I am addicted
58
72
69
62
64
61
To stay awake to get things done
45
43
63
46
58
60
To cope with everyday problems
51
50
58
49
61
57
To increase my confidence
58
58
62
57
72
56
To fit in with my friends/partner
28
24
42
37
39
50
Drugs are more available now
37
43
42
33
53
45
Just experimenting
50
56
57
48
67
43
To help with physical pain/medical problem
28
32
44
43
51
42
I like to try new drugs/things
42
54
55
41
65
40
I have more time to party
24
26
39
23
46
37
Because I’ve got more money now
30
30
36
22
43
35
Drugs are cheaper now
13
15
18
11
23
24
2
4
3
5
13
2
Other reason
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 16. Health risks and the social harm of drug use
255
Figure 16 11: Selected reasons provided by the frequent methamphetamine users for using drugs,
2008-2013
100%
% frequent methamphetamine users
90%
To help with
physical pain
80%
63%
70%
62%
62%
60%
50%
53%
40%
40%
30%
20%
42%
44%
32%
28%
51%
42%
42%
37%
To fit in with
friends/partner
50%
42%
To help with
emotional
problems
To help with
depression/
unhappiness
39%
28%
24%
10%
0%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
The most common reasons given by the frequent injecting drug users for using drugs in 2013 were
‘to get high’ (84%), ‘because I am addicted’ (82%), ‘to help with emotional problems’ (78%), ‘help
with depression and unhappiness’ (77%), ‘to cope with everyday problems’ (70%), ‘to get over
boredom’ (63%), ‘to socialise /party’ (63%), to ‘increase confidence’ (63%) and to ‘help with physical
pain/medical problem’ (63%) (Table 16.7).
256
16. Health risks and the social harm of drug use | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 16 7: Self-reported reasons for using drugs by frequent injecting drug users, 2008-2013
Reason for using drugs (%)
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
(n=130)
(n=99)
(n=127)
(n=94)
(n=104)
(n=101)
To get high
85
83
81
79
74
84
Because I am addicted
79
84
86
84
88
82
To help with emotional problems
46
60
63
62
69
78
To help with depression/unhappiness
52
60
59
58
60
77
To cope with everyday problems
56
55
61
62
61
70
To get over boredom
50
61
60
55
64
63
To socialise/party
45
51
55
47
58
63
To help with physical pain/medical problem
54
51
52
48
53
63
To increase my confidence
39
53
56
51
50
63
It’s fun
58
62
63
53
65
62
Just experimenting
26
35
39
26
42
45
To fit in with my friends/partner
19
20
23
28
34
39
I like to try new drugs/things
25
28
30
27
35
37
To stay awake to party
28
35
24
24
27
35
Because I’ve got more money now
16
10
21
25
29
32
To stay awake to get things done
20
23
29
32
33
31
7
7
14
16
18
26
20
20
26
18
23
25
Drugs are cheaper now
6
9
9
10
11
13
Other reason
5
4
2
2
15
4
I have more time to party
Drugs are more available now
There was an increase in the proportion of frequent injecting drug users who used drugs ‘to cope
with everyday problems’ (up from 56% in 2008 to 70% in 2013, p=0.0300), to help with
‘depression/unhappiness’ (up from 52% in 2008 to 77% in 2013, p=0.0035), to ‘socialise/party’ (up
from 45% in 2008 to 63% in 2013,p=0.0146), just ‘experimenting with drugs’ (up from 26% in 2008 to
45% in 2013, p=0.0148), because ‘I like to try new drugs or things’ (up from 25% in 2008 to 37% in
2013, p=0.0401), to ‘ increase confidence‘ (up from 39% in 2008 to 63% in 2013, p=0.0085), ‘to help
with emotional problems’ (up from 46% in 2008 to 78% in 2013, p<0.0001), ‘to stay awake to get
things done’ (up from 20% in 2008 to 31% in 2013, p=0.0123 ), ‘to fit in with friends or partner’ (up
from 19% in 2008 to 39% in 2013, p<0.0001), ‘because I have more money now’ (up from 16% in
2008 to 32% in 2013, p<0.0001), because ‘I have more time to party’ (up from 7% in 2008 to 26% in
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 16. Health risks and the social harm of drug use
257
2013, p<0.0001 ) and because ‘drugs are cheaper now’ (up from 6% in 2008 to 13% in 2013,
p=0.0667) (Figure 16.12).
Figure 16 12: Selected reasons provided by the frequent injecting drug users for using drugs, 2008-2013
100%
% frequent injecting drug users
90%
80%
70%
To help with
emotional problems
60%
To stay awake to
get things done
50%
Because I have
more money now
40%
I have more time to
party
30%
To fit in with friends
20%
10%
0%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
The most common reasons given by the frequent ecstasy users for using drugs in 2013 were to
‘socialise/ party’ (98%), ‘to get high’ (96%),‘it’s fun’ (93%), ‘just experimenting’ (86%), ‘I like to try
new drugs or things’ (62%) and to ‘stay awake to party’ (60%) (Table 16.8).
258
16. Health risks and the social harm of drug use | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 16 8: Self-reported reasons for using drugs by frequent ecstasy users, 2008-2013
Reason for using drugs (%)
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
(n=135)
(n=111)
(n=151)
(n=157)
(n=126)
(n=113)
To socialise/party
96
94
99
97
97
98
To get high
95
93
93
86
94
96
It’s fun
98
98
98
97
96
93
Just experimenting
75
78
82
73
87
86
I like to try new drugs/things
64
68
65
63
73
62
To stay awake to party
80
67
77
76
74
60
To increase my confidence
39
46
48
43
62
56
To get over boredom
48
61
52
48
62
50
I have more time to party
37
39
40
36
31
40
Drugs are more available now
42
54
50
39
28
39
Because I’ve got more money now
27
32
28
35
27
38
To help with physical pain/medical
9
14
17
15
26
34
To fit in with my friends/partner
13
27
25
30
34
31
To help with emotional problems
15
15
23
22
33
29
To stay awake to get things done
21
12
25
24
22
23
To cope with everyday problems
16
13
19
20
36
22
Because I am addicted
23
23
21
26
28
21
To help with depression/unhappiness
16
12
16
21
31
19
Drugs are cheaper now
16
16
19
17
15
14
7
6
4
3
12
8
problem
Other reason
There was an increase in the proportion of frequent ecstasy users who said they used drugs to
‘increase their confidence’ (up from 39% in 2008 to 56% in 2013, p=0.0008 ), ‘to fit in with friends or
partner’ (up from 13% in 2008 to 31% in 2013, p=0.0004), ‘to help with emotional problems’ (up
from 15% in 2008 to 29% in 2013, p=0.0002) and ‘to help with depression or unhappiness’ (up from
16% in 2008 to 19% in 2013, p=0.0148), ‘to cope with everyday problems’ (up from 16% in 2008 to
22% in 2013, p=0.0021), to ‘help with physical pain or medical condition’ (up from 9% in 2008 to 34%
in 2013, p<0.0001) and ‘to experiment‘ (up from 75% in 2008 to 86% in 2013, p=0.0196) (Figure
16.13). There was a decrease in the frequent ecstasy users who said they used drugs to ‘have fun’
(down from 98% in 2008 to 93% in 2013, p=0.0483), to ‘stay awake to party’ (down from 80% in
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 16. Health risks and the social harm of drug use
259
2008 to 60% in 2013, p=0.0199) and because ‘drugs are more available now’ (down from 42% in
2008 to 39% in 2013, p=0.0089).
Figure 16 13: Selected reasons provided by the frequent ecstasy users for using drugs, 2008-2013
100%
% frequent ecstasy users
90%
80%
To cope with
everyday
problems
To help with
physical pain
70%
60%
50%
To help with
emotional
problems
To help with
depression
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
16.6 Drug Dependency
The drug dependency of the frequent drug users was assessed using a five item short dependency
scale (SDS) (Gossop et al., 1995). The SDS has been validated as an instrument for identifying drug
dependency among users of various drug types including amphetamine, alcohol, cocaine and
cannabis (Gossop, et al., 1995; Martin et al., 2006; Topp & Mattick, 1997). Those frequent drug users
scoring four or more on the combined five questions of the SDS are categorised as drug dependent.
Each type of frequent drug user answered questions in relation to the drug type they were recruited
for (i.e. frequent methamphetamine users answered in relation to methamphetamine; frequent
ecstasy users answered in relation to ecstasy; and frequent injecting drug users in relation to the
main drug they injected).
Eighty-four percent of the frequent injecting drug users, 66% of the frequent methamphetamine
users and 9% of the frequent ecstasy users were assessed to be drug dependent in 2013. The
proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who were assessed to be drug dependent
increased from 52% in 2012 to 66% in 2013 (p=0.0328) (Figure 16.14).
260
16. Health risks and the social harm of drug use | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 16 14: Proportion of frequent drug user group who were assessed as drug dependent, 2006-2013
100%
90%
83%
81%
84%
86%
85%
80%
% frequent drug users
84%
80%
72%
68%
70%
63%
59%
66%
61%
57%
60%
53%
Meth
52%
50%
Ecstasy
40%
IDU
30%
16%
20%
10%
10%
8%
11%
7%
10%
11%
2011
2012
9%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2013
Year
16.7 Mental illness
The frequent drug users were asked if they had ever suffered from any form of mental illness, such
as depression, anxiety, psychosis or schizophrenia. Sixty percent of the methamphetamine users,
50% of the frequent injecting drug users and 26% of the frequent ecstasy users had suffered from a
mental illness in their lifetimes. The proportion of methamphetamine users who reported they had
suffered from a mental illness increased from 41% in 2008 to 60% in 2013 (p=0.0007). The
proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had suffered from a mental illness also increased from
19% in 2008 to 26% in 2013 (p=0.0123 ) (Figure 16.15).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 16. Health risks and the social harm of drug use
261
Figure 16 15: Proportion of frequent drug users who had ever suffered from a mental illness by
frequent drug user group, 2008-2013
100%
90%
80%
% frequent drug users
69%
70%
65%
64%
59%
60%
60%
55%
55%
50%
50%
Meth
50%
41%
41%
Ecstasy
39%
40%
IDU
30%
27%
30%
19%
17%
18%
2008
2009
2010
26%
20%
10%
0%
2011
2012
2013
Year
The frequent drug users were also asked if they had ever been a patient in a psychiatric ward or
hospital for an overnight stay or longer. Twenty-three percent of the frequent injecting drug users
and 17% of the frequent methamphetamine users had been overnight mental health patients in
2013 (Figure 16.16). None of the frequent ecstasy users reported being patients in a mental health
hospital in 2013.
262
16. Health risks and the social harm of drug use | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 16 16: Proportion of frequent drug users who had stayed in a psychiatric facility overnight or
longer by of frequent drug user group, 2008-2013
100%
90%
% frequent drug users
80%
70%
60%
Meth
50%
Ecstasy
40%
IDU
29%
30%
21%
24%
27%
23%
19%
20%
10%
28%
12%
7%
3%
12%
17%
2%
0%
8%
1%
3%
2009
2010
4%
0%
2008
2011
2012
2013
Year
Finally, the frequent drug users were asked if they were currently receiving treatment or medication
for a mental illness. Twenty-six percent of the frequent methamphetamine users, 20% percent of
the frequent injecting drug users and 4% of the frequent ecstasy users were currently receiving
treatment for a mental illness in 2013. The proportion of frequent methamphetamine users
currently receiving treatment for a mental illness increased from 15% in 2008 to 26% in 2013
(p=0.0310) (Figure 16.17).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 16. Health risks and the social harm of drug use
263
Figure 16 17: Proportion of frequent drug user group who are currently receiving treatment for a
mental illness, 2008-2013
100%
90%
% frequent drug users
80%
70%
60%
Meth
50%
Ecstasy
40%
30%
20%
24%
27%
29%
29%
26%
19%
18%
15%
IDU
31%
14%
12%
20%
10%
0%
4%
2008
9%
8%
3%
2009
2010
2011
4%
4%
2012
2013
Year
264
16. Health risks and the social harm of drug use | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
16.8 Summary of health risks and social harm from drug use
Drug related life impacts
•
Most of the frequent methamphetamine users reported ‘arguing with others’ (84%), ‘having
no money for luxuries’ (75%), ‘damaging a friendship’ (74%), ‘losing their tempers’ (72%),
and ‘doing something under the influence of drugs which they later regretted’ (70%) as a
result of their drug use in 2013
•
A higher proportion of frequent methamphetamine users reported that as a result of their
drug use they had ‘physically hurt themselves’ (up from 30% in 2007 to 44% in 2013), had
been ‘given a drug without [their] knowledge’ (up from 9% in 2008 to 31% in 2013), ‘had
their drink spiked’ (up from 8% in 2008 to 20% in 2013), ‘argued with others’ (up from 68%
in 2012 to 84% in 2013) and had been ‘sexually harassed’ (up from 11% in 2007 to 21% in
2013)
•
Most of the frequent injecting drug users reported having ‘no money for luxuries’ (79%),
‘getting into debt’ (79%), ‘arguing with others’ (77%), ‘damaging a friendship’ (71), ‘upsetting
a family relationship’ (70%), ‘losing their temper’ (65%), ‘doing something under the
influence of a drug and later regretted’ (63%) and having ‘no money for food or rent’ (62%)
due to their drug use in 2013
•
The frequent injecting drug users were more likely to report ‘damaging a friendship’ (up
from 50% in 2007 to 71% in 2013, p=0.0047), ‘physically hurting themselves’ (up from 28% in
2007 to 43% in 2013, p=0.0233), ‘upsetting a family relationship’ (up from 50% in 2007 to
70% in 2013, p=0.0059), having ‘no money for food or rent’ (up from 40% in 2012 to 62% in
2013, p=0.0029), ‘passing out’ (up from 28% in 2012 to 43% in 2013, p=0.0289), ‘stealing
property’(up from 20% in 2012 to 35% in 2013,p=0.0229) and getting into ‘debt or owing
money’ (up from 56% in 2012 to 79% in 2013, p=0.0007)
•
The frequent ecstasy users commonly reported ‘not being able to remember what happened
the night before’ (70%), ‘doing something under the influence of a drug which they later
regretted’ (60%), having ‘reduced work/study performance’ (55%), ‘having unprotected sex’
(48%),‘taking sick leave or not attending classes’ (46%), ‘arguing with others’ (45%) and
having ‘no money for luxuries’ (38%) due to their drug use in 2013
•
The frequent ecstasy users were more likely to have been ‘physically or verbally threatened’
(up from 12% in 2008 to 33% in 2013), ‘physically assaulted’ (up from 8% in 2008 to 17% in
2013) and ‘had their drink spiked’ (up from 4% in 2008 to 6% in 2013)
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 16. Health risks and the social harm of drug use
265
•
The overwhelming majority of methamphetamine users nominated methamphetamine
(73%) as the drug type mainly responsible for their drug-related problems, followed by
alcohol (17%)
•
The frequent ecstasy users named three drug types as mainly responsible for their drugrelated problems; alcohol (52%), ecstasy (24%) and cannabis (14%)
•
The frequent injecting drug users named morphine (48%), methamphetamine (14%), alcohol
(11%), methylphenidate (Ritalin™) (9%) and benzodiazepines (6%) as mainly responsible for
their drug-related problems
•
Eighty-four percent of the frequent injecting drug users, 66% of the frequent
methamphetamine users and 9% of the frequent ecstasy users were assessed to be drug
dependent in 2013
•
The proportion of methamphetamine users assessed to be drug dependent increased from
52% in 2012 to 66% in 2013
Accessing medical and health services
•
The health services the frequent injecting drug users most commonly accessed in 2013 were
a ‘needle exchange’ (82%), ‘drug and alcohol worker’ (51%), ‘counsellor’ (50%), ‘electronic
needle dispenser’ (48%), ‘pharmacy’ (39%), ‘social worker’ (36%) and ‘General Practitioner’
(32%)
•
An increasing proportion of frequent injecting drug users had accessed a ‘counsellor’, ‘social
worker’, ‘First Aid’, ‘alcohol and drug help line’ and ‘drug and alcohol worker’ in relation to
their drug use
•
The health services which the frequent methamphetamine users had most commonly
accessed in relation to their drug use in 2013 were a ‘General Practitioner’ (37%), a ‘drug
and alcohol worker’ (36%), a ‘counsellor’ (28%), ‘Accident and Emergency Department’
(23%), ‘alcohol and drug help line’ (22%) and ‘needle exchange’ (20%)
•
The frequent methamphetamine users were more likely to have been ‘admitted to hospital’,
accessed a ‘social worker’, accessed an ‘ambulance’, received ‘First Aid’ and accessed an
‘Accident and Emergency Department’ in 2013
•
The health services which the frequent ecstasy users had most commonly accessed in
relation to their drug use in 2013 were a ‘General Practitioner’ (11%), ‘First Aid’ (8%),
‘pharmacy’ (8%), ‘Accident and Emergency Department‘( 6%), ‘counsellor’ (6%) and ‘drug
and alcohol worker’ (6%)
266
16. Health risks and the social harm of drug use | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
•
The frequent ecstasy users were more likely to have accessed a ‘General Practitioner’,
received ‘First Aid’, accessed a ‘social worker’ and visited a ‘psychologist’ in 2013
Mental illness
•
Sixty percent of the methamphetamine users, 50% of the frequent injecting drug users and
26% of the frequent ecstasy users had suffered from a mental illness in their lifetimes
•
The proportion of methamphetamine users who had ever suffered from a mental illness
increased from 41% in 2008 to 60% in 2013
•
The proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had ever suffered from a mental illness
increased from 19% in 2008 to 26% in 2013
•
Twenty-three percent of the frequent injecting drug users and 17% of the frequent
methamphetamine users had stayed in a psychiatric facility overnight or longer in 2013
•
Twenty-six percent of the frequent methamphetamine users, 20% percent of the frequent
injecting drug users and 4% of the frequent ecstasy users were currently receiving treatment
for a mental illness in 2013
•
The proportion of frequent methamphetamine users currently receiving treatment for a
mental illness increased from 15% in 2008 to 26% in 2013
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 16. Health risks and the social harm of drug use
267
17. Drug and alcohol treatment
17.1 Introduction
Drug and alcohol treatment provides a means by which frequent drug users can address their
substance use and related problems. The benefits of successful drug treatment extend beyond the
user themselves to include their partners, children, extended family, friends, work colleagues and
local community (Babor et al., 2010). Drug treatment can also play a part in reducing crime and drug
use by rehabilitating offenders whose alcohol and drug use is a driver of their offending, and by
removing heavy drug users who are involved in selling drugs (Wilkins & Sweetsur, 2011a, 2011b).
Problematic substance users are most receptive to entering treatment immediately following a
serious drug related incident such as an accident, overdose, loss of employment, breakdown of
personal relationship, arrest or imprisonment (ADANZ, 2009). It is therefore important to have
treatment places readily available to take advantage of these ‘windows of opportunity’ for change.
The criminal justice system can play an important role in this process by making treatment a feature
of diversion, sentencing and parole (Caulkins & Reuter, 2009; Hough, 1996).
17.2 Extent needed help to reduce drug use
The frequent drug users were first asked about the extent to which they felt they needed help to
reduce their drug use. Forty-five percent of the frequent injecting drug users and 29% of the
frequent methamphetamine users believed they needed ‘a lot’ of help to reduce their drug use in
2013 (Table 17.1). In contrast, nearly three quarters of the frequent ecstasy users believed they
needed ‘no help at all’ to reduce their drug use.
Table 17 1: Extent to which the frequent drug users felt they needed help to reduce their drug use by frequent drug user group, 2009-2013
Extent felt
needed help (%)
Methamphetamine users
2009
(n=105)
2010
2011
2012
(n=124) (n=101) (n=100)
Ecstasy users
2013
(n=92)
Intravenous drug users
2009
2010
2011
2012
(n=111) (n=151) (n=159) (n=125)
2013
(n=117)
2009
(n=99)
2010
(n=125)
2011
(n=91)
2012
(n=104)
2013
(n=99)
A lot of help [3]
25
22
29
25
29
2
3
3
5
4
46
28
20
27
45
Some help [2]
18
22
12
18
29
3
5
7
5
5
26
24
34
24
22
A little help [1]
18
20
17
22
25
18
18
17
17
18
14
25
13
14
8
No help at all [0]
39
37
41
36
16
77
74
72
72
73
14
23
32
35
25
Mean score
(0=’no help’ – 3=’a
lot’ of help’)
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.7
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
2.0
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.9
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 17. Drug and alcohol treatment
269
The methamphetamine users were more likely to feel they needed help to reduce their drug use
from 2009 to 2013 (up from 1.3 to 1.7, p=0.0234), and from 2012 to 2013 (up from 1.3 to 1.7,
p=0.0157). The frequent injecting drug users were more likely to believe they needed help to reduce
their drug use from 2012 to 2013 (up from 1.4 to 1.9, p=0.0149) (Table17.1 and Figure 17.1).
Figure 17 1: Proportion of the frequent drug users who felt they needed at least some help to reduce
their drug use by frequent drug user group, 2009-2013
100%
90%
80%
% frequent drug users
72%
67%
70%
2009
58%
60%
52%
50%
2010
54%
51%
43% 44% 42% 43%
2011
2012
40%
2013
30%
20%
10%
5%
8%
10%10% 9%
0%
Meth
Ecstasy
IDU
17.3 Wanted help to reduce drug use but did not get it
The frequent drug users were then asked if they had ever wanted help to reduce their drug use in
the previous six months ‘but had not got it’. Thirty-three percent of the frequent methamphetamine
users, 25% of the frequent injecting drug users, and 15% of the frequent ecstasy users said they had
indeed wanted help but ‘had not got it’ (Table 17.2). The proportion of frequent ecstasy users who
wanted help but did not get it increased from 10% in 2007 to 15% in 2013 (p=0.0390).
270
17. Drug and alcohol treatment | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 17 2: Proportion of frequent drug users who had wanted help to reduce their drug use in the
previous six months but had not got it, 2007-2013
2007
Meth users
Ecstasy users
n=110
n=105
32%
2008
n=137
2009
n=105
2010
n=126
2011
n=110
2012
n=99
2013
n=93
10%
n=135
22%
9%
n=111
21%
3%
n=152
24%
8%
n=158
29%
13%
n=125
34%
13%
n=118
33%
15%
Injecting drug
users
n=108
34%
n=131
34%
n=98
23%
n=127
30%
n=97
25%
n=104
32%
n=101
25%
17.4 Barriers encountered when looking for help to reduce drug use
Those frequent drug users who had wanted help to reduce their drug use but were unable to find it
were asked what barriers, if any, they had experienced when trying to find help. They were read a
list of 15 common barriers to seeking treatment. The same list of barriers had been read out in
previous waves of the IDMS.
