RECENT TRENDS IN ILLEGAL DRUG USE IN NEW ZEALAND, 2005-2007 Findings from the 2005, 2006 and
2007 Illicit Drug Monitoring System
(IDMS)
C.Wilkins
M. Girling
P. Sweetsur
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation Massey University, P O Box 6137, Wellesley St February 2008 © Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
ISBN 1 877428 07 8
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................. 8 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ 9 Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 11 Introduction....................................................................................................................................11 Method ...........................................................................................................................................11 Demographic characteristics of the frequent drug users................................................................12 Drug use patterns of the frequent methamphetamine users ...........................................................13 Drug use patterns of the frequent ecstasy users .............................................................................14 Drug use patterns of the frequent injecting drug users ..................................................................14 New drug types ..............................................................................................................................15 New types of drug users.................................................................................................................15 Increase in drug use by some users................................................................................................15 Different means of administering drugs.........................................................................................16 Current availability of different drug types....................................................................................16 Current purity of different drug types ............................................................................................19 Change in the availability of different drug types..........................................................................20 Perceptions of the change in the number of people using different drugs.....................................23 Current prices for drugs .................................................................................................................26 Change in prices for drugs in past six months ...............................................................................27 Drug related harm ..........................................................................................................................30 Accessing health services...............................................................................................................31 1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 33 1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
Aims of IDMS.........................................................................................................................33 Methodology ...........................................................................................................................34 Survey of frequent drug users .................................................................................................34 Survey of key experts (KE).....................................................................................................36 Secondary data sources ...........................................................................................................36 Analysis...................................................................................................................................36 2. Demographics of sample.............................................................................................................. 38 2.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................38 2.2 Gender.....................................................................................................................................38 2.3 Age ..........................................................................................................................................39 2.4 Ethnicity ..................................................................................................................................39 2.5 Employment status..................................................................................................................41 2.6 Accommodation ......................................................................................................................43 2.7 Education ................................................................................................................................43 2.8 Sexual orientation ...................................................................................................................44 2.9 Marital status...........................................................................................................................45 2.10 Income...................................................................................................................................45 2.11 Location ................................................................................................................................47 2.12 Drug treatment ......................................................................................................................48 2.13 Previously interviewed for the IDMS ...................................................................................48 2.14 Summary of the demographics of the frequent drug users ...................................................49 3. Drug use patterns ......................................................................................................................... 51 Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
3
3.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................51 3.2 Extent of poly drug use ............................................................................................................51 3.3 Drug use patterns of the frequent methamphetamine users .....................................................51 3.4 Drug use patterns of the frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users.......................................................53 3.5 Drug use patterns of the frequent injecting drug users ............................................................55 3.6 Drug of choice..........................................................................................................................57 3.7 Concurrent use of drugs ..........................................................................................................60 3.8 Drug types used to recover from drug use ..............................................................................61 3.9 Binging on drugs.....................................................................................................................63 3.10 New drug types .....................................................................................................................64 3.11 New types of drug users........................................................................................................64 3.12 Increase in drug use by some users.......................................................................................64 3.13 Different means of administering drugs................................................................................65 3.14 Different ways of selling drugs.............................................................................................65 3.15 Summary of drug use patterns ...............................................................................................65 4. Methamphetamine........................................................................................................................ 67 4.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................67 4.2 Knowledge of methamphetamine trends.................................................................................67 4.3 Availability of methamphetamine...........................................................................................67 4.4 Price of methamphetamine......................................................................................................71 4.5 Purity of methamphetamine ....................................................................................................74 4.6 Perceptions of the number of people using methamphetamine ..............................................78 4.7 Seizures of methamphetamine .................................................................................................80 4.8 Clandestine methamphetamine laboratories dismantled.........................................................80 4.9 Pseudoephedrine and ephedrine seizures................................................................................81 4.10 Amphetamine use in the general population.........................................................................82 4.11 Summary of methamphetamine trends .................................................................................83 5. Crystal methamphetamine ........................................................................................................... 84 5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
Introduction.............................................................................................................................84 Knowledge of crystal methamphetamine trends.....................................................................84 Availability of crystal methamphetamine ...............................................................................85 Price of crystal methamphetamine..........................................................................................87 Purity of crystal methamphetamine ........................................................................................90 Perceptions of the number of people using crystal methamphetamine...................................93 Seizures of crystal methamphetamine ....................................................................................94 Crystal methamphetamine use in the general population .......................................................94 Summary of crystal methamphetamine trends........................................................................95 6. Ecstasy (MDMA)......................................................................................................................... 96 6.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................96 6.2 Knowledge of ecstasy (MDMA) trends ..................................................................................96 6.3 Availability of ecstasy (MDMA) ............................................................................................96 6.4 Price of ecstasy (MDMA) ........................................................................................................99 6.5 Purity of ecstasy (MDMA) ...................................................................................................100 6.6 Perceptions of the number of people using ecstasy (MDMA)..............................................102 6.7 Seizures of ecstasy (MDMA)................................................................................................103 6.8 Ecstasy (MDMA) use in the general population...................................................................104 6.9 Summary of ecstasy (MDMA) trends...................................................................................104 7. Cannabis..................................................................................................................................... 106 Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
4