The frequent methamphetamine users had experienced a mean of three barriers to finding help in
2013 (median 2, range 1-14). The barriers they most often experienced were ‘social pressure to keep
using’ (40%), ‘fear of what might happen after made contact with a service’ (39%), ‘long waiting lists’
(38%), ‘fear of police’ (34%),‘didn’t know where to go’ (31%), ‘concern about impact on job/career’
(27%) and ‘fear of social welfare agencies’ (27%) (Table 17.3). The ‘other barriers’ (n=2) not reported
in the table include, ‘lack of motivation’, ‘could not be bothered’ and ‘no time’.
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 17. Drug and alcohol treatment
271
Table 17 3: Barriers experienced by the frequent methamphetamine users when trying to find help to
reduce drug use (of those who were unable to find help), 2007-2013
Barriers to trying to get help
(%)
Long waiting lists
Social pressure to keep using
Concern about impact on
job/career
Didn’t know where to go
Fear of police
Fear of CYFs or other social
welfare agency
No transport to get there
No local service available
Fear of what might happen after
make contact with service
Fear of losing friends
Costs too much
Couldn’t get appointment at
suitable time
Service not appropriate for my
drug use/problems
No after-hours service
Lack of childcare
2007
(n=33)
2008
(n=31)
2009
(n=22)
2010
(n=31)
2011
(n=33)
2012
(n=34)
2013
(n=27)
38
14
18
19
33
32
38
48
36
19
39
48
30
40
36
8
4
23
23
30
27
38
21
22
32
21
27
31
43
27
10
25
20
24
34
22
14
4
9
20
23
27
26
11
9
25
14
23
24
27
4
13
13
5
23
11
53
45
15
26
33
21
39
36
34
14
16
27
21
15
26
5
14
23
21
21
20
35
10
22
22
20
18
24
27
7
18
12
6
18
17
20
8
9
10
10
9
9
8
0
0
10
3
3
6
Only a fairly modest number of the frequent methamphetamine users had wanted help to reduce
their drug use and not got it from 2007 to 2013 (i.e. approximately 30 respondents each year), and
this low number of respondents makes it difficult for the statistical tests to detect changes over
time. Nevertheless, some trends were found. The proportion of frequent methamphetamine users
who reported ‘fear of what might happen after making contact with a service’ as a barrier to seeking
help declined from 53% in 2007 to 39% in 2013, and this decline was close to being statistically
significant (p=0.0618). The proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who nominated ‘fear of
losing friends’ as a barrier to finding help also decreased from 36% in 2007 to 15% in 2013
(p=0.0418) (Figure 17.2).
272
17. Drug and alcohol treatment | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 17 2: Proportion of the frequent methamphetamine users who reported ‘fear of service’, ‘fear of
police’ and ‘fear of losing friends’ as barriers to seeking help (of those who were unable to find help),
2007-2013
100%
% of frequent meth users
90%
Fear of
service
80%
70%
Fear of
police
60%
Fear of
losing
friends
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
The frequent injecting drug users reported a mean of three barriers to finding help to reduce their
drug use in 2013 (median 2, range 1-8). The barriers most often experienced by the injecting drug
users were: ‘long waiting lists’ (47%), ‘service not appropriate for my drug use/problems’ (39%),
‘couldn’t get an appointment at suitable time’ (37%), ‘fear of what might happen after made contact
with a service’ (35%), ‘no transport to get there’ (31%), ‘social pressure to keep using’ (22%), ‘no
after hours service’ (22%) and ‘fear of social welfare agencies’ (21%) (Table 17.4).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 17. Drug and alcohol treatment
273
Table 17 4: Barriers experienced by the frequent injecting drug users when trying to find help to reduce
drug use (of those who were unable to find help), 2007-2013
Barriers to trying to get
help (%)
2007
(n=36)
2008
(n=45)
2009
(n=25)
No after-hours service
22
9
8
Social pressure to keep using
28
14
4
Concern about impact on
job/career
21
10
0
0
7
0
52
32
20
Lack of childcare
Fear of what might happen
after contact with service
No transport to get there
Long waiting lists
Service not appropriate for my
drug use/problems
Didn’t know where to go
Fear of police
Fear of CYFs or other social
welfare agency
Couldn’t get appointment at
suitable time
No local service available
Fear of losing friends
Costs too much
23
52
31
7
14
22
32
13
17
24
4
33
13
4
4
19
16
4
41
22
24
18
14
20
15
21
26
9
4
5
2010
(n=39)
10
2011
(n=26)
8
9
8
22
12
36
23
15
10
8
18
5
2
16
2012
(n=32)
8
13
20
9
28
7
4
3
29
49
29
43
21
41
34
28
28
27
25
26
29
24
20
24
13
20
13
19
17
16
2013
(n=24)
22
22
10
7
35
31
47
39
18
7
21
37
8
7
7
There was an increase in the proportion of frequent injecting drug users from 2007 to 2013 who
reported having ‘no transport to get there’ (up from 23% to 31%, p=0.0444) and ‘didn’t know where
to go’ (up from 7% to 18%, p=0.0266) as barriers to seeking help (Figure 17.3). Conversely, there was
a decrease in the proportion of frequent injecting drug users who reported ‘fear of police’ (down
from 26% in 2012 to 7% in 2013, p=0.08760) as a barrier to seeking help.
274
17. Drug and alcohol treatment | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 17 3: Proportion of the frequent injecting drug users who reported ‘no transport to get there’ or
‘didn’t know where to go’ as barriers to seeking help (of those who were unable to find help), 20072013
% of frequent injecting drug users
100%
90%
80%
No transport
to get there
70%
60%
50%
40%
31%
29%
30%
23%
22%
20%
12%
17%
10%
0%
Didn't know
where to go
43%
7%
2007
4%
27%
27%
18%
15%
4%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Only a very small number of the frequent ecstasy users had ‘wanted help for their drug use but not
got it’ over the previous seven years (i.e. 2007=9; 2008=13; 2009=3; 2010=12; 2011=23; 2012=16;
2013=17). This prevents any meaningful statistical comparison of barriers over time. The most
common barriers identified by the frequent ecstasy users in 2013 were ‘social pressure to keep
using’ (63%), ‘fear of what might happen after contact with service’ (36%), ‘fear of police’ (28%),
‘didn’t know where to go’ (27%) (Table 17.5). The proportion of frequent ecstasy users who reported
‘social pressure to keep using’ as a barrier to seeking help increased from 31% in 2012 to 63% in
2013, and this increase was close to being statistically significant (p=0.0768).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 17. Drug and alcohol treatment
275
Table 17 5: Barriers experienced by frequent ecstasy users when trying to find help to reduce drug use
(of those who were unable to find help), 2010-2013
Barriers to trying to get help (%)
2010
(n=12)
2011
(n=23)
2012
(n=16)
2013
(n=17)
Social pressure to keep using
34
52
31
63
Fear of what might happen after
contact with service
24
9
49
36
8
7
32
28
Didn’t know where to go
41
4
32
27
Concern about impact on job/career
25
20
45
19
Costs too much
25
17
40
19
8
9
32
19
18
27
20
14
Service not appropriate for my drug
use/problems
8
26
25
9
Fear of CYFs or social welfare
agencies
0
4
No local service available
8
0
19
9
No after-hours service
8
9
20
5
16
9
45
0
Couldn’t get appointment at good
time
8
7
13
0
Lack of childcare
0
5
7
0
Fear of police
No transport to get there
Fear of losing friends
Long waiting lists
19
9
17.5 Drug treatment history
Twenty-seven percent of the frequent injecting drug users and 14% of the frequent
methamphetamine users were currently in drug treatment. Only one of the frequent ecstasy users
was currently enrolled in a drug treatment programme.
276
17. Drug and alcohol treatment | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 17 4: Proportion who were currently in drug treatment by frequent drug user group, 2013
100%
90%
% frequent drug users
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
27%
30%
20%
14%
10%
1%
0%
Meth
Ecstasy
IDU
17.7 Drug type responsible for drug treatment
Those frequent drug users who were currently in drug treatment were asked what drug or drugs
they were receiving treatment for. Of the frequent methamphetamine users who were currently
receiving treatment (n=13), 48% were receiving help for methamphetamine, 38% for morphine, 21%
for cannabis, 20% for benzodiazepines, 14% for alcohol and 13% for ‘homebake’ morphine (Table
17.7). Of the intravenous drug users currently receiving treatment (n=26), 86% were being treated
for morphine, 17% for ‘homebake’ heroin/morphine, 10% for opium poppies and 7% for methadone.
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 17. Drug and alcohol treatment
277
Table 17 6: Drug type(s) currently in treatment for by frequent drug user group, 2010-2013
Frequent methamphetamine users
Frequent injecting drug users
2010
(n=23)
2010
(n=47)
2011
(n=18)
2012
(n=14)
2013
(n=13)
2011
(n=33)
2012
(n=34)
2013
(n=26)
Morphine
27
27
54
38
57
60
76
86
Heroin
13
0
0
0
15
9
22
3
Methadone
34
11
18
0
24
32
17
7
5
0
6
20
9
16
17
0
53
61
58
48
5
5
14
4
Alcohol
9
41
14
14
7
0
13
0
Homebake
heroin/morphine
4
0
14
13
27
9
13
17
Ritalin
4
7
12
0
6
0
11
3
10
20
20
21
2
6
6
0
Amphetamine
4
5
0
7
2
0
3
0
Ecstasy
0
0
0
0
2
0
3
0
Cocaine
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
LSD
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
Amyl nitrate
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
Tobacco
0
0
0
0
5
3
3
3
Street BZP
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
Mushrooms
0
0
0
0
2
0
3
0
Poppies
0
0
16
0
2
3
3
10
10
9
0
0
5
2
0
0
Crystal
methamphetamine
0
5
8
0
0
0
0
0
Oxycodone
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
Codeine
0
0
0
6
0
9
0
0
Anti –depressant
-
-
7
-
-
-
0
Benzodiazepines
Methamphetamine
Cannabis
Other
278
0
17. Drug and alcohol treatment | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
17.8 Calls to the Alcohol and Drug Help-line
The Alcohol and Drug Help-line is a free national telephone information service operated by the
Alcohol and Drug Association of New Zealand (ADANZ). The Help-line provides free confidential
information, support and service referral to drug users and to concerned third parties, such as
parents, family members and partners. The drug types callers make enquiries about provide a broad
indication of trends in problematic drug use in New Zealand. The ADANZ statistics presented in this
chapter are of the number of callers rather than number of calls as a single caller will often call the
service a number of times about a problem. A caller may contact the service about more than one
drug type.
The proportion of callers seeking help for alcohol problems declined from 74% in 2009/10 to 64% in
2013/14. The proportion of callers seeking help for methamphetamine problems has remained
steady at about 10% over the past three years (i.e. 10% in 2011/12, 10% in 2012/13 and 11% in
2013/14). There has been a decline in the proportion of callers seeking help for cannabis problems in
recent years (down from 16% in 2011/12 to 12% in 2013/14). Conversely, there has been an
emergence of callers seeking help for synthetic cannabis over the same years (i.e. up from 1% in
2011/12 to 9% in 2013/14).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 17. Drug and alcohol treatment
279
Figure 17 5: Proportion of callers to the Alcohol and Drug Help-line by drug type calling about, 20072013
110%
100%
3%
% of callers to helpline
90%
80%
70%
4%
4%
6%
7%
3%
9%
3%
4%
9%
5%
2%
4%
8%
2%
5%
3%
9%
2%
4%
1%
3%
10%
2%
5%
4%
2%
9%
3%
10%
12%
14%
15%
16%
16%
11%
Other
12%
Synthetic cannabis
16%
14%
15%
60%
Benzodiazepines
50%
Opioids
Methamphetamine
40%
30%
63%
70%
72%
74%
70%
69%
66%
64%
Cannabis
Alcohol
20%
10%
0%
2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14
Source: ADANZ (ADANZ, 2014)
17.9 Community Alcohol and Drug Services (CADS)
The Community Alcohol and Drug Service (CADS) provides free alcohol and other drug services to
the people of the Auckland region (i.e. the Auckland, Counties Manukau and Waitemata District
Health Boards) (CADS, 2013). New clients to CADS programmes are administered an alcohol and
other drug screening package to determine what drug types they have a problem with. The CADS
screen comprises six individual screening instruments for six different drug types (i.e. alcohol;
cannabis; amphetamine; opiates; benzodiazepines; and other drugs). A positive screen indicates
probable problematic and/or dependent drug use. The positive screens for different drug types
provide some indication of trends in problematic drug use in the wider community.
Figure 17.6 presents the proportion of positive screens for problematic use by drug type. A client can
test positive for more than one drug type so the graph is the proportion of positive screens rather
than clients. There has been a steady increase in the proportion of positive screens for alcohol use
up from 52% in 2005 to 72% in 2013. The proportion of positive screens for methamphetamine use
280
17. Drug and alcohol treatment | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
decreased from 14% in 2006 to 8% in 2013. The proportion of positive screens for cannabis use has
also steadily declined from 24% in 2005 to 15% in 2013.
Figure 17 6: Proportion of clients screening positive for problematic substance use by substance type,
2005-2013
100%
% of positive screens for drug problem
90%
80%
3
3
3
3
5
4
4
4
14
11
10
13
2
3
8
2
2
7
3
1
8
2
1
8
3
1
8
16
16
17
15
17
70%
20
24
Other
17
Benzodiazepines
23
60%
Opiates
50%
Methamphetamine
Cannabis
40%
30%
52
54
2005
2006
60
65
70
73
71
72
72
2010
2011
2012
2013
Alcohol
20%
10%
0%
2007
2008
2009
Source: CADS (CADS, 2014)
CADS management recently reviewed the demand for treatment services related to synthetic
cannabinoids over a six month period in early 2014 (i.e. 1st February–31 July 2014) (personal
correspondence, Robert Steenhuisen, Community Alcohol and Drug Services, 2014). This review
found only a ‘very modest’ impact with approximately 2% of treatment episodes (i.e. 240 episodes)
involving synthetic cannabis.
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 17. Drug and alcohol treatment
281
17.10 Summary of drug treatment
Frequent methamphetamine users
•
Twenty-nine percent of the frequent methamphetamine users indicated they needed ‘a lot’
of help to reduce their drug use in 2013
•
The methamphetamine users were more likely to feel they needed help to reduce their drug
use from 2012 to 2013
•
Thirty-three percent of the frequent methamphetamine users had sought help to reduce
their drug use but not got it in the past six months in 2013
•
The barriers to getting help most often experienced by the frequent methamphetamine
users in 2013 were ‘social pressure to keep using’ (40%), ‘fear of what might happen after
made contact with a service’ (39%), ‘long waiting lists’ (38%), ‘fear of police’ (34%),‘didn’t
know where to go’ (31%) and ‘concern about impact on job/career’ (27%)
•
A lower proportion of frequent methamphetamine users reported ‘fear of what might
happen after making contact with a service’ (down from 53% in 2007 to 39% in 2013) and
‘fear of losing friends’ as barriers to finding help (down from 36% in 2007 to 15% in 2013)
•
The proportion of callers to the Alcohol and Drug Help-line seeking help for
methamphetamine problems has remained steady at about 10% over the past three years
•
The proportion of new clients to the Community Alcohol and Drug Service (CADS) drug
treatment services in Auckland screening positive for problematic methamphetamine use
declined from 14% in 2006 to 8% in 2013
Frequent injecting drug users
•
Forty-five percent of the frequent injecting drug users indicated they needed ‘a lot’ of help
to reduce their drug use in 2013
•
The frequent injecting drug users were more likely to believe they needed help to reduce
their drug use from 2012 to 2013
•
Twenty-five percent of the frequent injecting drug users had sought help to reduce their
drug use but not got it in the past six months in 2013
•
The barriers to getting help most often experienced by the injecting drug users were: ‘long
waiting lists’ (47%), ‘service not appropriate for my drug use /problems’ (39%), ‘couldn’t get
an appointment at suitable time’ (37%), ‘fear of what might happen after made contact with
282
17. Drug and alcohol treatment | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
a service’ (35%), ‘no transport to get there’ (31%), ‘social pressure to keep using’ (22%), ‘no
after-hours service’ (22%) and ‘fear of Child Youth & Family (CYF) or other social welfare
agency’ (21%)
•
A higher proportion of frequent injecting drug users reported ‘no transport to get there’ (up
from 23% in 2007 to 31% in 2013) and ‘didn’t know where to go’ (up from 7% in 2007 to 18%
in 2013) as barriers to seeking help
•
The proportion of frequent injecting drug users who reported ‘fear of police’ as a barrier to
seeking help decreased from 26% in 2012 to 7% in 2013
Frequent ecstasy users
•
Seventy–three percent of the frequent ecstasy users indicated they needed ‘no help at all’ to
reduce their drug use in 2013
•
Fifteen percent of the frequent ecstasy users had sought help to reduce their drug use but
not got it in the past six months in 2013
•
The barriers to getting help most often experienced by the frequent ecstasy users in 2013
were ‘social pressure to keep using’ (63%), ‘fear of what might happen after contact with the
service’ (36%), ‘fear of police’ (28%), and ‘didn’t know where to go’ (27%)
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 17. Drug and alcohol treatment
283
18. Crime
18.1 Introduction
Frequent drug users are sometimes involved in criminal offending not directly related to illegal drug
use, such as property crime, drug dealing, fraud and violence. However, there remains considerable
debate about the role drug use plays in instigating offending (Bennett & Holloway, 2005;
Hammersley et al., 1989; Seddon, 2000). Some see drug use as a behaviour which drives criminality,
particularly property offending, while others view drug use as a function of the criminal lifestyle.
Others suggest that there is no causal relationship between the two behaviours at all. What is
clearer is that among already criminally active individuals, the frequent use of expensive drugs tends
to accelerate income generating offending (Bennett & Holloway, 2005). For example, police
arrestees in New Zealand who spent $1,000 or more on methamphetamine per month earned
$2,367 more from property crime and $2,679 more from drug dealing per month than those
arrestees who had not spent any money on methamphetamine (Wilkins & Sweetsur, 2011a). A
similar association was found between the number of days of methamphetamine use and the
earnings from acquisitive crime (Wilkins & Sweetsur, 2011b).
18.2 Property crime
Twenty-two percent of frequent injecting drug users, 11% of the frequent methamphetamine users,
and 1% of the frequent ecstasy users reported committing a property crime in the previous month in
2013 (Table 18.1). The proportion of the frequent methamphetamine users who had committed a
property crime in the previous month decreased from 15% in 2006 to 11% in 2013 (p=0.0365)
(Figure 18.1). The proportion of the frequent injecting drug users who had committed a property
crime in the previous month also decreased from 28% in 2006 to 22% in 2013, and this decline was
close to being statistically significant (p=0.0864) (Figure 18.2).
284
18. Crime | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 18 1: Proportion of the frequent drug users who committed property crime, 2013
Property crime (%)
Methamphetamine
users (n=93)
Ecstasy users
(MDMA) (n=118)
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=101)
Ever committed property
crime
46
26
64
Committed property crime
in past six months
16
11
30
Committed property crime
in past month
11
1
22
Figure 18 1: Proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who sold drugs, committed property
crime and committed fraud in the previous month, 2006-2013
% of frequent methamphetamine users
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
53%
45%
50%
10%
37%
36%
32%
30%
20%
Property
crime
42%
41%
40%
40%
Drug
dealing
24%
25%
21%
21%
23%
15%
11%
8%
Fraud
7%
5%
5%
3%
4%
8%
11%
6%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 18. Crime
285
Figure 18 2: Proportion of frequent injecting drug users who sold drugs, committed property crime and
committed fraud in the previous month, 2006-2013
100%
% of frequent injecting drug users
90%
80%
70%
Drug
dealing
60%
50%
47%
40%
30%
46%
44%
41%
33%
32%
28%
28%
35%
20%
12%
5%
10%
Fraud
28%
25%
9%
Property
crime
46%
7%
2%
3%
2009
2010
22%
22%
4%
3%
4%
2011
2012
2013
15%
0%
2006
2007
2008
Year
18.3 Drug dealing
Forty-six percent of frequent injecting drug users, 37% of frequent methamphetamine users and
18% of frequent ecstasy users had sold drugs in the previous month in 2013 (Table 18.2). The
proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had sold drugs in the past month declined from 36% in
2006 to 18% in 2013 (p=0.0048) (Figure 18.3).
Table 18 2: Proportion of the frequent drug users who sold illegal drugs, 2013
Sold drugs (%)
Methamphetamine
users (n=93)
Ever sold drugs
74
50
69
Sold drugs in past six
months
51
31
54
Sold drugs in past month
37
18
46
286
Ecstasy users
(MDMA) (n=118)
18. Crime | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=101)
Figure 18 3: Proportion of frequent ecstasy users who sold drugs, committed property crime and
committed fraud in the previous month, 2006-2013
100%
% of frequent ecstasy users
90%
80%
70%
60%
Drug
dealing
50%
Property
crime
40%
36%
Fraud
26%
30%
30%
27%
22%
21%
24%
18%
20%
10%
0%
5%
1%
2006
8%
7%
4%
2007
9%
4%
8%
6%
1%
2008
1%
2009
4%
3%
2010
2011
1%
1%
2012
0%
2013
Year
18.4 Fraud
Six percent of frequent methamphetamine users and 4% of frequent injecting drug users reported
committing a fraud in the previous month in 2013. None of the ecstasy users reported committing
fraud in the previous month (Table 18.3). The proportion of frequent injecting users who committed
a fraud in the previous month decreased from 9% in 2006 to 4% in 2013 (p=0.0356) (Figure 18.2).
Table 18 3: Proportion of the frequent drug users who committed fraud, 2013
Fraud (%)
Ever committed fraud
Methamphetamine
users (n=93 )
Ecstasy users
(MDMA) (n=118)
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=101)
22
4
31
Committed fraud in past
six months
8
0
5
Committed fraud in past
month
6
0
4
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 18. Crime
287
18.5 Crime involving violence
The frequent drug users were asked about their histories of committing violent crime. Thirty-six
percent of the frequent methamphetamine users, 29% of the frequent injecting drug users, and 7%
of the frequent ecstasy users had committed a violent crime at some point in their in lives (Table
18.4). Eight percent of the frequent methamphetamine users, 3% of the injecting drug users and 1%
of the frequent ecstasy users had committed a violent crime in the past month in 2013. The
proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had ever committed a violent crime decreased from
48% in 2008 to 29% in 2013 (p=0.0464) (Figure 18.4). A lower proportion of frequent ecstasy users
had been involved in violent crime from 2012 to 2013 (Figure 18.5). The previous spike in violence
among the ecstasy users in 2012 may have reflected the availability of ‘ecstasy’ tablets containing
compounds known to induce agitation, such as MDPV. There was no change in levels of selfreported violent crime among the methamphetamine users.
Table 18 4: Proportion of the frequent drug users who committed violent crime, 2013
Violent crime (%)
Methamphetamin
e users (n=93)
Ecstasy users
(MDMA) (n=118)
Intravenous drug
users
(IDU)
(n=101 )
Ever committed violent
crime
36
7
29
Committed violent crime in
past six months
12
3
6
Committed violent crime in
past month
8
1
3
288
18. Crime | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 18 4: Proportion of frequent injecting drug users who committed a violent crime in their
lifetime, in the previous six months, and in the previous month, 2006-2013
100%
Frequent injecting drug users
90%
80%
70%
Lifetime
60%
48%
50%
43%
42%
Previous
six months
45%
35%
40%
Previous
month
29%
30%
20%
13%
12%
6%
10%
0%
12%
2%
6%
6%
2006
2007
9%
6%
2008
0%
2009
4%
2010
6%
2011
3%
2012
2013
Year
Figure 18 5: Proportion of frequent ecstasy users who committed a violent crime in their lifetime, in the
previous six months, and in the previous month, 2006-2013
70%
Frequent ecstasy users
60%
50%
Lifetime
40%
Previous
six
months
Previous
month
26%
30%
18%
20%
13%
12%
10%
2%
2%
10%
7%
4%
1%
7%
6%
4%
2%
12%
7%
2%
3%
1%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 18. Crime
289
18.6 Means used to pay for drug use
The frequent drug users were asked about all the different ways they may have used to pay for their
drug use in the previous six months. They were read a list of twenty possible payment means and
asked to select all the ones that applied to them. All three groups of frequent drug users most
commonly received drugs as ‘gifts from friends’. The frequent methamphetamine users reported
paying for drugs in 2013 with ‘social welfare payments’ (59%), ‘credit from dealers’ (51%), ‘paid
employment’ (47%), by ‘selling drugs to provide personal supply’ (47%), ‘money borrowed from
friends’ (45%) and by ‘bartering drugs/goods/services’ (45%) (Table 18.5). Twenty- four percent of
the frequent methamphetamine users had made their own drugs, 23% had obtained drugs from a
‘family member or friend’s prescription’, and 13% had paid for drugs with ‘property crime’.
290
18. Crime | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 18 5: Different means used by the frequent methamphetamine users to pay for drugs in the past
six months, 2006 – 2013
Different means of
payment for
drug use
2006
(n=112)
2007
(n=109)
2008
(n=137)
2009
(n=105)
2010
(n=130)
2011
(n=112)
2012
(n=100)
Gift from friends
80%
87%
69%
69%
85%
82%
95%
82%
Unemployment benefit/
social welfare benefit
40%
53%
43%
61%
67%
61%
64%
59%
Credit from drug dealers
36%
51%
29%
43%
50%
53%
46%
51%
Paid employment
64%
57%
63%
61%
59%
50%
53%
47%
Selling drugs to provide
personal supply
46%
49%
29%
38%
62%
48%
45%
47%
Bartering drugs/ goods/
services
44%
61%
32%
45%
65%
55%
57%
45%
Borrowed money from
friends
30%
50%
29%
38%
59%
48%
51%
45%
Selling drugs for cash
profit
35%
47%
30%
40%
59%
34%
38%
39%
Pawning property
23%
43%
19%
37%
55%
24%
44%
37%
Money from parents
(given, borrowed)
20%
28%
26%
29%
32%
29%
25%
26%
Prescription (in own
name)
-
-
15%
21%
25%
27%
25%
24%
Made it
-
-
11%
19%
39%
32%
22%
24%
Family member or
friend’s prescription
-
-
9%
15%
28%
30%
23%
23%
Property crime (e.g.
burglary, shoplifting,
stealing cars)
13%
22%
23%
22%
31%
28%
16%
13%
Exchange for sexual
favours
6%
15%
7%
8%
19%
8%
17%
12%
Sex work (i.e.
prostitution)
3%
15%
8%
8%
7%
8%
19%
9%
10%
16%
7%
11%
14%
11%
7%
9%
Student loan/allowance
-
-
-
14%
14%
10%
11%
8%
‘Doctor shopping’ (going
to number of doctors for
prescription drugs)
-
-
3%
8%
7%
10%
2%
8%
Fraud
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 18. Crime
2013
(n=93)
291
The frequent methamphetamine users were more likely from 2006 to 2013 to pay for their drug use
with ‘social welfare benefits’ (up from 40% to 59%, p<0.0001), ‘credit from drug dealers’ (up from
36% to 51%, p=0.0045), ‘money borrowed from friends’ (up from 30% to 45%, p=0.0006) and by
‘pawning property’ (up from 23% to 37%, p=0.0081) (Figure 18.7).
Figure 18 6: Proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who used social welfare benefits, credit
from dealers, and borrowed money to pay for drug use, 2006-2013
100%
% frequent methamphetamine users
90%
80%
70%
Social welfare
benefit
60%
Borrowed
money
50%
40%
Credit from
dealers
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
The frequent methamphetamine users were more likely from 2008 to 2013 to pay for their drug use
by ‘making it’ themselves (up from 11% to 24%, p=0.0200), using ‘a family or friend’s prescription’
(up from 9% to 23%, p=0.0012) and by using their ‘own prescription’ (up from 15% to 24%,
p=0.0442) (Figure 18.8). The proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who said they paid for
their drugs by ‘doctor shopping’ increased from 2% in 2012 to 8% in 2013, and this increase was
close to being statistically significant (p=0.0654).
292
18. Crime | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 18 7: Proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who made drugs themselves, used
someone else’s prescription, their own prescription and ‘doctor shopped’ to pay for drug use, 20082013
% frequent methamphetamine users
100%
90%
70%
Someone
else's
prescription
Own
prescription
60%
Making it
80%
50%
Doctor
shopping
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
There was a decrease in the proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who said they paid for
their drugs through ‘paid employment’ (down from 64% in 2006 to 47% in 2013, p=0.0033).
The frequent ecstasy users commonly paid for their drug use with ‘paid employment’ (73%), ‘student
loan/allowance’ (47%), ‘money borrowed from parents’ (39%) and ‘credit from drug dealers’ (25%)
(Table 18.6). Twenty-three percent had obtained drugs using ‘a family or friend’s prescription’, 19%
had ‘sold drugs to provide personal supply’, and 17% had ‘sold drugs for profit’.
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 18. Crime
293
Table 18 6: Different means used by frequent ecstasy users to pay for drugs in the past six months,
2006 – 2013
Different means of
payment for
drug use
2006
(n=108)
2007
(n=105)
2008
(n=135)
2009
(n=111)
2010
(n=153)
2011
(n=160)
2012
(n=126)
2013
(n=118)
Gift from friends
79%
80%
72%
67%
85%
89%
88%
81%
Paid employment
91%
80%
88%
87%
69%
80%
85%
73%
-
-
-
42%
52%
38%
44%
47%
Money from parents (given,
borrowed)
14%
24%
38%
32%
38%
41%
32%
39%
Credit from drug dealers
15%
18%
10%
15%
22%
18%
26%
25%
-
-
9%
13%
23%
23%
21%
23%
Bartering drugs/ goods/
services
13%
19%
8%
12%
22%
27%
20%
23%
Borrowed money from
friends
21%
33%
21%
26%
34%
36%
34%
19%
Selling drugs to provide
personal supply
17%
16%
18%
27%
28%
25%
26%
19%
Selling drugs for cash profit
16%
17%
18%
24%
27%
23%
25%
17%
Prescription (in own name)
-
-
10%
11%
15%
10%
14%
14%
Made it
-
-
8%
6%
11%
15%
12%
13%
18%
30%
18%
10%
14%
20%
9%
11%
Exchange for sexual
favours
1%
4%
2%
0%
4%
1%
3%
8%
Pawning property
2%
8%
2%
5%
6%
10%
10%
5%
Property crime (e.g.
burglary, shoplifting,
stealing cars)
2%
1%
1%
1%
4%
4%
3%
3%
Sex work (i.e. prostitution)
1%
3%
1%
0%
1%
0%
0%
3%
Fraud
0%
2%
1%
0%
5%
2%
3%
1%
-
-
1%
0%
2%
1%
1%
1%
Student loan/allowance
Family member or friend’s
prescription
Unemployment benefit/
social welfare benefit
‘Doctor shopping’ (going to
number of doctors for
prescription drugs)
The frequent ecstasy users were more likely from 2006 to 2013 to have obtained their drugs as ‘gifts
from friends’ (up from 79% in 2006 to 81% in 2013, p=0.0054), by ‘bartering drugs/goods or services’
(up from 13% to 23%, p=0.0015), through ‘pawning goods’ (up from 2% to 5%, p=0.0333), through
‘credit from dealers’ (up from 15% to 25%, p=0.0026) and by using ‘money from parents’ (up from
15% to 39%, p=0.0001). The frequent ecstasy users were more likely from 2008 to 2013 to have
294
18. Crime | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
obtained their drugs using ‘a family or friend’s prescription’ (up from 9% to 23%, p=0.0008) and by
‘making it themselves’ (up from 8% to 13%, p=0.0604) (Figure 18.9).
Figure 18 8: Proportion of frequent ecstasy users who made drugs themselves and used someone else’s
prescription to pay for drug use, 2008-2013
100%
90%
% frequent ecstasy users
80%
70%
60%
Someone
else's
prescription
50%
Making it
40%
30%
23%
20%
9%
23%
0%
15%
2008
23%
13%
10%
8%
21%
11%
6%
2009
2010
2011
12%
13%
2012
2013
Year
Frequent ecstasy users were less likely from 2006 to 2013 to have paid for their drugs using money
from ’paid employment’ (down from 91% to 73%, p=0.0027), ‘social welfare benefits’ (down from
18% to 11%, p=0.0025) and by ‘borrowing money from friends’ (down from 34% to 19%, p=0.0119).
The frequent injecting drug users commonly paid for drugs using ‘social welfare benefits’ (79%),
‘bartering drugs/goods/services’ (72%), ‘credit from drug dealers’ ( 72%), ‘selling drugs for personal
supply’ ( 57%) and ‘paid employment’ (47%), ‘pawning property’ (61%) and by ‘borrowing money
from friends’ (60%) (Table 18.7). Thirty-six percent had used ‘a family or friend’s prescription’, 33%
had used a ‘prescription in their own name’, 23% ‘property crime’ and 21% had ‘made the drugs’
themselves.
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 18. Crime
295
Table 18 7: Different means used by frequent injecting drug users to pay for drugs in the past six
months, 2006 – 2013
Different means of
payment for
drug use
2006
(n=92)
2007
(n=108)
2008
(n=129)
2009
(n=99)
2010
(n=128)
2011
(p=99)
2012
(n=104)
2013
(n=101)
Gift from friends
80%
68%
65%
58%
71%
76%
81%
93%
Unemployment benefit/
social welfare benefit
70%
76%
76%
77%
75%
74%
68%
79%
Bartering drugs/ goods/
services
57%
60%
52%
44%
61%
54%
49%
72%
Credit from drug dealers
47%
44%
37%
41%
56%
60%
48%
72%
Pawning property
40%
41%
38%
30%
42%
35%
34%
61%
Borrowed money from
friends
48%
46%
31%
34%
36%
52%
37%
60%
Selling drugs to provide
personal supply
39%
32%
30%
43%
35%
39%
43%
57%
Paid employment
48%
40%
33%
41%
34%
43%
41%
47%
Selling drugs for cash
profit
38%
25%
29%
41%
33%
29%
38%
43%
Money from parents
(given, borrowed)
27%
23%
29%
16%
27%
26%
16%
42%
Family member or
friend’s prescription
-
-
17%
16%
24%
33%
22%
36%
Prescription (in own
name)
-
-
34%
39%
59%
67%
58%
33%
Property crime (e.g.
burglary, shoplifting,
stealing cars)
20%
21%
30%
22%
17%
24%
16%
23%
-
-
20%
21%
24%
23%
17%
21%
6%
8%
8%
4%
7%
7%
12%
17%
Sex work (i.e.
prostitution)
12%
14%
11%
11%
11%
17%
20%
16%
Fraud
10%
11%
10%
6%
9%
13%
6%
9%
Student loan/allowance
-
-
-
2%
4%
2%
2%
9%
‘Doctor shopping’ (going
to number of doctors for
prescription drugs)
-
-
5%
4%
7%
13%
5%
8%
Made it
Exchange for sexual
favours
The proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had used ‘credit from drug dealers’ increased
from 47% in 2006 to 72% in 2013 (p<0.0001). The frequent injecting drug users were more likely
from 2008 to 2013 to pay for their drug use with ‘a family or friend’s prescription’ (up from 17% to
36%, p=0.0006) (Figure 18.10). There was an increase from 2012 to 2013 in the proportion of
296
18. Crime | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
frequent injecting drug users who paid for their drug use by ‘borrowing money from friends’ (up
from 37% to 60%, p=0.0016), through ‘a family or friend’s prescription’ (up from 22% to 36%,
p=0.0332) and ‘student loan/allowances’ (up from 2% to 9%, p=0.0370). There was a decline in the
proportion of injecting drugs users who paid for their drug use with a ‘prescription in their own
name’ (down from 58% in 2012 to 33% in 2013 (p=0.0005).
Figure 18 9: Proportion of frequent injecting users who used a prescription (own name), someone
else’s prescription and ‘doctor shopping’ to pay for drug use, 2006-2013
100%
% frequent injecting drug users
90%
80%
Own
prescription
67%
70%
59%
58%
60%
Someone
else's
prescription
50%
Doctor
shopping
39%
40%
34%
33%
30%
20%
10%
24%
17%
22%
16%
5%
4%
2008
2009
33%
13%
7%
5%
8%
0%
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 18. Crime
297
18.7 Summary of crime
•
The proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had committed a property crime
in the previous month decreased from 15% in 2006 to 11% in 2013
•
The proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had committed a property crime in the
past month declined from 28% in 2006 to 22% in 2013
•
The proportion of frequent ecstasy users who sold drugs in the previous month decreased
from 36% in 2006 to 18% in 2013
•
The proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had committed a fraud in the previous
month declined from 9% in 2006 to 4% in 2013
•
A lower proportion of frequent ecstasy users reported being involved in violent crime in
2013 compared to 2012
•
The frequent methamphetamine users were more likely from 2006 to 2013 to pay for their
drug use with a ‘social welfare benefits’ (up from 40% to 59%), ‘credit from drug dealers’ (up
from 36% to 51%), ‘money borrowed from friends’ (up from 30% to 45%), and by ‘pawning
property’ (up from 23% to 37%)
•
The frequent methamphetamine users were more likely from 2008 to 2013 to pay for their
drug use by ‘making it’ themselves (up from 11% to 24%), using ‘a family or friend’s
prescription’ (up from 9% to 23%), and using their ‘own prescription’ (up from 15% to 24%)
•
A higher proportion of frequent injecting drug users paid for their drug use with ‘credit from
dealers’ (up from 47% in 2006 to 72% in 2013) and with a ‘family or friend’s prescription’ (up
from 17% in 2008 to 36% in 2013)
•
The frequent injecting drug users were more likely from 2012 to 2013 to pay for their drug
use by ‘borrowing money from friends’ (up from 37% to 60%), through ‘a family or friend’s
prescription’ (up from 22% to 36%) and ‘student loan/allowances’ (up from 2% to 9%)
•
The frequent ecstasy users were more likely from 2006 to 2013 to have obtained their drugs
as ‘gifts from friends’ (up from 79% in 2006 to 81% in 2013), by ‘bartering
drugs/goods/services’ (up from 13% to 23%), through ‘credit from dealers’ (up from 15% to
25%), and by using ‘money from parents’ (up from 15% to 39%)
•
The frequent ecstasy users were also more likely from 2008 to 2013 to have obtained their
drugs using ‘a family or friend’s prescription’ (up from 9% to 23%) and by ‘making it
themselves’ (up from 8% to 13%)
298
18. Crime | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
19. Drug enforcement
19.1 Introduction
Frequent drug users often have a high level of contact with the police and the wider criminal justice
system, either for drug use itself, or for a range of nuisance, anti-social and other criminal behaviour
related to drug use. The arrest of a problematic alcohol and other drug user is increasingly viewed as
an opportunity to address the substance use which drives their offending (Caulkins & Reuter, 2009).
Drug courts are the most formal application of this approach where convicted offenders are ordered
to complete a drug treatment programme and submit to regular drug testing as part of their
sentencing conditions. Two new drug courts providing intensive supervision of offenders with
alcohol and drug issues were established in Auckland in 2012.
19.2 History of arrest, conviction and imprisonment
The frequent drug users were first asked if they had ever been arrested, convicted of a crime or
imprisoned. Eighty-one percent of the frequent methamphetamine users, 76% of the frequent
injecting drug users and 45% of the frequent ecstasy users had been arrested at some point in their
lives (Figure 19.1). Sixty-six percent of the frequent injecting drug users had been convicted of a
crime and 48% had been imprisoned. In contrast, only 16% of the frequent ecstasy users had ever
been convicted of a crime and only 2% had ever been imprisoned.
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 19. Drug enforcement
299
Figure 19 1: Proportion of frequent drug users who had ever been arrested, convicted and imprisoned,
2013
100%
90%
81%
% of frequent drug users
80%
76%
66%
70%
61%
60%
Ever arrested
50%
48%
45%
40%
Ever convicted
Ever imprisoned
34%
30%
16%
20%
10%
2%
0%
Meth
Ecstasy
IDU
The proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had ever been arrested increased from
70% in 2006 to 81% in 2013 (p=0.0004) (Figure 19.2). There was no statistically significant change in
the proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had ever been convicted of a crime or
imprisoned over the same years.
300
19. Drug enforcement | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 19 2: Proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had ever been arrested, convicted
and imprisoned, 2006-2013
% of frequent methamphetamine users
100%
88%
90%
79%
84%
81%
80%
66%
67%
81%
80%
70%
66%
70%
60%
62%
50%
57%
Ever
arrested
69%
61%
54%
Ever
convicted
52%
40%
Ever
imprisoned
39%
30%
35%
30%
20%
28%
34%
33%
30%
28%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
There was no statistically significant change in the proportion of frequent injecting drug users who
had ever been arrested, convicted of a crime or imprisoned from 2006-2013 (Figure 19.3).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 19. Drug enforcement
301
Figure 19 3: Proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had ever been arrested, convicted and
imprisoned, 2006-2013
100%
% of frequent injecting drug users
90%
92%
84%
88%
86%
83%
85%
86%
76%
80%
81%
70%
60%
80%
77%
74%
72%
67%
66%
51%
50%
51%
46%
50%
40%
72%
44%
45%
48%
38%
Ever
arrested
Ever
convicted
Ever
imprisoned
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
The proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had ever been arrested increased from 38% in 2006 to
45% in 2013 (p=0.0314). The proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had ever been convicted of a
crime decreased from 28% in 2012 to 16% in 2013 (p=0.0333) (Figure 19.4).
302
19. Drug enforcement | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 19 4: Proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had ever been arrested, convicted and
imprisoned, 2006-2013
100%
90%
% frequent ecstasy users
80%
70%
Ever
arrested
60%
52%
45%
50%
40%
38%
36%
38%
40%
37%
Ever
imprisoned
36%
28%
30%
19%
20%
20%
17%
19%
2%
16%
13%
12%
10%
Ever
convicted
4%
3%
2%
2%
1%
2%
2%
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
0%
2006
Year
19.3 Drug treatment as part of sentencing
Those frequent drug users who had been convicted of a crime were asked whether they had
received any treatment for alcohol and drug issues as part of their sentence. Forty-two percent of
the frequent methamphetamine users and 36% of the frequent injecting drug users who had been
convicted had received alcohol and drug treatment as a part of their sentence in 2013. Fourteen
percent of the frequent ecstasy users who had been convicted had received treatment as part of
their sentence in 2013, but only fairly low numbers of ecstasy users had ever been convicted of a
crime (n=16). The proportion of frequent injecting drug users who received drug treatment as part
of their sentence increased from 26% in 2009 to 36% in 2013, although this increase was not
statistically significant (p=0.1192) (Figure 19.5). The proportion of frequent methamphetamine users
who received treatment as part of their sentence also increased from 32% in 2009 to 42% in 2013,
but again this increase was not statistically significant (p=0.3564).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 19. Drug enforcement
303
Figure 19 5: Proportion of convicted frequent drug users who received alcohol and drug treatment as
part of sentence, 2009-2013
100%
90%
% frequent drug users
80%
70%
2009
60%
50%
2010
50%
46%
42% 42%
2011
43% 42%
37%
40%
2012
36%
2013
32%
32%
30%
30%
26%
20%
14%
8%
10%
8%
0%
Meth
IDU
Ecstasy
Those frequent drug users who had ever been in prison were asked if they had received alcohol and
drug treatment while in prison. Twenty-nine percent of the frequent methamphetamine users and
the same proportion of the frequent injecting drug users had received treatment while in prison.
There was no statistically significant change in these levels of treatment in prison among the
injecting drug users or methamphetamine users over the past six years. There were not enough
frequent ecstasy users who had ever been to prison to make any reliable statistical comparisons
over time.
19.4 Recent arrest and imprisonment
The frequent drug users were also asked if they had been arrested or imprisoned in the previous 12
months. Forty-one percent of the frequent methamphetamine users, 38% of the frequent injecting
drug users, and 18% of the frequent ecstasy users had been arrested in the past year in 2013. The
proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had been arrested in the previous year
increased from 30% in 2012 to 41% in 2013, and this increase was close to being statistically
significant (p=0.0860) (Figure 19.6). The proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had
been imprisoned in the previous 12 months declined from 12% in 2006 to 6% in 2013 (p=0.0434).
The proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had been arrested in the previous 12 months
also declined from 43% in 2006 to 38% in 2013, and this decrease was close to being statistically
304
19. Drug enforcement | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
significant (p=0.0725) (Figure 19.7). The proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had recently been
arrested increased from 16% in 2006 to 18% in 2013, and again this increase was very close to being
statistically significant (p=0.0635) (Figure 19.8).
Figure 19 6: Proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had been arrested and imprisoned in
the previous 12 months, 2006-2013
% frequent methamphetamine users
100%
90%
80%
70%
61%
60%
Arrested
53%
49%
50%
41%
41%
39%
35%
40%
Imprisoned
30%
30%
20%
13%
12%
7%
10%
8%
11%
7%
6%
2%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Figure 19 7: Proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had been arrested and imprisoned in the
previous 12 months, 2006-2013
100%
% frequent injecting drug users
90%
80%
70%
Arrested
60%
50%
43%
47%
40%
Imprisoned
40%
39%
38%
40%
31%
32%
30%
20%
10%
8%
8%
9%
2007
2008
11%
11%
7%
4%
7%
0%
2006
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 19. Drug enforcement
305
Figure 19 8: Proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had been arrested and imprisoned in the
previous 12 months, 2006-2013
100%
% frequent ecstasy users
90%
80%
70%
Arrested
60%
50%
Imprisoned
40%
30%
20%
16%
16%
23%
20%
18%
15%
18%
10%
10%
2%
0%
1%
0%
1%
0%
1%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
0%
Year
19.5 Offences arrested for in past 12 months
Those frequent drug users who had been arrested in the previous 12 months were asked what
offence(s) they had been arrested for during this time. Table 19.1 presents the proportion of the
entire sample of frequent drug users who were arrested for different offences (not just the ones
arrested in the previous 12 months), to provide an indication of offending behaviour among the
whole sample. The offences the frequent methamphetamine users were most commonly arrested
for in 2013 were ‘disorderly behaviour’ (14%), ‘possession or use of drugs’ (14%), ‘property crime’
(13%), ‘violent crime’ (11%), and drink driving (6%).
306
19. Drug enforcement | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 19 1: Proportion of frequent drug users who were arrested for different criminal offences in the
past 12 months by frequent drug user group, 2013
Criminal offences in
past 12 months (%)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=93 )
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n= 118 )
Intravenous
drug users
(IDU)
(n=101 )
Disorderly behaviour
14%
11%
10%
Use/possession drugs
14%
7%
6%
Property crime
13%
1%
20%
Violent crime
11%
3%
6%
Drink driving
6%
1%
8%
Fraud
4%
0%
0%
Other driving offence
3%
1%
4%
Drug manufacturing
2%
0%
0%
Other
0%
1%
4%
Dealing drugs
0%
1%
2%
Drug driving
0%
0%
2%
Breach of liquor ban
0%
0%
0%
Against Justice
0%
1%
4%
The proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had been arrested for ‘disorderly
behaviour’ increased from 10% in 2009 to 14% in 2013 (p<0.0001) (Figure 19.9). There were
increases in the proportion of the frequent methamphetamine users who had been arrested for
‘driving under the influence of alcohol’ (up from 3% in 2006 to 6% in 2013, p=0.0651) and ‘property
crime’ (up from 6% in 2012 to 13% in 2013, p=0.0928), and these increases were close to being
statistically significant. There was a decrease in the proportion of frequent methamphetamine users
who had been arrested for ‘driving under the influence of drugs’ (down from 4% in 2006 to 0% in
2013, p=0.0039).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 19. Drug enforcement
307
Figure 19 9: Proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had been arrested for a violent
crime, property crime and driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs in the previous 12
months, 2006-2013
100%
% frequent methamphetamine users
90%
80%
70%
Property crime
60%
Disorderly
conduct
Alcohol and
driving
Drug and
driving
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
The offences the frequent injecting drug users were most commonly arrested for were ‘property
crime’ (20%), ‘disorderly behaviour’ (10%), ‘drink driving’ (8%),‘violent crime’ (6%), ‘use/possession
of drugs’ (6%) and ‘Against Justice’ (e.g. breach of bail, failure to appear) (4%). A higher proportion
of frequent injecting drug users had been arrested for ‘disorderly behaviour’ (up from 8% in 2009 to
11% in 2013, p=0.0002) and ‘drink driving’ (up from 1% in 2012 to 8% in 2013, p=0.0544).
The offences the frequent ecstasy users were most commonly arrested for were ‘disorderly
behaviour’ (11%), ‘use/possession of drugs’ (7%) and ‘violent crime’ (3%). A higher proportion of
frequent ecstasy users were arrested for ‘violent crime’ (up from 1% in 2006 to 3% in 2013,
p=0.0085), ‘disorderly behaviour’ (up from 7% in 2009 to 11% in 2013, p<0.0001) and
‘use/possession of drugs’ (up from 2% in 2006 to 7% in 2013, p=0.0074) (Figure 19.10).
308
19. Drug enforcement | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 19 10: Proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had been arrested for a violent crime,
disorderly conduct, and use/possession of drugs in the previous 12 months, 2006-2013
100%
% frequent ecstasy users
90%
80%
70%
Violent crime
60%
Disorderly
conduct
50%
use/possession
of drugs
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
19.6 Perceptions of the current level of drug enforcement
The frequent drug users were asked if they had noticed any police activity toward drug users in the
previous six months. Ninety -one percent of the frequent methamphetamine users, 62% of frequent
ecstasy users and 69% percent of frequent injecting drug users had noticed some police activity
toward drug users in the past six months in 2013. The proportion of frequent methamphetamine
users who had noticed police activity toward drug users increased from 70% in 2006 to 91% in 2013
(p=0.0059), with a further increase from 68% in 2012 to 91% in 2013 (p=0.0001). The proportion of
frequent ecstasy users who had noticed police activity toward drug users also increased from 35% in
2006 to 62% in 2013 (p<0.0001) (Figure: 19.11). There was no statistically significant change in the
proportion of frequent injecting drug users who noticed police activity from 2006 to 2013
(p=0.3949).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 19. Drug enforcement
309
Figure 19 11: Proportion of frequent drug users who noticed police activity toward drug users in the
past six months, 2006-2013
100%
91%
90%
79%
% frequent drug users
75%
75%
80%
70%
75%
70%
71%
63%
Meth
68%
65%
64%
62%
60%
50%
52%
IDU
Ecstasy
52%
49%
40%
35%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Among those who noticed police activity towards drug users, 53% of the frequent
methamphetamine users, 42% of the frequent ecstasy users and 34% of the frequent injecting drug
users reported noticing ‘more’ police activity toward drug users in the previous six months in 2013
(Tables 19.2-19.4). There was no statistically significant change in the level of police activity noticed
by the frequent methamphetamine users from 2006 to 2013, with most describing it as ‘increasing’
(Table 19.2 and Figure 19.12).
310
19. Drug enforcement | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 19 2: Frequent methamphetamine users’ perceptions of the change in police activity in relation
to drug users in the past six months (of those who noticed any change in police activity), 2006-2013
Frequent methamphetamine users
Change in police
activity (%)
2006
(n=77)
2007
(n=80)
2008
(n=84)
2009
(n=71)
2010
(n=85)
2011
(n=78)
2012
(n=65)
2013
(n=73)
More [3]
72
63
67
48
72
68
61
53
Stable [2]
20
32
30
49
27
30
35
40
7
5
3
3
1
4
5
7
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.4
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.5
Stable/
more
More
More/
stable
More/
stable
More/
Stable
Less [1]
Average score
(1=less activity –
3=more activity)
Overall recent
change
More
More/
stable
More/
stable
Figure 19 12: Mean score of change in police activity toward drug users in the past six months for
frequent methamphetamine users, frequent injecting drug users and frequent ecstasy users, 2006-2013
3.0
1=less - 3=more
2.5
Meth
Ecstasy
2.0
IDU
1.5
1.0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
The frequent injecting drug users were less likely to describe police activity as ‘increasing’ from 2012
to 2013 (down from 2.6 in 2012 to 2.3 in 2013, p=0.0063) (Table 19.4)
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 19. Drug enforcement
311
Table 19 3: Frequent ecstasy users perceptions of the change in police activity in relation to drug users
in the past six months (of those who noticed any change in police activity), 2006-2013
Frequent ecstasy users
Change in police
activity (%)
2006
(n=42)
2007
(n=50)
2008
(n=57)
2009
(n=48)
2010
(n=97)
2011
(n=94)
2012
(n=78)
2013
(n=56)
More [3]
50
52
48
33
61
67
48
42
Stable [2]
45
39
47
67
34
26
49
54
5
8
5
0
4
7
3
4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.6
2.6
2.5
2.4
Stable/
more
More/
stable
More/
stable
Stable/
more
Stable/
more
Less [1]
Average score
(1=less activity –
3=more activity)
Overall recent change
More/
stable
More/
stable
More/
stable
Table 19 4: Frequent injecting drug users perceptions of the change in police activity in relation to drug
users in the past six months (of those who noticed any change in police activity), 2006-2013
Frequent injecting drug users
Change in
activity (%)
police
2006
(n=55)
2007
(n=69)
2008
(n=89)
2009
(n=66)
2010
(n=79)
2011
(n=50)
2012
(n=61)
2013
(n=56)
More [3]
62
53
70
44
60
55
63
34
Stable [2]
32
40
25
49
39
41
34
64
5
6
5
6
1
4
3
2
2.6
2.5
2.6
2.4
2.6
2.5
2.6
2.3
Stable/
more
More/
stable
More/
stable
More/
stable
Stable/
more
Less [1]
Average score (1=less
activity – 3=more
activity)
Overall recent change
More/
stable
More/
stable
More
19.7 Perceptions of the impact of drug enforcement
The frequent drug users were asked if police activity had made it ‘more difficult’ for them to get
drugs in the past six months. Thirty–eight percent of the frequent methamphetamine users, 23% of
the frequent injecting drug users and 23% of the frequent ecstasy users reported that police activity
had indeed made it ‘more difficult’ for them to obtain drugs in 2013 (Table 19.5). The proportion of
frequent methamphetamine users who reported police activity had made it ‘more difficult’ for them
to obtain drugs increased from 24% in 2006 to 38% in 2013 (p=0.0015), with a sharp increase from
29% in 2012 to 38% in 2013. The latter increase was close to being statistically significant (p=0.0851)
(Figure 19.13). The proportion of frequent ecstasy users who reported police activity had made it
312
19. Drug enforcement | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
‘more difficult’ for them to obtain drugs also increased from 12% in 2006 to 23% in 2013 (p=0.0190).
The proportion of frequent injecting drug users who reported police activity had made it ‘more
difficult’ for them to obtain drugs increased slightly from 20% in 2006 to 23% in 2013, and this
increase was close to being statistically significant (p=0.0510).
Figure 19 13: Proportion of frequent drug users who thought police activity had made it ‘more difficult’
for them to obtain drugs in the past six months, 2006-2013
100%
90%
% frequent drug users
80%
70%
Meth
60%
IDU
50%
Ecstasy
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
Table 19 5: Proportion of frequent drug users who thought police activity had made it ‘more difficult’
for them to obtain drugs in the past six months, 2006-2013
Police made it more
difficult to obtain
drugs (%)
Methamphetamine
Injecting drug users
Ecstasy users
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
(n=112)
(n=110)
(n=133)
(n=100)
(n=120)
(n=94)
(n=98)
(n= 90)
24
27
21
24
24
42
29
38
(n=92)
(n=107)
(n=127)
(n=99)
(n=124)
(n=86)
(n=102)
(n=93)
20
11
29
18
20
26
29
23
(n=106)
(n=100)
(n=122)
(n=101)
(n=149)
(n=141)
(n=122)
(n=102)
12
16
22
14
15
28
21
23
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 19. Drug enforcement
313
19.8 Number of friends arrested
Finally, the frequent drug users were asked if there had been any change in the number of their
friends arrested in the past six months. Some frequent drug users had not had any of their friends
arrested in the past six months. Eighty-two percent of the frequent methamphetamine users, 55% of
the frequent injecting drug users and 50% of the frequent ecstasy users had had a friend arrested in
the previous six months in 2013 (Figure 19.14).
Figure 19 14: Proportion of frequent drug users who had a friend(s) arrested in the past six months,
2006-2013
100%
90%
82%
% frequent drug users
80%
70%
63%
65%
59%
60%
68%
58%
68%
67%
64%
54%
63%
55%
54%
53%
55%
50%
50%
IDU
45%
40%
39%
39%
30%
20%
Meth
47%
Ecstasy
35%
28%
30%
24%
10%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Year
The proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had a friend(s) arrested increased from 24% in 2006 to
50% in 2013 (p<0.0001). The proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had a friend(s)
arrested increased from 63% in 2012 to 82% in 2013 (p=0.0025). There was no change in the
proportion of injecting drug users who had a friend(s) arrested from 2006 to 2012 (p=0.1893).
Those frequent drug users who had had a friend arrested were asked if ‘more’, ‘the same’, or ‘less’
of their friends had been arrested in the past six months. Fifty-two percent of the frequent
methamphetamine users, 42% of the frequent injecting drug users and 29% of the frequent ecstasy
users reported that ‘more’ of their friends had been arrested in the previous six months in 2013
(Table 19.6). A lower proportion of frequent ecstasy users said ‘more’ of their friends had been
314
19. Drug enforcement | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
arrested from 2012 to 2013 (down from 2.3 to 2.1), and this declined was close to being statistically
significant (p=0.0562). There was no change in perceptions of the number of friends arrested for the
other two frequent drug user groups.
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 19. Drug enforcement
315
Table 19 6: Change in the number of friends arrested in the past six months by frequent drug user group (of those who had a friend arrested), 2009-2013
Methamphetamine users
Ecstasy users (MDMA)
Intravenous drug users (IDU)
Number
of friends
arrested
(%)
2009
(n=57)
2010
(n=76)
2011
(n=69)
2012
(n=61)
2013
(n= 69)
2009
(n=33)
2010
(n=58)
2011
(n=57)
2012
(n=56)
2013
(n=52)
2009
(n=65)
2010
(n=67)
2011
(n=42)
2012
(n=56)
2013
(n=52)
More [3]
55
63
60
50
52
54
57
50
42
29
44
53
52
52
42
Stable [2]
36
30
29
45
43
35
37
37
51
52
52
41
45
42
54
Less [1]
9
7
11
5
5
11
7
13
7
19
5
6
3
6
4
Average
score
(1=less
arrested –
3=more
arrested)
2.5
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.5
2.4
2.3
2.1
2.4
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.4
Overall
recent
change
More/
stable
More/
stable
More/
stable
More/
stable
More/
stable
More/
stable
More/
Stable
Stable/
more
Stable/
more
More/
stable
More/
stable
More/
stable
316
More/
stable
19. Drug enforcement | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Stable/
more
Stable/
more
19.9 Summary of drug enforcement
Frequent methamphetamine users
•
Eighty-one percent of the frequent methamphetamine users had been arrested, 61% had
been convicted of a crime, and 34% had been imprisoned at some point in their lives
•
The proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had ever been arrested increased
from 70% in 2006 to 81% in 2013
•
Forty-two percent of the frequent methamphetamine users who had been convicted of a
crime and 29% of those who had been imprisoned had received alcohol and drug treatment
as part of their sentence in 2013
•
The proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had been arrested in the previous
12 months increased from 30% in 2012 to 41% in 2013
•
The proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had been imprisoned in the
previous 12 months declined from 12% in 2006 to 6% in 2013
•
The offences the frequent methamphetamine users were most commonly arrested for in
2013 were ‘disorderly behaviour’ (14%), ‘possession or use of drugs’ (14%), ‘property crime’
(13%), ‘drink driving’ (6%) and ‘violent crime’ (11%)
•
A higher proportion of the frequent methamphetamine users had been arrested for
‘disorderly behaviour’ (up from 10% in 2009 to 14% in 2013), ‘driving under the influence of
alcohol’ (up from 3% in 2006 to 6% in 2013) and ‘property crime’ (up from 6% in 2012 to
13% in 2013)
•
There was a decrease in the proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had been
arrested for ‘driving under the influence of drugs’ (down from 4% in 2006 to 0% in 2013)
•
The proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had noticed police activity toward
drug users increased from 70% in 2006 to 91% in 2013, with a further increase from 68% in
2012 to 91% in 2013
•
The proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who reported police activity had made
it ‘more difficult’ for them to obtain drugs increased from 24% in 2006 to 38% in 2013, with
a sharp increase from 29% in 2012 to 38% in 2013
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 19. Drug enforcement
317
•
The proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had a friend(s) arrested increased
from 63% in 2012 to 82% in 2013
Frequent injecting drug users
•
Seventy-six percent of the frequent injecting drug users had been arrested, 66% had been
convicted of a crime, and 48% had been imprisoned at some point in their lifetimes
•
The proportion of frequent injecting drug users who received drug treatment as part of their
sentence increased from 26% in 2009 to 36% in 2013
•
The proportion of frequent injecting drug users who had been arrested in the previous 12
months declined from 43% in 2006 to 38% in 2013
•
The offences the frequent injecting drug users were most commonly arrested for were
‘property crime’ (20%), ‘disorderly behaviour’ (10%), ‘drink driving’ (8%),‘violent crime’ (6%),
‘use/possession of drugs’ (6%) and ‘Against Justice’ (e.g. breach of bail, failure to appear)
(4%)
•
A higher proportion of frequent injecting drug users had been arrested for ‘disorderly
behaviour’ (up from 8% in 2009 to 11% in 2013) and ‘drink driving’ (up from 1% in 2013 to
8% in 2013)
•
The proportion of frequent injecting drug users who reported police activity had made it
‘more difficult’ for them to obtain drugs increased slightly from 20% in 2006 to 23% in 2013
Frequent ecstasy users
•
Forty–five percent of the frequent ecstasy users had been arrested, 16% had been convicted
of a crime, and 2% had been imprisoned at some point in their lives
•
The proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had ever been arrested increased from 38% in
2006 to 45% in 2013
•
The proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had ever been convicted of a crime decreased
from 28% in 2012 to 16% in 2013
•
The proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had been arrested in the previous 12 months
increased slightly from 16% in 2006 to 18% in 2013
318
19. Drug enforcement | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
•
The offences the frequent ecstasy users were most commonly arrested for were ‘disorderly
behaviour’ (11%), ‘use/possession of drugs’ (7%) and ‘violent crime’ (3%)
•
A higher proportion of frequent ecstasy users were arrested for ‘violent crime’ (up from 1%
in 2006 to 3% in 2013), ‘disorderly behaviour’ (up from 7% in 2009 to 11% in 2013) and
‘use/possession of drugs‘ (up from 2% in 2006 to 7% in 2013)
•
The proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had noticed police activity toward drug users
increased steadily from 35% in 2006 to 62% in 2013
•
The proportion of frequent ecstasy users who reported police activity had made it ‘more
difficult’ for them to obtain drugs increased from 12% in 2006 to 23% in 2013
•
The proportion of frequent ecstasy users who had a friend(s) arrested increased from 24% in
2006 to 50% in 2013
•
A lower proportion of frequent ecstasy users reported ‘more’ of their friends had been
arrested in the previous six months
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 19. Drug enforcement
319
20. Synthetic Cannabinoids
20.1 Introduction
Synthetic cannabinoids have been the most widely sold ‘legal high’ products around the world in
recent years, including in New Zealand and Australia (Munro & Wilkins, 2014). They are smokable
products consisting of plant matter which has been infused with a synthetic cannabinomimetic
compound. Manufacturers constantly change the active compounds in response to legislative bans.
The use of synthetic cannabinoids has been associated with vomiting, agitation, seizures and
psychotic episodes (Every-Palmer, 2010; Ministry of Health, 2014; Schep, 2014).
The passage of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013 (PSA) on July 17th 2013 brought about a
number of changes to the way synthetic cannabinoid products could be sold in New Zealand
(Wilkins, 2014). Products were required to be licensed, and could no longer be sold from
convenience stores (e.g. corner stores, supermarkets), places that sell alcohol, and outlets which sell
automobile fuels. Sales were restricted to those aged 18 years or older. The new restrictions
reduced the number of retail outlets from an estimated 3,000-4,000 largely convenience stores to
156 licensed specialty ones (Ministry of Health, 2014; Wilkins, 2014). The licensing requirements
reduced the number of products from an estimated 200 to 46 (Ministry of Health, 2014; Wilkins,
2014).
The 2013 IDMS is the first year in which questions on the availability, strength, price and purchase of
synthetic cannabinoids have been included. It is important to note that the IDMS interviews were
conducted from July to December 2013, after the enactment of the Psychoactive Substances Act on
the 17th July 2013 and the subsequent restrictions on retail sales and products. However, as the
questions ask about market conditions over the previous six months, the frequent drug users may
have reflected on the time before these new restrictions came into force.
20.2 Knowledge of synthetic cannabinoids trends
Twenty-three percent of the frequent drug users interviewed for the 2013 IDMS (n=67) indicated
they felt confident enough to comment on the price, strength and availability of synthetic
cannabinoids in the previous six months. This included 21% of the frequent drug users in Auckland
(n=28), 36% of the frequent drug users in Wellington (n=18), and 16% of the frequent drug users in
320
20. Synthetic Cannabinoids | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Christchurch (n=21). The fairly modest number of respondents in each site indicates the site
comparisons should be treated with some caution.
20.3 Availability of synthetic cannabinoids
Current availability of synthetic cannabinoids
Seventy-three percent of the frequent drug users reported the current availability of synthetic
cannabinoids to be ‘very easy’ in 2013 (Table 20.1). The current availability of synthetic cannabinoids
was considered to be higher in Wellington than in Auckland (4.0 vs. 3.4, p<0.0001) and higher in
Wellington than in Christchurch (4.0 vs. 3.4, p=0.0012) (Figure 20.1).
Table 20 1: Current availability of synthetic cannabinoids by location, 2013
Current
availability of
synthetic
cannabinoids
(%)
Auckland
(n=27)
Wellington
(n=18)
Christchurch
(n=22)
All sites
(n=67)
Very easy [4]
51%
100%
59%
73%
Easy [3]
38%
0%
26%
20%
Difficult [2]
11%
0%
14%
7%
Very difficult
[1]
0%
0%
0%
0%
Average
availability
score (1=very
difficult –
4=very easy)
3.4
4.0
3.4
3.7
Overall
current status
Very easy/
easy
Very easy
Very easy/
easy
Very easy
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 20. Synthetic Cannabinoids
Figure 20 1: Mean score of the current availability of synthetic cannabinoids by location, 2013
4.0
1 = very difficult - 4 = very easy
4.0
3.4
3.5
3.4
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
Auckland
Wellington
Christchurch
Location
Change in availability of synthetic cannabinoids
The availability of synthetic cannabinoids was reported to have been ‘stable’ over the previous six
months in 2013 (Table 20.2). The frequent drug users in Christchurch were more likely to describe
the availability of synthetic cannabinoids as ‘more difficult’ than those in Wellington (1.6 vs. 2.1,
p=0.0011) (Figure 20.2). The frequent drug users in Auckland were also more likely to describe the
availability of synthetic cannabinoids as ‘more difficult’ than those in Wellington (1.9 vs. 2.1,
p=0.0501).
Table 20 2: Change in availability of synthetic cannabinoids by location, 2013
Change in
availability of
synthetic
cannabinoids (%)
Auckla
nd
(n=27)
Wellington
(n=18)
Christchurch
(n=20)
All sites
(n=65)
Easier [3]
8%
12%
6%
9%
Stable [2]
70%
83%
44%
70%
0%
5%
0%
2%
22%
0%
50%
19%
1.9
2.1
1.6
1.9
Stable
Stable
More difficult/
stable
Stable
Fluctuates [2]
More difficult [1]
Average change in
availability score
(1=more difficult –
3=easier)
Overall recent
change
322
20. Synthetic Cannabinoids | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 20 2: Mean score of the change in the availability of synthetic cannabinoids by location, 2013
1 = more difficult - 3 = easier
3.0
2.5
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.6
1.5
1.0
Auckland
Wellington
Christchurch
Location
20.4 Price of synthetic cannabinoids
Current price of synthetic cannabinoids
The current median price of a pack of synthetic cannabinoids was $20-25 in 2013 (with a median of
2.0-2.5 grams per pack) (Table 20.3). The mean price of a pack of synthetic cannabinoids was higher
in Wellington than in Auckland ($25 vs. $20, p=0.0036).
Table 20 3: Current price of synthetic cannabinoids (NZD) by location, 2013
Current price
of synthetic
cannabinoids
($)
Number with
knowledge
Median (mean)
cost per pack of
synthetic
cannabinoids
Number with
knowledge
Median (mean)
price per gram
Auckland
Wellington
Christchurch
26
13
16
$20 ($20)
$25 ($25)
$20 ($23)
18
7
8
$10 ($17)
$10 ($12)
$12 ($17)
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 20. Synthetic Cannabinoids
Change in price of synthetic cannabinoids
The price of synthetic cannabinoids was reported to have been ‘stable/increasing’ over the past six
months in 2013 (Table 20.4). The frequent drug users in Auckland were more likely to report the
price of synthetic cannabinoids had been ‘decreasing’ compared to those in Wellington (1.9 vs. 2.5,
p=0.0019) and those in Christchurch (1.9 vs. 2.2, p=0.0873) (Figure 20.3).
Table 20 4: Change in the price of synthetic cannabinoids by location, 2013
Change in price
of synthetic
cannabinoids
(%)
Auckland
(n=26)
Wellington
(n=15)
Christchurch
(n=18)
All sites
(n=59)
Increasing [3]
12%
46%
40%
31%
Fluctuating [2]
16%
0%
0%
6%
Stable [2]
48%
54%
44%
50%
Decreasing [1]
23%
0%
16%
13%
1.9
2.5
2.2
2.2
Stable/
decreasing
Stable/
increasing
Stable/
increasing
Stable/
increasing
Average change
in price score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
Overall recent
change
Figure 20 3: Mean score of the change in the price of synthetic cannabinoids by location, 2013
1 = decreasing- 3 =increasing
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.2
2.0
1.9
1.5
1.0
Auckland
Wellington
Location
324
20. Synthetic Cannabinoids | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Christchurch
20.5 Strength of synthetic cannabinoids
Current strength of synthetic cannabinoids
The current strength of synthetic cannabinoids was reported to be ‘high/medium’ in 2013 (Table
20.5). Fifty-seven percent of the frequent drug users described the strength of synthetic
cannabinoids as ‘high’. There was no statistically significant difference in perceptions of the strength
of synthetic cannabis between the study sites (p=0.8598).
Table 20 5: Current strength of synthetic cannabinoids by location, 2013
Current
strength of
synthetic
cannabinoids
(%)
Auckland
(n=26)
Wellington
(n=18)
Christchurch
(n=21)
All sites
(n=65)
High [3]
58%
61%
47%
57%
Medium [2]
26%
16%
33%
23%
4%
10%
10%
8%
12%
12%
10%
12%
Average
strength score
(1=low –
3=high)
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.5
Overall
current status
High/
medium
High/
medium
High/
medium
High/
medium
Fluctuates [2]
Low [1]
Change in strength of synthetic cannabinoids
Fifty-four percent of the frequent drug users reported the strength of synthetic cannabinoids had
been ‘stable’ over the previous six months in 2013 (Table 20.6). There was no statistically significant
difference between the sites with respect to perceptions of the change in strength of synthetic
cannabinoids (p=0.7586).
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 20. Synthetic Cannabinoids
Table 20 6: Change in strength of synthetic cannabinoids by location, 2013
Change in
strength of
synthetic
cannabinoids
(%)
Auckland
(n=26)
Wellington
(n=16)
Christchurch
(n=20)
All sites
(n=62)
Increasing [3]
19%
13%
15%
16%
Stable [2]
65%
45%
51%
54%
Fluctuating [2]
0%
30%
9%
14%
Decreasing [1]
16%
12%
25%
16%
Average
change in
strength score
(1=decreasing
3=increasing)
2.0
2.0
1.9
2.0
Stable/
increasing
Stable/
fluctuating
Stable/
decreasing
Stable/
decreasing/
increasing
Overall recent
change
20.6 Perceptions of the number of people using synthetic cannabinoids
Forty-five percent of the frequent drug users reported that ‘more’ people were using synthetic
cannabinoids compared to six months ago in 2013. In contrast, 36% said ‘less’ people were using
synthetic cannabis over this time (Table 20.7). The frequent drug users in Auckland were more likely
to say ‘more’ people were using synthetic cannabinoids than those in Christchurch (54% vs. 30%),
and this difference was close to being statistically significant (p=0.0569) (Figure 20.4).
Table 20 7: Perceptions of the number of people using synthetic cannabinoids by location, 2013
Number of people
using
synthetic
cannabinoids (%)
Auckland
(n=27)
Wellington
(n=18)
Christchurch
(n=18)
All sites
(n=63)
More [3]
54%
43%
30%
45%
Same [2]
21%
18%
17%
19%
Less [1]
25%
39%
53%
36%
2.3
2.0
1.8
2.1
More/
less
More/
less
Less/
more
More/
less
Average number of
people using score
(1=less – 3=more)
Overall recent
change
326
20. Synthetic Cannabinoids | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Figure 20 4: Mean score of perceived change in the number of people using synthetic cannabinoids by
location, 2013
1 = less-3 = more
3.0
2.5
2.3
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.5
1.0
Auckland
Wellington
Christchurch
Location
20.7 Purchase of synthetic cannabinoids
Frequency of purchase of synthetic cannabinoids
Sixty-three percent (n=42) of the frequent drug users who answered the synthetic cannabinoids
section had purchased synthetic cannabinoids in the past six months in 2013. Forty-five per cent had
done so weekly or more often in the previous six months (Table 20.8). There was no statistically
significant difference between the site locations with respect to the frequency of purchase of
synthetic cannabinoids.
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 20. Synthetic Cannabinoids
Table 20 8: Frequency of purchase of synthetic cannabinoids in past six months by location, 2013
Frequency
purchase in
past six
months (%)
Auckland
(n=24)
Wellington
(n=9)
Christchurch
(n=9)
All sites
(n=42)
1-2 times
28
0
23
18
3-4 times
5
54
11
22
Once per
month
4
0
21
5
Twice per
month
9
12
11
10
Once per
week
12
10
21
13
2-3 times per
week
29
10
0
19
Once per day
13
14
0
11
More than
once per day
0
0
13
2
Dollar amount spent on synthetic cannabinoids
The frequent drug users spent a median of $20-25 on synthetic cannabinoids on a typical occasion in
2013 (Table 20.9). There was no statistically significant difference between the sites with respect to
the level of spending on synthetic cannabis on a typical occasion.
Table 20 9: Median (mean) dollar amount spent on synthetic cannabinoids (NZD) on typical occasion by
location, 2013
Amount spent on
synthetic
cannabinoids
Number with
knowledge
Median (mean)
amount spent
Auckland
Wellington
Christchurch
23
10
9
$20 ($34)
$25 ($29)
$20 ($24)
Time taken to purchase synthetic cannabinoids
Seventy-eight per cent of the frequent drug users were able to purchase synthetic cannabinoids in
20 minutes or less in 2013 (Table 20.10). All the frequent drug users in Wellington and Christchurch
were able to purchase synthetic cannabinoids within one hour or less.
328
20. Synthetic Cannabinoids | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 20 10: Time taken to purchase synthetic cannabinoids by location, 2013
Time to
purchase (%)
Auckland
(n=21)
Wellington
(n=10)
Christchurch
(n=8)
All sites
(n=39)
Days
5
0
0
3
About one day
9
0
0
4
Hours
5
0
0
3
1 Hour
15
9
14
13
Less than 20
mins
66
91
86
78
Location of purchase of synthetic cannabinoids
In 2013, the frequent drug users overwhelmingly purchased synthetic cannabinoids from ‘legal
shops’ (Table 20.11). However, there was some evidence of informal personal exchanges (e.g.
‘private house’, ‘public area’) and purchasing from the black market (‘tinny house’).
Table 20 11: Location from which synthetic cannabinoids were purchased in the past six months by
location, 2013
Location (%)
Auckland
(n=22)
Wellington
(n=10)
Christchurch
(n=9)
All sites
(n=41)
Legal shop
82
100
100
91
Private house
18
0
0
9
‘Tinny’ house
5
0
0
2
Public area (e.g. park)
5
0
0
2
Agreed public location
0
0
0
0
Street drug market
0
0
0
0
Work
0
0
0
0
Pub/bar/club
0
0
0
0
Educational institute
0
0
0
0
Internet
0
0
0
0
Types of sellers of synthetic cannabinoids
In 2013, 94% of the frequent drug users had purchased synthetic cannabinoids from a ‘legal retailer’
(Table 20.12). Small proportions of the frequent drug users had purchased synthetic cannabinoids
from ‘social acquaintances’ (6%) and ‘friends’ (6%), indicating more informal personal exchange
relationships.
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 20. Synthetic Cannabinoids
Table 20 12: People from whom synthetic cannabinoids was purchased in the past six months by
location, 2013
Type of person (%)
Legal retailer
Auckland
(n=22)
Wellington
(n=10)
Christchurch
(n=9)
All sites
(n=41)
87
100
100
94
Friend
9
0
10
6
Social acquaintance
9
0
10
6
Drug dealer
0
0
0
0
Partner/family
member
0
0
0
0
Gang member/gang
associate
0
0
0
0
20.8 Summary of synthetic cannabinoid trends
•
The availability of synthetic cannabinoids was described as ‘very easy’ in 2013
•
Nineteen percent of the frequent drug users reported the availability of synthetic
cannabinoids had become ‘more difficult’ over the previous six months
•
The median cost of a pack of synthetic cannabinoids (2.0-2.5 grams) was $20-$25 in 2013
•
The price of synthetic cannabinoids was reported to have been ‘stable/increasing’ over the
past six months in 2013
•
The current strength of synthetic cannabinoids was reported to be ‘high/medium’ in 2013
•
Forty-five percent of the frequent drug users reported that ‘more’ people were using
synthetic cannabinoids compared to six months ago in 2013
•
Seventy-eight percent of the frequent drug users could purchase synthetic cannabinoids in
20 minutes or less
•
The frequent drug users overwhelmingly purchased synthetic cannabinoids from ‘legal
shops’, but there was some evidence of informal personal exchanges and purchases from
the black market
330
20. Synthetic Cannabinoids | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
21. Party Pills
21.1 Introduction
The term ‘party pill’ has been commonly used in New Zealand over the past decade or so to refer to
a range of ‘legal high’ products which are sold in tablet and pill form. In the mid-2000s, ‘party pills’
containing mixtures of benzylpiperazine (BZP) and trifluorophenylmethylphenylpiperazine (TFMPP)
were legally sold and widely used in New Zealand (Sheridan, et al., 2007). A national household
survey conducted in 2006 found 15% of the New Zealand population aged 13-45 years old, including
40% of males aged 18-24 years, reported using a BZP party pill in the previous 12 months (Wilkins et
al., 2007). BZP party pills were sold from a wide range of retail outlets including convenience stores,
liquor stores, specialty stores and via internet websites (Wilkins et al., 2014). The authorities
estimated that 80-120 different BZP party pill products were available during this time (Ministry of
Health, 2012). Following the prohibition of BZP in early 2008, legal high manufacturers introduced a
number of ‘non-BZP’ party pills for legal sale which initially contained dimethylamylamine (DMAA)
(Wilkins & Sweetsur, 2012). In more recent years, legally available ‘party pills’ have contained a
range of active ingredients including new psychoactive substances (NPS), amino acids, herbal
extracts, vitamins and caffeine (Ministry of Health, 2014).
21.2 Knowledge of party pills trends
Only 6% of the frequent drug users interviewed for the 2013 IDMS (n=15) indicated they felt
confident enough to comment on the price, strength and availability of party pills in the previous six
months. This included 5% of the drug users in Auckland (n=7), 10% of the drug users in Wellington
(n=5) and 2% of the drug users in Christchurch (n=3). The low number of respondents answering the
section means the results should be interpreted with caution and comparisons by location are not
statistically reliable.
21.3 Availability of party pills
Current availability of party pills
The current availability of party pills was reported to be ‘very easy/easy’ in 2013. Sixty-six per cent of
the frequent drug users reported the availability of party pills to be ‘very easy’ (Table 21.1). None of
the respondents reported the availability of party pills was ‘very difficult’.
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 21. Party Pills
Table 21 1: Current availability of party pills by combined frequent drug users, 2013
Current availability of
party pills (%)
All sites
(n=15)
Very easy [4]
66%
Easy [3]
23%
Difficult [2]
10%
Very difficult [1]
0%
Average availability
score (1=very difficult –
4=very easy)
3.6
Very
easy/
easy
Overall current status
Change in availability of party pills
Seventy-five percent of the frequent drug users reported the availability of ‘party pills’ had been
‘stable’ over the previous six months in 2013.
Table 21 2: Change in availability of party pills by combined frequent drug users, 2013
Change in
availability of
party pills (%)
All sites
(n=15)
Easier [3]
11%
Stable [2]
75%
Fluctuates [2]
9%
More difficult [1]
5%
Average change in
availability score
(1=more difficult –
3=easier)
2.1
Overall recent
change
Stable
21.4 Price of party pills
Current price of party pills
The current median price of a pack of party pills was $25-35 in 2013 (with a median of 4 pills per
pack).
332
21. Party Pills | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 21 3: Current price of party pills (NZD) by combined frequent drug users, 2013
Current price of
party pills ($)
Number with
knowledge
Median cost per
pack of party pills
All sites
14
$25-35
Change in price of party pills
The price of party pills was reported to have been ‘stable/increasing’ over the past six months in
2013 (Table 21.4).
Table 21 4: Change in the price of party pills in the past six months by combined frequent drug users,
2013
Change in price
of party pills (%)
All sites
(n=14)
Increasing [3]
20%
Fluctuating [2]
18%
Stable [2]
57%
Decreasing [1]
5%
Average change
in price score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
2.1
Overall recent
change
Stable
/increasing
21.5 Strength of party pills
Current strength of party pills
The current strength of party pills was reported to be ‘low/medium’ in 2013 (Table 21.5). Fifty-nine
per cent of the frequent drug users described the current strength of party pills as ‘low’.
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 21. Party Pills
Table 21 5: Current strength of party pills by combined frequent drug users, 2013
Current strength
of party pills
(%)
All sites
(n=15)
High [3]
6%
Medium [2]
28%
Fluctuates [2]
6%
Low [1]
59%
Average strength
score (1=low –
3=high)
1.5
Overall current
status
Low/
medium
Change in strength of party pills
The strength of party pills was reported to have been ‘stable/decreasing’ over the previous six
months in 2013 (Table 21.6). Fifty-eight of the frequent drug users reported the strength of party
pills had been ‘stable’.
Table 21 6: Change in strength of party pills by combined frequent drug users, 2013
Change in
strength of party
pills
(%)
Increasing [3]
Stable [2]
All sites
(n=15)
0%
58%
Fluctuating [2]
6%
Decreasing [1]
36%
Average change
in strength score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
Overall recent
change
1.6
Stable/
decreasing
21.6 Perceptions of the number of people using party pills
Fifty-six per cent of the frequent drug users reported that ‘less’ people were using party pills over
the previous six months in 2013 (Table 21.7).
334
21. Party Pills | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Table 21 7: Perceptions of the number of people using party pills by combined frequent drug users,
2013
Number of people
using party pills (%)
All sites
(n=15)
More [3]
12%
Same [2]
32%
Less [1]
56%
Average number of
people using score
(1=less – 3=more)
Overall recent change
1.6
Less/same
21.7 Purchase of party pills
Frequency of purchase of party pills
Only ten of the frequent drug users who answered the party pills section had purchased party pills in
the past six months in 2013 (Table 21.8). Only 8% (n=1) had done so weekly or more often.
Table 21 8: Frequency of purchase of party pills in past six months by combined frequent drug users,
2013
Frequency purchase
in past six months
(%)
All sites
(n=10)
1-2 times
29
3-4 times
18
Once per month
38
Twice per month
8
Once per week
0
2-3 times per week
8
4-5 times per week
0
Once per day
0
More than once per
day
0
Time taken to purchase party pills
Fifty-four per cent of the frequent drug users who had purchased party pills in the previous six
months (n=7) were able to do so in 20 minutes or less (Table 21.9). Eighty-three percent were able
to purchase party pills in one hour or less.
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 21. Party Pills
Table 21 9: Time taken to purchase party pills by combined frequent drug users, 2013
Time to
purchase (%)
All sites
(n=11)
Months
0
Weeks
0
Days
0
About one day
0
Hours
17
1 Hour
29
Less than 20
minutes
54
Location of purchase of party pills
In 2013, 78% of the frequent drug users who purchased party pills had done so from ‘legal shops’,
19% from a ‘pub/bar/club’ and 13% from an ‘educational institute’ (Table 21.10).
Table 21 10: Location from which party pills were purchased in the past six months by combined
frequent drug users, 2013
All sites
(n=11)
Location (%)
Legal shop
78
Pub/bar/club
19
Educational institute
13
Agreed public location
0
Street drug market
0
Work
0
Internet
0
Types of sellers of party pills
In 2013, 78% of the frequent drug users who had purchased party pills had purchased them from a
‘legal retailer’, 22% from a ‘drug dealer’, and 19% from a ‘friend’ (Table 21.11).
Table 21 11: People from whom party pills were purchased in the past six months by combined
frequent drug users, 2013
Type of person (%)
All sites
(n=11)
Legal retailer/gang member/associate
78
Drug dealer
22
A friend
19
A social acquaintance
0
Partner/family member
0
336
21. Party Pills | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
21.8 Summary of party pills trends
•
The current availability of party pills was reported to be ‘very easy/easy’ in 2013
•
The availability of party pills was reported to have been ‘stable’ over the previous six months
•
The median price of a pack of party pills (4 pills per pack) was $25-35 in 2013
•
The current strength of party pills was reported to be ‘low/medium’ in 2013
•
The strength of party pills was reported to have been ‘stable/decreasing’ in the previous six
months
•
Fifty-six per cent of the frequent drug users reported that ‘less’ people were using party pills
in the previous six months in 2013.
•
Eighty three per cent of the frequent drug users were able to purchase party pills within one
hour or less
•
In 2013, 78% of the frequent drug users who had purchased party pills had purchased them
from a ‘legal retailer’, 22% from a ‘drug dealer’, and 19% from a ‘friend’
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | 21. Party Pills
References
ACMD. (2013). 6-APB and 5-APB: A review of the evidence of use and harm. London: Advisory Council
on the Misuse of Drugs.
Adamson, S., & Sellman, D. (1998). The pattern of intravenous drug use and associated criminal
activity in patients on a methadone waiting list. Drug and Alcohol Review, 17, 159-166.
ADANZ. (2009). Alcohol and Drug Helpline Annual Report: Alcohol and Drug Association of New
Zealand.
ADANZ. (2014). Alcohol and Drug Helpline Annual Report: Alcohol and Drug Association of New
Zealand.
AIHW. (2008). National Drug Strategy Household Survey (Drug Statistics, 22). Canberra: Australian
Institute of Health and Welfare.
AIHW. (2011). 2010 National Drug Strategy Household Survey Report (Number 25). Canberra:
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
Babor, T., Caulkins, J., Edwards, G., Fischer, B., Foxcroft, D., Humphreys, K., et al. (2010). Drug Policy
and the Public Good. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bennett, T., & Holloway, K. (2005). Understanding Drugs, Alcohol and Crime. Berkshire: Open
University Press.
Biernacki, P., & Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball sampling: problems and techniques of chain referral
sampling. Sociological Methods and Research, 10, 141-163.
BPJ. (2012). Update on Oxycodone - what can primary care do about the problem? 44. Retrieved
from
http://www.bpac.org.nz/magazine/2012/may/docs/bpj_44_oxycodone_pages_816_pf.pdf
Breen, C., Topp, L., & Longo, M. (2002). Adapting the IDRS Methodology to Monitor Trends in Party
Drug Markets: Findings of a Two-Year Feasibility Trial (NDARC Technical Report Number
142). Sydney: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales.
Bye, C., Munro-Faure, A., Peck, A., & Young, P. (1973). A comparison of the effects of lbenzylpiperazine on human performance tests. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology,
6, 163-169.
CADS. (2013). Six Monthly Community Alcohol & Drug Services Outputs by District Health Board July December 2012. Auckland: Community Alcohol and Drug Services.
CADS. (2014). Six Monthly Community Alcohol & Drug Services Outputs by District Health Board July December 2013. Auckland: Community Alcohol and Drug Services.
Campbell, H., Cline, W., Evans, M., Lloyd, J., & Peck, A. (1973). Comparison of the effects of
dexamethamphetamine and l-benzylpiperazine in former addicts. European Journal of
Clinical Pharmacology, 6, 170-176.
Caulkins, J., & Reuter, P. (2009). Towards a harm-reduction approach to enforcement. Safer
Communities, 8(1), 9-23.
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. (2009). Tackling Methamphetamine: an Action Plan.
Wellington: New Zealand Government.
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. (2010a). Tackling Methamphetamine: Indicators and
Progress Report April 2010. Wellington: New Zealand Government.
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. (2010b). Tackling Methamphetamine: Indicators and
Progress Report October 2010. Wellington: New Zealand Government.
Dunn, M., Degenhardt, G., Campbell, G., George, J., Johnston, J., & Kinner, S., et al. (2007). Australian
Trends in Ecstasy and Related Drug Markets 2006: Findings from the Ecstasy and related
Drugs Reporting System (EDRS) (NDARC Monograph No.61). Sydney: National Drug and
Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales.
338
References | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
EMCDDA. (2009). Annual Report 2009: The State of the Drugs Problem in Europe. Lisbon, Portugal:
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.
EMCDDA. (2011). The state of the drugs problem in Europe (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs
and Drug Addiction). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
EMCDDA. (2012). The state of the drugs problem in Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union, European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.
EMCDDA. (2013a). EU Drug Markets Report: A strategic analysis. Lisbon: European Monitoring
Centre
for
Drugs
and
Drug
Addiction.
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_194336_EN_TD3112366ENC.pdf.
EMCDDA. (2013b). European Drug Report 2013: Trends and developments. Lisbon: European
Monitoring
Centre
for
Drugs
and
Drug
Addiction.
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_213154_EN_TDAT13001ENN1.pdf.
EMCDDA. (2014). European Drug Report: Trends and Developments. Lisbon: European Monitoring
Centre
for
Drugs
and
Drug
Addiction.
http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_228272_EN_TDAT14001ENN.pdf.
ESR. (2013). Personal communication: Environmental Science and Research.
ESR. (2014). ESR Drugs Trends Report February 2013 - October 2013. Wellington: Institute of
Environmental Science and Research.
Every-Palmer, S. (2010). Warning: legal synthetic cannabinoid-receptor agonists such as JWH-018
may precipitate psychosis in vulnerable individuals. Addiction, 105, 1859-1860.
Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. (2004). The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs (EACD)
Advice to the Minister on: Benzylpiperazine (BZP), April. Wellington: EACD.
Field, A., & Casswell, S. (1999). Drugs in New Zealand: A National Survey 1998. University of
Auckland: Alcohol and Public Health Research Unit.
Gawin, F., & Ellinwood, E. (1988). Cocaine and other stimulants: actions, abuse and treatment. New
England Journal of Medicine, 318, 1173-1182.
Gee, P., & Fountain, J. (2007). Party on? BZP party pills in New Zealand. New Zealand Medical
Journal, 120(1249), http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/120-1249/2422/.
Gee, P., Richardson, S., Woltersdorf, W., & Moore, G. (2005). Toxic effects of BZP-based herbal party
pills in humans: a prospective study in Christchurch, New Zealand. New Zealand Medical
Journal, 118(1227). Retrieved from http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/118-1227/1784/
Gossop, M., Darke, S., Griffiths, P., Hando, J., Powis, B., Hall, W., et al. (1995). The Severity of
Dependence Scale (SDS): psychometric properties of the SDS in English and Australian
samples of heroin, cocaine and amphetamine users. Addiction, 90, 607-614.
Griffiths, P., Vingoe, L., Hunt, N., Mountenay, J., & Hartnoll, R. (2000). Drug information systems,
early warning, and new drug trends: can drug monitoring systems become more sensitive to
emerging trends in drug consumption? Substance Use & Misuse, 35, 811-844.
Hall, W., & Hando, J. (1994). Route of administration and adverse effects of amphetamine use
among young adults in Sydney, Australia. Drug and Alcohol Review, 13, 277-284.
Hammersley, R., Forsyth, A., Morrison, V., & Davies, J. (1989). The relationship between crime and
opioid use. British Journal of Addiction, 84, 1029-1043.
Hando, J., O'Brien, J., Darke, S., Maher, L., & Hall, W. (1997). The Illicit Drug Reporting System (IDRS)
Trial: Final Report (NDARC Monograph No.31). Sydney: National Drug and Alcohol Research
Centre, University of New South Wales.
Hough, M. (1996). Drugs Misuse and the Criminal Justice System: A Review of the Literature (Drugs
Prevention Initiative Paper 15). London: Home Office.
Judson, G., Bird, R., & O’Connor, P., et al. (2010). Drug injecting in patients in New Zealand
Methadone Maintenance Treatment programs: An anonymous survey. Drug and Alcohol
Review, 29(1), 41-46.
Kuhn, C., Swartzwelder, S., & Wilson, W. (1998). Buzzed: The Straight Facts About the Most Used and
Abused Drugs from Alcohol to Ecstacy. New York: W.W.Norton & Co.
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | References
Martin, G., Copeland, J., Gates, P., & Gilmour, S. (2006). The Severity of Dependence Scale (SDS) in
an adolescent population of cannabis users: reliability, validity and diagnostic cut-off. Drug
and Alcohol Dependence, 83, 90-93.
Matsumoto, T., Kamijo, A., Miyakawa, T., Endo, K., Yabana, T., Kishimoto, H., et al. (2002).
Methamphetamine in Japan: the consequences of methamphetamine abuse as a function of
route of administration. Addiction, 97, 809-817.
Maxwell, J. (2011). The prescription drug epidemic in the United States: A perfect storm. Drug and
Alcohol Review, 30(3), 264-270.
McKetin, R., & McLaren, J. (2004). The Methamphetamine Situation in Australia: A Review of Routine
Data Sources. Sydney: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South
Wales.
Ministry of Health. (2009). Research into knowledge and attitudes to legal drugs: A study among the
general public and people with experience of illegal drug use (UMR Research; Acqumen LTD
and UMR Ltd).
Ministry of Health. (2012). Regulatory Impact Statement - New regulatory regime for psychoactive
substances (July & October). http://www.health.govt.nz/about-ministry/legislation-andregulation/regulatory-impact-statements/new-regulatory-regime-psychoactive-substances.
Accessed 23 June, 2014.
Ministry of Health. (2013). Amphetamine Use 2012/13: Key findings of the New Zealand Health
Survey, December. Wellington.
Ministry of Health. (2014, Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6PwNP33OU).
Regulatory Impact Statement: Amendment to the Psychoactive Substance Act 2013.
http://www.health.govt.nz/about-ministry/legislation-and-regulation/regulatory-impactstatements/amendment-psychoactive-substance-act-2013. Accessed 30 May, 2014.
Mounteney, J., & Leirvag, S.-V. (2004). Providing an earlier warning of emerging drug trends: The
forever system. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 11(6), 449-471.
Munro, G., & Wilkins, C. (2014). New Psychoactive Drugs: No Easy Answer (PolicyTalk). Melbourne:
Australia Drug Foundation.
NDIB. (2009). Personal correspondence: National Drug Intelligence Bureau.
NDIB. (2011). Personal communication: National Drug Intelligence Bureau.
NDIB. (2012). Personal communication: National Drug Intelligence Bureau.
NDIB. (2013). Personal communication. Wellington: National Drug Intelligence Bureau.
NDIB. (2014). Personal communication. Wellington: National Drug Intelligence Bureau.
New Zealand Customs Service. (2002). Review of Customs Drug Enforcement Strategies 2002.
Project Horizon Outcome Report. Wellington: New Zealand Customs Service.
New Zealand Parliament. (2014, 6 May). Psychoactive Substances Amendment Bill — First Reading,
Second Reading, In Committee, Third Reading.
[Hansard (debates)].
http://www.parliament.nz/ennz/pb/debates/debates/50HansD_20140506_00000936/psychoactive-substancesamendment-bill-—-first-reading. Accessed 23 June 2014.
Newbold, G. (2000). Crime in New Zealand. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
Nicholas, R., Lee, N., & Roche, A. (2011). Pharmaceutical drug misuse problems in Australia: Complex
issues, balanced responses. Adelaide: NCETA, Flinders University.
O'Brien, S., Black, E., Degenhardt, L., Roxburgh, A., Campbell, G., & de Graaff, B., et al. (2007).
Australian Drug Trends 2006: Findings from the Illicit Drug Reporting System (IDRS) (NDARC
Monograph No.60). Sydney: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New
South Wales.
Perrone, D., Helgesen, R., & Fischer, R. (2013). United States drug prohibition and legal highs: How
drug testing may lead cannabis users to Spice. Drugs: Education Prevention and Policy, 20,
216-224.
Rassool, H. (2009). Alcohol and Drug Misuse. Routledge: New York.
340
References | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Room, R., Fischer, B., Hall, W., Lenton, S., & Reuter, P. (2010). Cannabis policy: moving beyond
stalemate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schep, L. (2014). An update on calls received by the National Poisons Centre on synthetic
cannabinoids (Oct 2010 to May 2014). Dunedin: New Zealand National Poisons Centre.
Seddon, T. (2000). Explaining the drug-crime link: theoretical, policy and research issues. Journal of
Social Policy, 29(1), 95-107.
Shearer, J., Sherman, J., Wodak, A., & van Beek, I. (2002). Substitution theory for amphetamine
users. Drug and Alcohol Review, 21, 179-185.
Sheridan, J., & Butler, R. (2008). Prescription Drug Misuse: Issues for Primary Care - Final Report of
Findings. Auckland: School of Pharmacy, University of Auckland.
Sheridan, J., Butler, R., Wilkins, C., & Russell, B. (2007). Legal piperazine-containing party pills – a
new trend in substance misuse. Drug and Alcohol Review, 26, 335-343
Sindicich, N., & Burns, L. (2012). An overview of the 2012 EDRS: Ecstasy returns and the emerging
class of drugs (Ecstasy and Related Drugs Reporting System Drug Trends Bulletin, October).
Sydney: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, The University of New South Wales.
Stafford, J., Sindicich, N., & Burns, L. (2009). Australian Drug Trends 2008 - Findings from the Illicit
Drug Reporting System (IDRS) (Australian Drug Trends Series No. 19). Sydney: National Drug
and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales.
Topp, L., & Mattick, R. (1997). Choosing a cut-off on the Severity of Dependence Scale (SDS) for
amphetamine users. Addiction, 92(7), 839-845.
UNODC. (2010). 2010 World Drug Report. Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
UNODC. (2011). Synthetic cannabinoids in herbal products: United Nations Office on Drugs and
Crime.
UNODC. (2012). World Drug Report 2012. Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
UNODC. (2013). World Drug Report 2013. Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/secured/wdr/wdr2013/World_Drug_Report_2013.pdf.
UNODC. (2014). World Drug Report 2014. Vienna: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
https://www.unodc.org/documents/wdr2014/World_Drug_Report_2014_web.pdf.
Watters, J., & Biernacki, P. (1989). Targeted sampling: options for the study of hidden populations.
Social Problems, 36, 416-430.
Weisheit, R., & White, W. (2009). Methamphetamine: Its History, Physiology, and Treatment. Center
City, MN: Hazelden.
Wilkins, C. (2002). Designer amphetamines in New Zealand: challenges and policy initiatives. Social
Policy Journal of New Zealand, 19, 14-27.
Wilkins, C. (2011). A paradigm shift in recreational drug use: the challenge of legal highs in New
Zealand [Letter]. New Zealand Medical Journal, 124(1339), 99-101.
Wilkins, C. (2014). The interim regulated legal market for NPS (‘legal high’) products in New Zealand:
The impact of new retail restrictions and product licensing. Drug Testing and Analysis, Article
first published online 12 May, DOI: 10.1002/dta.1643.
Wilkins, C., Bhatta, K., & Casswell, S. (2002a). The effectiveness of cannabis crop eradication
operations in New Zealand. Drug and Alcohol Review, 21, 369-374.
Wilkins, C., Bhatta, K., & Casswell, S. (2002b). The emergence of amphetamine use in New Zealand:
findings from the 1998 and 2001 national drug surveys. New Zealand Medical Journal,
115(1166), 256-263.
Wilkins, C., Bhatta, K., Pledger, M., & Casswell, S. (2003). Ecstasy use in New Zealand: findings from
the 1998 and 2001 National Drug Surveys. New Zealand Medical Journal, 116, 383-393.
Wilkins, C., & Casswell, S. (2002). The cannabis black market and the case for the legalisation of
cannabis in New Zealand. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 18, 31-43.
Wilkins, C., & Casswell, S. (2003). Organised crime in cannabis cultivation in New Zealand: an
economic analysis. Contemporary Drug Problems, 30, 757-777.
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | References
Wilkins, C., Girling, M., & Sweetsur, P. (2007). The prevalence of use, dependency and harms of legal
‘party pills’ containing benzylpiperazine (BZP) and trifluorophenylmethylpiperazine (TFMPP)
in New Zealand. Journal of Substance Use, 12, 213-224.
Wilkins, C., Girling, M., Sweetsur, P., & Butler, R. (2005a). Cannabis and Other Illicit Drug Trends in
New Zealand, 2005: Findings from the Cannabis Module of the 2005 Illicit Drug Monitoring
System (IDMS), November. Auckland: Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and
Evaluation (SHORE) & Te Ropu Whariki, Massey University.
Wilkins, C., Girling, M., Sweetsur, P., & Butler, R. (2005b). Hallucinogens and Other Illicit Drug Trends
in New Zealand, 2005: Findings from the Hallucinogen Module of the 2005 Illicit Drug
Monitoring System (IDMS). Auckland: Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and
Evaluation (SHORE) & Te Ropu Whariki, Massey University.
Wilkins, C., Girling, M., Sweetsur, P., & Butler, R. (2005c). Methamphetamine and Other Illicit Drug
Trends in New Zealand, 2005: Findings from the Methamphetamine Module of the 2005 Illicit
Drug Monitoring System (IDMS), November. Auckland: Centre for Social and Health
Outcomes Research and Evaluation (SHORE) & Te Ropu Whariki, Massey University.
Wilkins, C., Griffiths, R., & Sweetsur, P. (2010a). Recent Trends in Illegal Drug Use in New Zealand,
2006-2009: Findings from the 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 Illicit Drug Monitoring System
(IDMS) Auckland: Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation, School of Public
Health, Massey University.
Wilkins, C., Jawalkar, S., & Parker, K. (2013). Recent trends in illegal drug use in New Zealand 20062012: Findings from the 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 Illicit Drug Monitoring
System (IDMS). Auckland: SHORE and Whariki Research Centre, Massey University.
Wilkins, C., Reilly, J., & Casswell, S. (2005d). Cannabis 'tinny' houses in New Zealand; implications for
the use of cannabis and other drugs in New Zealand. Addiction, 100, 971-980.
Wilkins, C., Reilly, J., Pledger, M., & Casswell, S. (2005e). Estimating the dollar value of the illicit
market for cannabis in New Zealand. Drug and Alcohol Review, 24(3), 227-234.
Wilkins, C., Reilly, J., Rose, E., Roy, D., Pledger, M., & Lee, A. (2004). The Socio-Economic Impact of
Amphetamine Type Stimulants in New Zealand: Final Report. Auckland: Centre for Social and
Health
Outcomes
Research
and
Evaluation,
Massey
University.
http://www.shore.ac.nz/projects/ATS%20research.htm
http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/2004/meth-impact/.
Wilkins, C., & Rose, E. (2003). A Scoping Report on the Illicit Drug Monitoring System (IDMS).
Auckland: Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation (SHORE), Massey
University.
Wilkins, C., & Sweetsur, P. (2006). Exploring the structure of the illegal market for cannabis in New
Zealand. De Economist, 154(4), DOI 10.1007/s10645-10006-19029-10647.
Wilkins, C., & Sweetsur, P. (2008). Trends in population drug use in New Zealand: Findings from
national household surveying of drug use in 1998, 2001, 2003 and 2006. New Zealand
Medical Journal, 121, 61-71.
Wilkins, C., & Sweetsur, P. (2011a). The association between spending on methamphetamine and
cannabis for personal use and earnings from acquisitive crime among police detainees in
New Zealand. Addiction, 106, 789–797.
Wilkins, C., & Sweetsur, P. (2011b). The association between the number of days of
methamphetamine use and the level of earnings from acquisitive crime among police
detainees in New Zealand. Bulletin on Narcotics, Volume LX, 2008, 59-77.
Wilkins, C., & Sweetsur, P. (2011c). The seizure rate of cannabis crop eradication operations in New
Zealand, 1998-2009. In T. Decorte, G. Potter & M. Bouchard (Eds.), World Wide Weed: Global
Trends in Cannabis Cultivation and its Control: Ashgate.
Wilkins, C., & Sweetsur, P. (2012). The impact of prohibition of benzylpiperazine (BZP) 'legal highs' on
the availability, price and potency of BZP in New Zealand. Paper presented at the 6th Annual
ISSDP Conference, University of Kent, England, May.
342
References | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Wilkins, C., & Sweetsur, P. (2013). The impact of the prohibition of BZP legal highs on the prevalence
of BZP, new legal highs and other drug use in New Zealand. Drug and Alcohol Dependence,
127, 72-80.
Wilkins, C., Sweetsur, P., & Girling, M. (2008). Patterns of benzylpiperazine/
trifluoromethylphenylpiperazine (BZP/TFMPP) party pill use and adverse effects in a
population sample in New Zealand. Drug and Alcohol Review, 27, 633-639.
Wilkins, C., Sweetsur, P., & Griffiths, R. (2011a). Recent trends in pharmaceutical drug use among
frequent injecting drug users, frequent methamphetamine users and frequent ecstasy users
in New Zealand, 2006–2009. Drug and Alcohol Review, 30, 255-263.
Wilkins, C., Sweetsur, P., Moewaka Barnes, H., Griffiths, R., Asiasiga, L., & Smart, B. (2010b). New
Zealand Arrestee Drug Use Monitoring (NZ-ADUM) 2010 Report. Auckland: Social and Health
Outcomes Research and Evaluation & Te Ropu Whariki, SHORE and Whariki Research Centre,
Massey University.
Wilkins, C., Sweetsur, P., & Parker, K. (2014). The impact of the prohibition of benzylpiperazine (BZP)
"legal highs" on the availability, price and strength of BZP in New Zealand. Drug and Alcohol
Dependence, in press.
Wilkins, C., Sweetsur, P., Smart, B., & Griffiths, R. (2011b). Recent Trends in Illegal Drug Use in New
Zealand, 2006-2010: Findings from the 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 Illicit Drug
Monitoring System (IDMS): Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation (SHORE),
Massey University.
Wilkins, C., Sweetsur, P., Smart, B., Warne, C., & Jawalkar, S. (2012). Recent Trends in Illegal Drug
Use in New Zealand, 2006-2011: Findings from the 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011
Illicit Drug Monitoring System (IDMS). Auckland: Social and Health Outcomes Research and
Evaluation (SHORE), SHORE and Whariki Research Centre, Massey University.
Yska, R. (1990). New Zealand Green: The Story of Marijuana in New Zealand. Auckland: David
Bateman.
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | References
Appendix 1: Lifetime drug use
* Statistically significant correlation from 2006 to 2013 at p <0.05%
** Statistically significant difference between 2012 vs. 2013 at p<0.05%
Table A.1: Lifetime use of different drug types by frequent methamphetamine users, 2006-2013
2006
Drug type
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2006
Ever used Ever used Ever used Ever used Ever used Ever used Ever used Ever used Median
(n=114)
(n=110)
(n=137)
(n=105)
(n=130)
(n=113)
(n=100)
(n=93)
age first
used
(mean)
Methamphetamine
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Median
age first
used
(mean)
Median
age first
used
(mean)
Median
age first
used
(mean)
Median
age first
used
(mean)
Median age Median age Median
first used
first used
age first
(mean)
(mean)
used
(mean)
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
23 (25)
years
22 (24)
years
21 (24)
years
20 (22)
years
20 (23) 21 (24) years 21 (25) years
years
Cannabis
98%
99%
100%
100%
99%
97%
97%
95%
14 (14)
years
14 (14)
years
14 (15)
years
14 (14)
years
14 (14) 15 (15) years
years
Tobacco
90%
97%
94%
94%
95%
96%
99%
91% **
13 (13)
years
13 (13)
years
13 (13)
years
13 (13)
years
13 (13)
years
Alcohol
98%
99%
100%
96%
96%
98%
93%
89%
13 (13)
years
13 (12)
years
14 (13)
years
13 (13)
years
13 (13)
years
13 (13)
years* **
14 (15)
years * **
Amphetamine
86%
84%
88%
81%
72%
72%
78%
69% *
18 (20)
years
17 (19)
years
18 (19)
years
18 (19)
years
18 (19) 19 (20) years 18 (20) years
years
18 (21)
years
Ecstasy
85%
87%
88%
89%
84%
82%
85%
68% * **
22 (23)
years
21 (22)
years
18 (20)
years
19 (22)
years
18 (20) 18 (23) years 20 (22) years
years
18 (22)
years
LSD
83%
90%
79%
87%
69%
77%
83%
65% * **
18 (18)
years
16 (17)
years
17 (17)
years
17 (18)
years
18 (18) 18 (19) years
years
18 (19)
years*
18 (18)
years *
-
82%
63%
83%
68%
66%
79%
60% **
-
17 (18)
years
17 (18)
years
18 (18)
years
16 (18) 17 (19) years 18 (19) years
years
17 (18)
years
78%
78%
68%
73%
53%
58%
74%
55% * **
25 (26)
years
24 (26)
years
20 (24)
years
20 (22)
years
21 (25) 22 (24) years 23 (25) years
years
22 (25)
years
-
-
-
-
22%
52%
57%
49% *
-
-
-
-
21 (23)
years
29 (29)
years
Hallucinogenic
mushrooms
(psilocybin)
Crystal methamphetamine
Synthetic cannabis
344
Appendix 1: Lifetime drug use | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
22 (26)
years
14 (14)
years**
15 (16)
years * **
14 (14) 13 (13) years
years**
14 (15)
years * **
15 (15)
years* **
26 (29) 28 (37) years
years**
-
-
53%
53%
45%
35%
47%
42% *
-
-
18 (20)
years
18 (20)
years
20 (21) 19 (22) years
years
20 (23)
years*
20 (22)
years *
Ritalin
(methylphenidate)
49%
59%
51%
61%
47%
47%
60%
41% **
27 (25)
years
23 (25)
years
20 (21)
years
18 (20)
years
22 (25) 25 (26) years 20 (24) years
years
20 (21)
years
Benzodiazepines
48%
62%
40%
41%
46%
38%
44%
41% *
18 (20)
years
18 (19)
years
19 (20)
years
18 (20)
years
19 (20) 20 (22) years 18 (21) years
years
18 (22) *
years
-
-
-
-
-
30%
40%
37%
-
-
-
-
- 24 (26) years 25 (28) years
28 (28)
years
Cocaine
65%
53%
55%
54%
45%
41%
49%
35% * **
21 (23)
years
20 (21)
years
21 (22)
years
22 (23)
years
21 (22) 21 (22) years 22 (24) years
years
20 (22)
years
Anti-depressants
13%
30%
31%
35%
43%
44%
32%
33% *
20 (20)
years
21 (22)
years
20 (22)
years
21 (23)
years
21 (23) 22 (25) years
years
25 (26)
years*
19 (21)
years **
Nitrous oxide
60%
63%
63%
66%
45%
41%
56%
33% * **
19 (21)
years
18 (20)
years
17 (19)
years
18 (18)
years
18 (20) 20 (22) years
years
18 (19)
years**
20 (20)
years
Amyl nitrate
45%
54%
60%
59%
46%
34%
47%
33% * **
18 (20)
years
18 (20)
years
18 (19)
years
17 (20)
years
18 (20) 18 (20) years 18 (19) years
years
20 (22)
years
BZP party pills
75%
78%
32%
38%
34%
28%
31%
30% *
25 (27)
years
25 (26)
years
22 (25)
years
21 (23)
years
25 (27) 23 (25) years 24 (25) years
years
20 (21)
years * **
GHB
36%
44%
38%
40%
35%
41%
27%**
29% *
27 (28)
years
25 (26)
years
24 (25)
years
22 (25)
years
22 (24) 19 (22) years
years
24 (27)
years**
21 (24)
years
Morphine
-
-
40%
44%
45%
42%
45%
28% **
-
-
20 (22)
years
20 (22)
years
21 (24) 21 (23) years 21 (23) years
years
22 (22)
years
Ketamine
33%
35%
36%
43%
35%
24%
33%
26%
22 (26)
years
23 (25)
years
23 (25)
years
23 (26)
years
20 (23) 21 (23) years
years
26 (30)
years**
20 (24)
years
Non-BZP party pills
-
-
-
-
22%
34%
38%
23% **
-
-
-
-
23 (26) 22 (24) years 21 (25) years
years
26 (26)
years
Opium poppies
-
-
21%
31%
32%
37%
39%
22% **
-
-
20 (22)
years
20 (20)
years
19 (21) 20 (21) years 20 (22) years
years
20 (23)
years
Salvia divinorum
-
-
-
-
-
13%
33%
20%
-
-
-
-
- 18 (20) years 18 (20) years
24 (26)
years
Methadone
30%
46%
36%
32%
34%
42%
30%
18% * **
25 (26)
years
25 (26)
years
24 (25)
years
22 (22)
years
24 (26) 23 (25) years 21 (23) years
years
24 (25)
years
Heroin
31%
40%
32%
25%
30%
31%
31%
13% * **
20 (21)
years
20 (21)
years
20 (21)
years
18 (21)
years
20 (22) 20 (21) years 21 (23) years
years
19 (21)
years
-
-
30%
25%
32%
31%
25%
13% * **
-
-
22 (24)
years
20 (22)
years
22 (24) 21 (22) years 19 (20) years
years
20 (24)
years
Codeine
Tramadol
Homebake heroin/morphine
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | Appendix 1: Lifetime drug use
345
2C drugs
-
-
-
-
-
17%
13%
13%
-
-
-
-
- 22 (23) years 21 (23) years
23 (23)
years
Oxycodone
-
-
3%
11%
11%
15%
19%
12% *
-
-
27 (28)
years
25 (27)
years
30 (32) 33 (32) years 33 (30) years
years
24 (26)
years
Mephedrone
-
-
-
-
-
18%
25%
9%
-
-
-
-
- 22 (25) years 22 (24) years
29 (27)
years
DMT
-
-
-
-
-
5%
8%
6%
-
-
-
-
- 22 (23) years 21 (21) years
23 (27)
years
MDPV
-
-
-
-
-
2%
2%
2%
-
-
-
-
- 30 (25) years 23 (23) years
20 (20)
years
Methylone
-
-
-
-
-
2%
6%
1%
-
-
-
-
- 38 (37) years 21 (19) years
17 (17)
years
Fentanyl
-
-
-
-
-
4%
3%
0%
-
-
-
-
- 24 (25) years 17 (18) years
-
4-MEC
-
-
-
-
-
2%
0%
0%
-
-
-
-
- 29 (29) years
-
346
Appendix 1: Lifetime drug use | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
-
Table A.2: Lifetime use of different drug types by frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users, 2006-2013
2006
Drug type
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Ever used Ever used Ever used Ever used Ever used Ever used Ever used Ever used Median age Median age Median age Median age Median age
(n=111)
(n=105)
(n=135)
(n=111)
(n=153)
(n=160)
(n=125)
(n=118)
first used first used first used first used first used
(mean)
(mean)
(mean)
(mean)
(mean)
2011
2012
2013
Median age
first used
(mean)
Median age
first used
(mean)
Median age
first used
(mean)
Ecstasy
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
18 (19)
years
18 (20)
years
18 (19)
years
18 (18)
years
18 (18) years
18 (19) years 18 (18) years* 18 (18) years *
Alcohol
99%
100%
99%
98%
100%
100%
98%
98%
14 (13)
years
14 (13)
years
14 (13)
years
14 (14)
years
13 (13) years
14 (14) years
14 (14) years
14 (14) years
Cannabis
99%
99%
99%
100%
96%
98%
98%
97%
15 (15)
years
14 (15)
years
15 (15)
years
15 (16)
years
15 (15) years
15 (15) years
15 (16) years
15 (15) years
Tobacco
78%
84%
88%
82%
88%
90%
90%
89%*
14 (14)
years
14 (14)
years
14 (14)
years
14 (14)
years
14 (14) years
15 (15) years
15 (15) years
15 (15) years
LSD
79%
68%
78%
78%
61%
70%
78%
72%
18 (18)
years
18 (19)
years
18 (18)
years
19 (19)
years
18 (18) years
18 (19) years
18 (18) years
18 (19) years
-
-
-
-
36%
70%
68%
58% *
-
-
-
-
19 (20) years
20 (21) years
20 (22) years
18 (21) years
Ritalin
(methylphenidate)
39%
36%
39%
48%
55%
53%
58%
55% *
18 (18)
years
18 (20)
years
18 (19)
years
18 (18)
years
18 (19) years
18 (19) years
18 (19) years
18 (19) years
Amphetamine
73%
64%
48%
63%
54%
52%
65%
55%
19 (19)
years
18 (19)
years
18 (18)
years
18 (19)
years
19 (19) years
19 (19) years
19 (19) years
18 (19) years
-
65%
59%
62%
51%
58%
64%
53%
-
18 (19)
years
18 (18)
years
18 (18)
years
18 (18) years
18 (19) years
18 (18) years
18 (18) years
92%
84%
85%
81%
64%
54%
66%
50% * **
18 (19)
years
16 (17)
years
16 (17)
years
17 (18)
years
17 (17) years 17 (17) years* 16 (17) years*
17 (18) years
Codeine
-
-
49%
35%
41%
47%
46%
49%
-
-
18 (19)
years
18 (19)
years
18 (19) years
18 (18) years
18 (21) years
18 (18) years
Salvia divinorum
-
-
-
-
-
40%
56%
49%
-
-
-
-
-
19 (19) years
18 (20) years
18 (18) years
50%
46%
47%
69%
56%
46%
53%
40%
18 (19)
years
19 (20)
years
18 (18)
years
18 (18)
years
18 (17) years
18 (18) years 17 (18) years*
18 (19) years
-
-
-
-
-
27%
35%
36%
-
-
-
-
-
19 (21) years
19 (20) years
Synthetic cannabis
Hallucinogenic
mushrooms
(psilocybin)
Nitrous oxide
Amyl nitrate
Tramadol
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | Appendix 1: Lifetime drug use
20 (21) years
347
-
-
-
-
50%
51%
68%
35% **
-
-
-
-
19 (20) years 18 (18) years**
18 (20) years
BZP party pills
91%
94%
42%
48%
54%
34%
31%
35% *
19 (20)
years
18 (19)
years
18 (19)
years
18 (19)
years
17 (18) years 17 (18) years* 19 (21) years*
17 (19) years
Methamphetamine
50%
44%
32%
32%
25%
30%
34%
32% *
19 (21)
years
19 (20)
years
19 (20)
years
21 (22)
years
19 (20) years
20 (21) years
20 (21) years
19 (20) years
2C drugs
-
-
-
-
-
18%
24%
28%
-
-
-
-
-
20 (21) years
20 (20) years
19 (21) years
Mephedrone
-
-
-
-
-
26%
38%
27% **
-
-
-
-
-
20 (20) years
20 (20) years
19 (20) years
Benzodiazepines
26%
26%
23%
22%
20%
24%
28%
27%
20 (21)
years
19 (19)
years
20 (20)
years
19 (19)
years
19 (21) years
20 (21) years
18 (20) years
19 (20) years
Cocaine
41%
30%
41%
38%
25%
32%
30%
25% *
21 (21)
years
20 (21)
years
20 (21)
years
22 (22)
years
20 (21) years
20 (21) years
21 (22) years
20 (21) years
9%
15%
18%
19%
21%
25%
30%
23% *
16 (18)
years
19 (20)
years
18 (19)
years
19 (20)
years
19 (21) years
18 (19) years
19 (20) years
18 (18) years
Ketamine
32%
21%
25%
37%
24%
23%
36%
22% **
21 (21)
years
20 (21)
years
19 (22)
years
19 (22)
years
19 (20) years
20 (21) years
20 (22) years
19 (22) years
GHB
34%
26%
26%
22%
15%
17%
12%*
17% *
21 (20)
20 (22)
19 (21)
19 (21)
years
20 (22) years
19 (19) years
20 (23) years
20 (22) years
Morphine
-
-
19%
12%
14%
15%
20%
15%
-
-
19 (19)
years
18 (17)
years
20 (19) years
19 (21) years 20 (21) years* 20 (21) years *
Oxycodone
-
-
5%
7%
5%
13%
9%
15% *
-
-
21 (22)
years
20 (22)
years
22 (24) years
20 (22) years
19 (23) years
19 (24) years
Opium poppies
-
-
14%
11%
13%
15%
21%
13%
-
-
18 (19)
years
18 (20)
years
21 (21) years
19 (20) years
19 (20) years
19 (19) years
8%
5%
6%
7%
7%
7%
8%
12%
19 (19)
years
20 (26)
years
20 (21)
years
22 (24)
years
20 (21) years
19 (21) years
18 (22) years
19 (21) years
19%
23%
18%
16%
8%
10%
17%
11% *
20 (21)
years
19 (20)
years
20 (21)
years
21 (22)
years
20 (20) years
18 (19) years 21 (24) years**
18 (19) years
**
-
-
-
-
-
4%
8%
10%
-
-
-
-
-
23 (23) years
20 (25) years
Non-BZP party pills
Anti-depressants
Methadone
Crystal
methamphetamine
Methylone
348
Appendix 1: Lifetime drug use | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
18 (20) years
18 (19) years
DMT
-
-
-
-
-
3%
8%
10%
-
-
-
-
-
25 (24) years
19 (21) years
20 (20) years
Homebake
heroin/morphine
-
-
2%
4%
3%
7%
6%
8% *
-
-
22 (20)
years
22 (21)
years
19 (23) years
20 (21) years
20 (23) years
20 (21) years
Heroin
9%
7%
10%
8%
5%
5%
7%
6%
19 (21)
years
19 (19)
years
22 (22)
years
22 (23)
years
22 (20) years
21 (22) years
20 (19) years
18 (19) years
MDPV
-
-
-
-
-
2%
4%
2%
-
-
-
-
-
21 (24) years
18 (19) years
19 (26) years
4-MEC
-
-
-
-
-
0%
1%
2%
-
-
-
-
-
-
18 (18) years
22 (28) years
Fentanyl
-
-
-
-
-
1%
3%
0%
-
-
-
-
-
20 (20) years
18 (18) years
-
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | Appendix 1: Lifetime drug use
349
Table A.3: Lifetime use of different drug types by frequent injecting drug users, 2006-2013
Drug type
Alcohol
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Ever
used
(n=93)
Ever used Ever used Ever
(n=109)
(n=132)
used
(n=99)
2011
2012
2013
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Ever used Ever used Ever used Ever used Median age Median age Median age Median age Median age
(n=128)
(n=99)
(n=104)
(n=101)
first used first used first used first used first used
(mean)
(mean)
(mean)
(mean)
(mean)
2011
2012
2013
Median age
first used
(mean)
Median age
first used
(mean)
Median age
first used
(mean)
99%
100%
97%
88%
95%
96%
99%
96%
13 (13)
years
13 (13)
years
13 (13)
years
13 (12)
years
14 (13) years
13 (13) years
14 (14) years 14 (13) years *
Cannabis
100%
100%
97%
98%
95%
99%
98%
95%
14 years
14 (14)
years
14 (14)
years
14 (14)
years
15 (14) years
15 (15) years
14 (14) years
15 (15) years
Tobacco
93%
94%
93%
93%
96%
96%
95%
95%
13 (14)
years
13 (13)
years
13 (14)
years
13 (14)
years
14 (13) years
13 (14) years
14 (14) years
15 (15) years
Methamphetamine
74%
77%
74%
94%
76%
85%
87%
89% *
25 (25)
years
29 (29)
years
24 (27)
years
26 (28)
years
26 (29) years
24 (28) years
24 (26) years
21 (24) years
-
-
90%
92%
84%
81%
88%
86%
-
-
21 (23)
years
23 (24)
years
21 (23) years
22 (23) years
20 (22) years 20 (21) years *
Ritalin
(methylphenidate)
74%
78%
72%
70%
77%
74%
85%
85% *
25 (25)
years
25 (26)
years
25 (26)
years
28 (28)
years
27 (27) years 30 (28) years* 25 (27) years*
LSD
90%
85%
81%
89%
80%
79%
83%
75% *
17 (17)
years
17 (18)
years
18 (18)
years
18 (18)
years
18 (18 years)
18 (19) years 18 (19) years* 18 (18) years *
-
-
62%
78%
79%
72%
69%
74%
-
-
22 (24)
years
24 (25)
years
22 (23) years
25 (25) years
24 (25) years
21 (22) years
**
Methadone
85%
87%
88%
84%
86%
84%
82%
73% *
22 (23)
years
23 (25)
years
22 (25)
years
24 (26)
years
24 (25) years 24 (26) years*
23 (25) years
24 (25) years
Ecstasy
70%
59%
66%
72%
63%
64%
71%
72%
21 (24)
years
22 (25)
years
20 (24)
years
23 (26)
years
23 (26) years
21 (24) years
24 (26) years
19 (21) years
**
Codeine
-
-
70%
71%
81%
74%
82%
69% **
-
-
18 (20)
years
22 (24)
years
20 (22) years
22 (25) years 22 (24) years*
20 (21) years
**
Oxycodone
-
-
21%
38%
39%
46%
54%
67% *
-
-
29 (32)
years
35 (34)
years
36 (34) years
36 (34) years
27 (29) years
85%
86%
66%
77%
84%
77%
79%
60% * **
18 (19)
years
18 (20)
years
18 (20)
years
19 (20)
years
18 (21) years
20 (21) years 20 (21) years* 20 (20) years *
-
-
68%
74%
80%
73%
84%
58% **
-
-
20 (22)
years
20 (23)
years
20 (22) years
22 (23) years
Morphine
Homebake
heroin/morphine
Benzodiazepines
Opium poppies
350
Appendix 1: Lifetime drug use | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
33 (32) years
23 (24) years
22 (23) years
**
20 (21) years
**
Hallucinogenic
mushrooms
(psilocybin)
-
81%
73%
76%
77%
68%
73%
48% * **
-
18 (20)
years
18 (20)
years
18 (19)
years
18 (19) years
18 (20) years
18 (20) years
18 (19) years
Amphetamine
80%
69%
73%
87%
70%
70%
69%
46% * **
18 (19)
years
18 (20)
years
19 (20)
years
19 (21)
years
18 (20) years
18 (20) years
19 (20) years
18 (20) years
Nitrous oxide
68%
59%
60%
57%
60%
43%
59%
46% *
21 (23)
years
20 (22)
years
18 (20)
years
20 (22)
years
18 (20) years
18 (19) years 18 (21) years* 18 (19) years *
Amyl nitrate
70%
59%
62%
64%
65%
60%
64%
44% * **
17 (18)
years
18 (20)
years
17 (19)
years
18 (21)
years
17 (19) years
18 (20) years 20 (22) years* 19 (20) years *
-
-
-
-
-
45%
65%
44% **
-
-
-
-
-
33 (33) years
34 (33) years
28 (27) years
**
Crystal
methamphetamine
55%
50%
58%
63%
46%
60%
52%
42%
25 (25)
years
28 (29)
years
24 (26)
years
27 (28)
years
24 (25) years
27 (29) years
25 (27) years
22 (24) years
Synthetic cannabis
-
-
-
-
14%
22%
45%
41% *
-
-
-
-
30 (30) years
37 (36) years
39 (38) years
31 (30) years
**
Cocaine
47%
50%
62%
58%
63%
52%
64%
40% **
22 (23)
years
21 (22)
years
23 (23)
years
23 (24)
years
24 (25) years
24 (25) years 25 (25) years* 22 (23) years *
Heroin
72%
51%
62%
68%
58%
55%
61%
39% * **
19 (20)
years
20 (21)
years
21 (22)
years
21 (22)
years
20 (22) years
20 (21) years
20 (21) years
20 (21) years
Anti-depressants
19%
24%
41%
46%
56%
59%
52%
38% * **
20 (23)
years
20 (21)
years
22 (23)
years
23 (24)
years
21 (24) years
25 (26) years
23 (23) years
20 (22) years
BZP party pills
49%
57%
31%
39%
48%
41%
41%
35% *
25 (28)
years
32 (31)
years
34 (32)
years
33 (32)
years
30 (30) years
30 (32) years
30 (30) years
15 (27) years
Ketamine
24%
20%
34%
33%
27%
28%
26%
32%
25 (27)
years
23 (25)
years
24 (25)
years
28 (29)
years
26 (27) years
24 (26) years
28 (31) years
23 (27) years
Salvia divinorum
-
-
-
-
-
20%
32%
23%
-
-
-
-
-
38 (33) years
30 (31) years
20 (22) years
**
2C drugs
-
-
-
-
-
9%
5%
16%
-
-
-
-
-
27 (26) years
30 (26) years
20 (21) years
Non-BZP party pills
-
-
-
-
13%
16%
42%
14% **
-
-
-
-
31 (31) years
33 (34) years
27 (29) years
25 (25) years
Mephedrone
-
-
-
-
-
9%
8%
13%
-
-
-
-
-
30 (31) years
32 (38) years
20 (23) years
Tramadol
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | Appendix 1: Lifetime drug use
351
GHB
23%
16%
25%
22%
23%
19%
25%
11% **
27 (28)
years
22 (23)
years
27 (26)
years
30 (29)
years
30 (29) years
24 (28) years
23 (27) years
24 (29) years
Methylone
-
-
-
-
-
1%
2%
11%
-
-
-
-
-
29 (29) years
25 (21) years
23 (23) years
DMT
-
-
-
-
-
2%
1%
9%
-
-
-
-
-
16 (19) years
19 (19) years
23 (23) years
Fentanyl
-
-
-
-
-
3%
10%
7%
-
-
-
-
-
25 (30) years
38 (35) years
26 (31) years
4-MEC
-
-
-
-
-
1%
1%
3%
-
-
-
-
-
26 (26) years
25 (25) years
21 (23) years
MDPV
-
-
-
-
-
1%
3%
3%
-
-
-
-
-
49 (49) years
25 (30) years
32 (28) years
352
Appendix 1: Lifetime drug use | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
Appendix 2: Current drug use
* Statistically significant correlation from 2006 to 2013 at p <0.05%
** Statistically significant difference between 2011 vs. 2013 at p<0.05%
Table A.5: Proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who used different drug types in the past six months, 2006-2013
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Last
six
months
(n=114)
Last
six
months
(n=110)
Last
six
months
(n=137)
Last
six
months
(n=105)
Last
six
months
(n=130)
Last
six
months
(n=113)
Last
six
months
(n=100)
Last
six
months
(n=93)
Median
days
used
(mean)
Median
days
used
(mean)
Median
days
used
(mean)
Median
days
used
(mean)
Median
days
used
(mean)
Median
days
used
(mean)
Median
days
used
(mean)
Median Injected Injected Injected Injected Injected Injected
days past six past six past six past six past six past six
used months months months months months months
(mean)
100%
97%
100%
100%
99%
100%
100%
Cannabis
86%
88%
83%
85%
87%
83%
87%
88%
150
(117)
days
182
(125)
days
114
(111)
days
142
(110)
days
144 48 (88)
(113) days
days
Tobacco
80%
84%
84%
84%
86%
84%
95% 80% **
182
(160)
days
182
(174)
days
182
(170)
days
182
(172)
days
182
(168)
days
Alcohol
87%
79%
86%
83%
82%
81%
-
-
-
-
-
Crystal
methamphetamine
64%
64%
61%
53%
Ecstasy
50%
51%
47%
-
-
25%
33%
Drug type
Methamphetamine
Tramadol
Synthetic cannabis
Benzodiazepines
100% 40 (57) 52 (68) 25 (38) 26 (45) 26 (45) 20 (40) 26 (51) 52 (66)
days days days days days days days days
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Injected
in the
past six
months
Injected
in the
past six
months
28%
34%
23%
36%
29%
33%
33%
28%
156 96 (98)
(116) days *
days
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
182
(171)
days
182
(168)
days
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
82%
80% 48 (67) 48 (67) 52 (76) 52 (68) 52 (67) 30 (52) 52 (62) 52 (70)
days days days days days days days days
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
14%
24%
49%
6 (28) 10 (62)
days days
-
-
-
-
-
0%
8%
0%
29%
37%
51%
41% * 30 (55) 25 (46) 24 (31) 12 (29) 12 (24)
days days days days days
7 (30) 26 (51) 26 (45)
days days days
28%
35%
25%
40%
33%
27%
34%
34%
41%
43%
44%
47%
35% *
4 (7)
days
4 (9)
days
5 (6)
days
3 (7)
days
6 (13)
days
5 (9)
days
6 (19) 5 (11)
days days *
17%
7%
6%
4%
7%
19%
17%
3%
-
-
10%
41%
32%
30% *
-
-
-
-
6 (20)
days
6 (13)
days
3 (45) 10 (54)
days days
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
26%
25%
35%
22%
28%
28% 10 (46) 10 (40) 12 (46) 20 (57) 12 (43) 26 (52) 26 (62) 26 (62)
days days days days days days days days *
10%
2%
14%
7%
18%
13%
20%
7%
-
-
-
-
-
182
(165)
days
4 (9)
days
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | Appendix 2: Current drug use
353
-
-
22%
16%
10%
22%
21%
27%
-
Amphetamine
26%
20%
31%
22%
33%
23%
28%
24%
4 (19)
days
Ritalin
(methylphenidate)
21%
26%
23%
22%
25%
24%
32%
23%
5 (12) 24 (32)
days days
Anti-depressants
5%
14%
14%
12%
18%
20%
13%
23% *
1 (19) 48 (81)
days days
36%
35%
24%
11%
18%
25%
29%
22% *
3 (7)
days
-
27%
14%
21%
13%
12%
18%
15%
Amyl nitrate
10%
12%
15%
9%
9%
6%
14%
GHB
13%
15%
7%
6%
8%
7%
7%
10%
-
-
-
-
-
3%
3%
10%
Methadone
16%
27%
22%
21%
25%
18%
Nitrous oxide
15%
24%
9%
6%
9%
5%
Morphine
-
-
16%
25%
22%
Non-BZP party pills
-
-
-
-
7%
13%
10%
7%
-
2C drugs
-
-
-
-
-
11%
11%
6%
-
8%
6%
6%
10%
8%
7%
4%
Codeine
LSD
Hallucinogenic
mushrooms
(psilocybin)
Salvia divinorum
Heroin
354
- 10 (39) 10 (21)
days days
7 (30)
days
7 (36)
days
7 (46) 12 (56)
days days
-
-
3%
28%
3%
14%
19%
3%
6 (21)
days
6 (26)
days
3 (13) 26 (34)
days days
23%
22%
11%
24%
10%
17%
11%
8%
6 (34)
days
5 (14) 12 (29) 20 (42)
days days days
5 (27) 10 (29)
days days
56%
62%
56%
54%
72%
57%
44%
33%
182
(127)
days
182
(153)
days
182 35 (90)
(142) days
days
182
182
(122) (157)
days days *
0%
13%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
4 (15)
days
3 (5)
days
2 (7)
days
2 (6)
days
2 (4)
days
3 (7)
days
2 (6)
days
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2 (11)
days
4 (7)
days
1 (5)
days
3 (4)
days
3 (5)
days
2 18)
days
2 (9)
days
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
11% 2.5 (6)
days
2 (19)
days
2 (14) 24 (23)
days days
6 (6)
days
1 (4) 2.5 (40)
days days
3 (10)
days
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6 (9)
days
2 (6)
days
6 (25)
days
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1 (1)
day
4 (4)
days
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6 (44) 52 (95) 26 (66)
days days days
70%
58%
65%
78%
72%
42%
58%
70%
1 (5)
days
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4 (44) 12 (42) 12 (62)
days days days
-
-
86%
93%
67%
86%
6 (34) 12 (32)
days days
2 (5) 20 (38)
days days
19% 9% * ** 50 (88) 48 (86)
days days
5%
18% 14%
2 (3)
days
6 (13)
days
4 (3)
days
4 (16)
days
150
(104)
days
182 78 (29)
(110) days
days
2 (7)
days
4 (6)
days
5 (7)
days
5 (19)
days
7 (58)
days
7 (38)
days
-
-
-
2 (5)
days
5 (4)
days
2 (3)
days
6 (11)
days
##
-
-
-
-
0%
9%
10%
0%
-
-
-
-
6 (7)
days
5 (41)
days
3 (14)
days
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
5% 10 (32) 24 (74)
5 (51)
5 (46)
5 (7)
2 (3)
1 (8)
3 (3)
90%
100%
73%
100%
100%
77%
75%
79 %
9% *
7% *
2 (10)
days
-
2 (3)
days
-
Appendix 2: Current drug use | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
2 (3)
days
3 (3)
days
87% 47% **
days
Mephedrone
days
days
days
days
-
-
-
-
-
7%
15%
5%
6%
13%
8%
10%
5%
2%
10%
5%
1 (4)
days
2 (5)
days
-
-
3%
5%
5%
8%
6%
4%
-
-
11%
8%
11%
7%
8%
7%
7%
3% *
2 (5)
days
4 (27)
days
Opium poppies
-
-
5%
3%
5%
3%
4%
3%
-
-
1 (1) 20 (26)
day days
Homebake
heroin/morphine
-
-
5%
9%
13%
11%
3%
1%
-
-
4 (9)
days
4 (37)
days
6 (23)
days
32%
44%
14%
8%
7%
6%
13%
0% *
6 (11)
days
3 (11)
days
2 (8)
days
7 (56)
days
1 (31)
days
Fentanyl
-
-
-
-
-
4%
0%
DMT
-
-
-
-
-
3%
4-MEC
-
-
-
-
-
MDPV
-
-
-
-
Methylone
-
-
-
-
Ketamine
Oxycodone
Cocaine
BZP party pills
3 (6)
days
2 (3)
days
3 (3)
days
1 (4) 3 (18) 10 (33)
days days
days
2 (16)
days
2 (4)
days
1 (2)
days
days
days days *
2 (3)
days
4 (24)
days
1 (1)
days
-
-
-
-
-
0%
7%
0%
1 (1)
days
1 (12) 20 (25)
days days
0%
6%
0%
11%
33%
100%
29%
18%
2 (6)
days
-
-
0%
39%
53%
81%
81%*
50% *
4 (33) 12 (48)
days days
3 (3)
days
2 (8)
days
2 (2)
days
15%
23%
8%
13%
30%
30%
0%
0%
4 (6) 20 (16)
days days
4 (1)
day
6 (11)
days
-
-
62%
30%
-
-
-
-
3 (13)
days
1 (1)
day
1 (1)
day
-
-
76%
100%
59%
72%
8 (13)
days
3 (20)
days
-
4%
10%
9%
44%
29%
37%
47%
-
0%
6 (4)
days
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2%
0%
4 (4)
days
2 (2)
days
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2%
0%
0%
4 (4)
days
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2%
0%
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1%
1%
0%
1 (1)
days
1 (1)
day
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | Appendix 2: Current drug use
100% 100% *
355
Table A.6: Proportion of frequent ecstasy users who used different drug types in the past six months, 2006-2013
Drug type
Ecstasy
Alcohol
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Last
six
months
(n=111)
Last
six
months
(n=105)
Last
six
months
(n=135)
Last
six
months
(n=111)
Last
six
months
(n=153)
Last
six
months
(n=160)
Last
six
months
(n=126)
Last
six
months
(n=118)
Median
days
used
(mean)
Median
days
used
(mean)
Median
days
used
(mean)
Median
days
used
(mean)
Median
days
used
(mean)
Median
days
used
(mean)
Median
days
used
(mean)
Median Injected Injected Injected Injected Injected Injected Injected Injected
days past six past six past six past six last six last six last six last six
used months months months months months months months months
(mean)
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
6 (8)
6 (11)
8 (12)
7 (12) 10 (14)
7 (13)
8 (17)
days
days
days
98%
96%
95%
95%
99%
98%
97%
92%
89%
91%
89%
89%
84%
90%
61%
LSD
48%
Amphetamine
31%
Ritalin (methyl
13%
67%
41%
30%
15%
72%
45%
23%
19%
68%
47%
25%
19%
73%
32%
28%
32%
73%
31%
20%
25%
82% 62% **
32% 47% **
26%
24%
30%
29% *
-phenidate)
Codeine
-
Synthetic
-
-
-
24%
-
21%
-
22%
21%
23%
45%
21%
24%
days
days
days
23%
22%
days
days
days
-
32%
30%
31%
26%
23%
19%
356
21%
23%
13%
13%
8%
15%
18%
days
22% *
16%
days
days
days
100
172
182
120
180
182
100
(114)
(141)
(103)
(118)
(126)
(101)
days
days
days
days
days
days
days days **
3 (4)
2 (5)
3 (4)
2 (5)
3 (3)
2 (4)
2 (6)
2 (4)
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
2 (5)
2 (5)
3 (4)
2 (5)
2 (4)
3 (4)
2 (9)
3 (8)
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
4 (12)
3 (7)
3 (11)
2 (12)
2 (13)
3 (10)
3 (17)
2 (10)
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
-
-
4 (17)
3 (11)
3 (6)
4 (6)
3 (13)
6 (19)
days
days
days
days
days
days
-
-
2 (7)
4 (21)
5 (20)
3 (27)
days
days
days
days
-
-
3 (13)
2 (3)
2 (5)
2 (12)
1 (3)
2 (3)
2 (13)
2 (5)
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
5 (6)
2 (9)
2 (17)
5 (22)
2 (5)
2 (18)
2 (10)
Appendix 2: Current drug use | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
0%
4%
0%
1%
1%
1%
3%
5%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3%
3%
0%
3%
2%
0%
0%
0%
16%
6%
0%
9%
0%
2% 0%
-
-
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9%
8%
0%
13%
8%
14%
14%
9%
days
(104)
-
2008
days days #
170
(psilocybin)
Methamphetamine
days
2007
days days *
(106)
cannabis
Hallucinogenic
mushrooms
days
85% 28 (59) 40 (63) 50 (76) 50 (69) 30 (61) 25 (57) 50 (74) 50 (71)
days
Tobacco
days
94% 48 (50) 52 (66) 50 (57) 52 (54) 50 (56) 48 (54) 48 (50) 52 (49)
days
Cannabis
days
8 (14)
2006
0%
Tramadol
Nitrous oxide
Mephedrone
Benzodiazepines
Amyl nitrate
2C drugs
Non-BZP party
-
47%
-
13%
17%
-
-
-
32%
-
10%
16%
-
-
-
28%
-
10%
14%
-
-
-
24%
-
12%
26%
-
-
-
24%
-
12%
28%
-
24%
12%
7%
11%
10%
9%
4%
21%
16%
19%
22%
10%
7%
13%
13%
15%
14% *
13%
13%
12% *
12%
10%
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
-
-
-
-
-
3 (8)
days
5 (30)
6 (14)
days
days
2 (4)
2 (4)
6 (9)
3 (7)
2 (3)
2 (13)
2 (7)
4 (2)
days
days
days
days
days
days
-
-
-
-
-
6 (10)
days
2 (5)
5 (7)
days
days
6 (45)
3 (10)
4 (10)
5 (10)
2 (15)
6 (36)
6 (24)
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
2 (14)
6 (9)
2 (5)
1 (2)
2 (4)
2 (5)
3 (4)
2 (7)
days
days
days
days
days
days
days days *
-
-
-
-
-
4 (4)
days
1 (3)
2 (5)
days
days
-
-
-
-
Salvia divinorum
Cocaine
Oxycodone
Ketamine
Crystal meth-
-
9%
-
10%
5%
-
5%
-
11%
11%
-
18%
2%
9%
6%
-
9%
4%
20%
6%
-
7%
2%
7%
2%
5%
8%
3%
2%
2%
7%
7%
2%
15%
6%
9%
8%
8%
8%
-
-
4%
2%
2%
4%
3%
-
-
-
1 (2
2 (3)
2 (3)
2 (3)
days)
days
days
days
-
2 (2)
days
2 (2)
2 (2)
days
days
2 (2)
2 (7)
2 (4)
2 (3)
2 (3)
1 (2) 2 (8%)
3 (4)
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
-
-
1 (1)
2 (4)
1 (1)
1 (2)
3 (7)
1 (3)
day
days
day
days
days
days
2 (7)
2 (4)
1 (4)
1 (4)
2 (4)
1 (1)
2 (6)
1 (2)
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
8% 15 (30)
1 (4)
3 (14)
2 (5)
2 (16)
1 (1)
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
-
-
amphetamine
Opium poppies
-
7%
-
-
-
-
0%
5%
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
0%
0%
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
0%
0%
0%
10%
0%
0%
0%
-
-
0%
19%
0%
18%
36%
17%
0%
0%
0%
4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
21%
0%
0%
28%
33%
0%
14%
10%
-
-
0%
0%
-
-
-
-
days* days *
4 (14)
pills
-
6 (32) 15 (22)
days
2 (5)
7 (5)
2 (3)
1 (12)
4 (13)
2 (7)
days
days
days
days
days
days
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | Appendix 2: Current drug use
357
Anti-depressants
3%
5%
7%
6%
8%
11%
8%
6%
3 (5)
4 (4)
days
days
182 14 (80) 31 (88) 90 (97)
(125)
days
days
days
days
Methadone
2%
Methylone
-
BZP party pills
Morphine
65%
-
GHB
10%
Heroin
0%
Homebake
-
3%
-
46%
-
10%
0%
-
2%
-
25%
6%
4%
1%
1%
1%
-
15%
6%
6%
3%
1%
5%
-
11%
3%
4%
0%
1%
2%
1%
5%
2%
8%
1%
2%
4%
3%
9%
7%
3%
1%
2%
6%
6%
5% *
5%
4%
2%
1%
6 (6)
1 (56)
days
days
-
182
180
(119)
(127)
182
2 (8)
2 (62)
days
days
days
-
1 (13)
days
1 (5)
6 (7)
days
days
3 (13)
1 (2)
(61)
(182)
days
days
-
-
3 (38) 11 (12)
4 (7)
5 (12)
2 (7)
3 (8)
1 (7)
1 (2)
days
days
days
days
days
-
-
1 (2)
5 (21)
2 (35)
3 (63)
4 (19)
2 (17)
days
days
days
days
days
days
1 (4)
2 (3)
1 (2)
1 (2)
6 (5)
1 (47)
5 (5)
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
-
-
-
0%
0%
0%
10%
0%
50%
35%
0%
100%
14%
33%
0%
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
8%
0%
-
-
20%
25%
0%
55%
35%
11%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
100%
100%
0%
-
-
0%
100%
0%
23%
56%
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
days days *
3 (12)
-
0%
days
days
heroin/morphine
19%
days days *
104
-
0%
3 (3)
6 (7)
- 93 (93)
6 (6)
1 (10)
days
days
days
days
days
3 (26) 30 (17)
1 (1)
120
6 (6)
3 (3)
(120)
days
days
days
days
day
-
-
3 (3)
days
1 (1)
1 (1)
day
day
days
DMT
-
-
-
-
-
1%
4%
1%
-
-
-
Fentanyl
-
-
-
-
-
1%
0%
0%
-
-
-
-
-
4 (4)
days
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
MDPV
-
-
-
-
-
1%
1%
0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
1 (1)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
day
4-MEC
-
358
-
-
-
-
0%
0%
0%
-
-
Appendix 2: Current drug use | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
-
-
-
-
-
Table A.7: Proportion of frequent injecting drug users who used different drug types in the past six months, 2006-2013
Drug type
Tobacco
Cannabis
Morphine
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Last
six
months
(n=93)
Last
six
months
(n=109)
Last
six
months
(n=132)
Last
six
months
(n=99)
Last
six
months
(n=128)
Last
six
months
(n=99)
Last
six
months
(n=104)
Last
six
months
(n=104)
Median
days
used
(mean)
Median
days
used
(mean)
Median
days
used
(mean)
Median
days
used
(mean)
Median
days
used
(mean)
Median
days
used
(mean)
Median
days
used
(mean)
Median Injected Injected Injected Injected Injected Injected Injected Injected
days past six past six past six past six past six past six past six past six
used months months months months months months months months
(mean)
85%
89%
82%
88%
88%
82%
89%
83%
182
182
182
182
182
182
182
182
(181)
(173)
(172)
(175)
(176)
(178)
(176)
(175)
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
78%
-
86%
-
70%
54%
72%
62%
72%
55%
77%
49%
71%
67%
77%
70% *
182
120
100
96
(123)
(107)
(99)
(102)
(108)
days
days
days
days
days
-
67%
70%
61%
60%
69%
61%
69%
43%
46%
37%
40%
49%
43%
53%
62% *
(methylphenidate)
Methamphetamine
Methadone
Benzodiazepines
Oxycodone
74%
57%
-
44%
71%
54%
-
47%
73%
37%
9%
50%
73%
46%
18%
38%
73%
61%
18%
50%
67%
46%
21%
46%
56%
47%
25%
days
days
days
days
days
days
55% 10 (44)
days
days
4 (12) 12 (30)
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
54% * 52 (93)
182
182
182
180
days
(134)
(128)
(113)
(110)
(122)
days
days
days
days
days
46% *
**
days
days
days
-
-
5 (17)
4 (27)
5 (13)
days
days
days
2010
2011
2012
2013
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
97%
95%
99%
98%
100%
100%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
87%
94%
98%
98%
95%
98%
82%
91%
71%
66%
83%
84%
90%
89%
80%
90% *
65%
63%
84%
80%
80%
76%
80% 62% **
12%
12%
21%
8%
14%
9%
15%
18%
-
-
100%
100%
87%
86%
92%
88%
days
days* days *
days
6 (38)
days days #
182 60 (91)
days
120
(101)
days
46% 15 (43) 12 (46) 52 (82) 26 (60) 25 (63) 24 (56) 15 (56) 20 (55)
days
2009
days*
7 (25) 12 (31) 15 (32) 20 (33)
days
2008
days
6 (40) 20 (41) 16 (33) 12 (34) 15 (33) 26 (57) 26 (65) 20 (44)
days
40%
120 52 (91)
2007
(110) days *
68% 12 (48) 13 (36) 25 (50) 48 (62) 48 (62) 26 (51) 26 (55)
days
Ritalin
days*
- 50 (85) 65 (88) 48 (75) 40 (76) 52 (80) 50 (78)
days
Alcohol
104 90 (92)
2006
days
days
days
6 (24) 10 (37) 20 (28)
days
days days *
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | Appendix 2: Current drug use
359
Codeine
-
-
27%
26%
38%
43%
49%
40%
-
- 10 (33)
days
Homebake
-
-
18%
24%
26%
20%
19%
25%
-
-
-
-
-
9%
17%
23%
21% *
-
days
- 30 (61) 12 (39) 26 (73) 21 (54)
8 (19) 20 (45)
days
-
-
-
cannabis
Amphetamine
18%
17%
22%
15%
15%
22%
13%
20%
4 (18) 10 (26) 10 (23) 7.5 (34)
days
Anti-depressants
Crystal
8%
24%
9%
17%
19%
30%
18%
27%
30%
17%
21%
23%
24%
21%
19% *
Ecstasy
30%
-
Tramadol
Heroin
25%
Hallucinogenic
mushrooms
-
22%
-
11%
10%
18%
-
21%
10%
13%
-
19%
10%
20%
-
19%
12%
10%
14%
14%
3%
20%
31%
13%
10%
LSD
-
21%
Methylone
-
-
14%
-
10%
13%
-
4%
10%
-
12%
13%
-
15%
14%
0%
9%
14%
2%
days
days
days
days days **
2 (3)
5 (12)
4 (12) 40 (57)
days
days
days days **
4 (27)
6 (25)
7 (17)
5 (24)
days
days
days
days
2 (8)
182
182
182
182
182
182
182
(136)
(153)
(164)
(150)
(156)
(141)
(152)
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
5 (15) 20 (30)
5 (11)
4 (13)
5 (10)
6 (12)
7 (45)
days
days
days
days
days
days
days* days *
3 (6)
1 (8)
5 (13)
2 (3)
2 (5)
4 (6)
3 (10)
6 (9)
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
-
-
-
-
-
5 (16)
days
6 (39)
5 (33)
days
days
14% 20 (72) 30 (54) 18 (70) 52 (76) 16 (45) 30 (60) 24 (39)
2 (32)
16% *
15%
14%
days
days
days
days
days
days
days days **
-
2 (3)
4 (6)
2 (2) 3.5 (7)
3 (4)
1 (2)
2 (5)
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
-
4 (21)
4 (10)
5 (17)
3 (14)
3 (10)
2 (19)
days
days
days
days
days
days
3 (19) 2.5 (3)
2 (5)
1 (2)
2 (6)
4 (12)
days
days
(psilocybin)
Opium poppies
days
days
days
17% 12 (43)
methamphetamine
13%
13%
10%
-
2 (3)
1 (3)
days
days
days
days
days
days
-
-
-
-
-
-
10 (6) 50 (67)
days
360
5 (29)
days days **
days
days
7 (36) 14 (62)
days
heroin/morphine
Synthetic
4 (51) 15 (53)
Appendix 2: Current drug use | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
days
-
-
24%
19%
18%
20%
21%
9%
-
-
100%
100%
100%
100%
94%
100%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
72%
62%
84%
81%
63%
82%
0%
0%
4%
0%
0%
0%
8%
0%
69%
81%
86%
78%
95%
77%
74%
84%
45%
33%
44%
31%
44%
57%
42%
36%
-
-
-
-
-
3%
15%
0%
100%
92%
100%
95%
100%
100%
91%
94%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
77%
66%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
82%
87%
2C drugs
Amyl nitrate
Cocaine
BZP party pills
Nitrous oxide
Salvia divinorum
Mephedrone
Ketamine
Fentanyl
DMT
4-MEC
-
16%
4%
30%
21%
-
-
5%
-
-
-
-
14%
1%
34%
12%
-
-
6%
-
-
-
-
6%
8%
18%
6%
-
-
1%
-
-
-
-
9%
1%
16%
6%
-
-
7%
-
-
-
-
8%
8%
20%
4%
-
-
5%
-
-
-
5%
10%
4%
15%
1%
1%
3%
3%
3%
1%
1%
1%
10%
6%
9%
7% #
6%
15% 5% * **
4%
5%
1%
4%
2%
0%
1%
4% *
4%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
-
-
-
-
-
12 (9) 50 (50)
days
days
5 (10)
1 (18)
1 (2)
2 (6)
4 (8)
3 (18)
1 (29)
1 (8)
2 (13)
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
1 (1)
2 (5)
1 (3) 12 (10)
2 (20)
day
days
days
5 (9)
1 (1) 12 (43)
days
days
2 (6)
6 (24)
days
days
days
days
5 (23) 48 (59) 12 (51)
days
days
days
2 (7)
5 (7)
6 (12)
1 (2)
1 (2)
2 (2)
1 (2)
4 (5)
days
days
days
days
days
days
days
-
-
-
-
-
2 (2)
days
1 (3)
1 (1)
days
day
-
-
-
-
2 (2)
days
5 (4) 20 (71)
days
days
1 (1)
2 (2) 1.5 (2)
2 (2)
1 (20)
5 (4)
3 (3) 12 (14)
days
days
days
days
days
days
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- 12 (14)
days
- 12 (12)
days
- 12 (12)
days
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
75%
100%
55%
0%
40%
50%
52%
44%
31%
76%
73%
94%
92%
86%
76%*
68% *
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3%
0%
35%
100%
72%
50%
43%
33%
100%
100%
100%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
days* days *
days
-
-
days
3 (26) 10 (65) 12 (68)
days
-
days
days
day
1 (2) 14 (14)
days
days
-
2 (2)
days
5 (5) 10 (10)
days
days
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre | Appendix 2: Current drug use
361
Non-BZP party
-
-
-
-
7%
1%
3%
1% *
-
-
-
-
pills
6 (30
1 (1)
182
6 (6)
days)
days
(13)
days
-
-
-
-
23%
0%
61%
100%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
days
MDPV
-
GHB
4%
362
-
2%
-
2%
-
4%
-
2%
0%
1%
3%
5%
1%
0%
-
-
-
-
1 (2)
1 (1)
5 (4)
1 (1)
days
day
days
day
Appendix 2: Current drug use | SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
-
-
2 (13) 12 (12)
days
days
6 (5) 12 (12)
3 (7)
-
days
days
days