7.1 Introduction...........................................................................................................................106 7.2 Knowledge of cannabis trends ..............................................................................................106 7.3 Availability of cannabis .........................................................................................................106 7.4 Price of cannabis ...................................................................................................................108 7.5 Purity of cannabis..................................................................................................................110 7.6 Perceptions of the number of people using cannabis............................................................112 7.7 Seizures of cannabis plants ...................................................................................................113 7.8 Cannabis use in the general population.................................................................................114
7.9 Summary of cannabis trends .................................................................................................115 8. LSD ............................................................................................................................................ 116 8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.9
Introduction...........................................................................................................................116 Knowledge of LSD trends.....................................................................................................116 Availability of LSD...............................................................................................................116 Price of LSD .........................................................................................................................119 Purity of LSD ........................................................................................................................120 Perceptions of the number of people using LSD ..................................................................122 Seizures of LSD ....................................................................................................................123 LSD use in the general population........................................................................................124 Summary of LSD trends .......................................................................................................125 9. Opiates ....................................................................................................................................... 126 9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
9.7
9.8
9.9
Introduction...........................................................................................................................126 Knowledge of opiate trends ..................................................................................................126 Availability of opiates...........................................................................................................127 Price of opiates......................................................................................................................129 Purity of opiates ....................................................................................................................130 Perceptions of the number of people using opiates...............................................................133 Seizures of Heroin.................................................................................................................134 Opiate use in the general population.....................................................................................134 Summary of opiate trends .....................................................................................................135 10. Cocaine..................................................................................................................................... 136 10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
10.9
Introduction.........................................................................................................................136 Knowledge of cocaine trends..............................................................................................136 Availability of cocaine ........................................................................................................136 Price of cocaine...................................................................................................................138 Purity of cocaine .................................................................................................................139 Perceptions of the number of people using cocaine............................................................140 Seizures of cocaine..............................................................................................................141 Cocaine use in the general population ................................................................................141 Summary of cocaine trends.................................................................................................142 11. Ketamine .................................................................................................................................. 143 11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
11.5
11.6
11.7
11.8
Introduction.........................................................................................................................143 Knowledge of ketamine trends ...........................................................................................143 Availability of ketamine......................................................................................................143 Price of ketamine ................................................................................................................145 Purity of ketamine...............................................................................................................146 Perceptions of the number of people using ketamine .........................................................147 Ketamine use in the general population..............................................................................148 Summary of ketamine trends ..............................................................................................148 Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
5
12. GHB ......................................................................................................................................... 149 12.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................149 12.2 Knowledge of GHB trends..................................................................................................149 12.3 Availability of GHB............................................................................................................149 12.4 Price of GHB........................................................................................................................151 12.5 Purity of GHB .....................................................................................................................152 12.6 Perceptions of the number of people using GHB ...............................................................153 12.7 Seizures of GHB .................................................................................................................154 12.8 GHB use in the general population .....................................................................................154
12.9 Summary of GHB trends.....................................................................................................155 13. Drug related harm .................................................................................................................... 156 13.1
13.2
13.2
13.3
13.4
13.5
13.6
13.7
13.8
13.9
Introduction.........................................................................................................................156 Drug related physical problems ..........................................................................................156 Drug related psychological problems .................................................................................158 Life impacts.........................................................................................................................159 Perceptions of the health risk of different drugs .................................................................163 Accessing health services....................................................................................................164 Help seeking for drug problems..........................................................................................166 Alcohol and driving ............................................................................................................168 Drug use and driving...........................................................................................................170 Summary of drug related harm ...........................................................................................171 14. Drug dependency ..................................................................................................................... 173 14.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................173 14.2 Extent drug use out of control..............................................................................................173 14.3 Anxious about missing a dose.............................................................................................174 14.4 Worry about your drug use .................................................................................................174 14.5 Wish you could stop............................................................................................................175 14.6 How difficult find it to stop ................................................................................................175 14.7 Short Dependency Scale (SDS) scores ................................................................................176 14.8 Summary of drug dependency ............................................................................................177
15. Injecting behaviour .................................................................................................................. 178 15.1
15.2
15.3
15.4
15.5
15.6
15.7
Introduction.........................................................................................................................178 Location where needles were obtained ...............................................................................178 Places where drugs were injected .......................................................................................179 Times used a needle after someone else .............................................................................179 Injecting equipment used after someone else .....................................................................180 Frequency used a new sterile needle...................................................................................181
Summary of injecting behaviour.........................................................................................182 16. Sexual health ............................................................................................................................ 184 16.1
16.2
16.3
16.4
16.5
Introduction.........................................................................................................................184 Number of sexual partners ..................................................................................................184 Safe sexual practices with regular partners.........................................................................184 Safe sexual practices with casual partners ..........................................................................185 Summary of sexual health...................................................................................................187 17. Blood borne virus vaccination and testing............................................................................... 188 17.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................188 Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
6
17.2 Vaccination for Hepatitis B.................................................................................................188 17.3 Tested for Hepatitis B .........................................................................................................189 17.4 Tested for Hepatitis C .........................................................................................................190 17.5 HIV.......................................................................................................................................192 17.6 Summary of blood borne virus vaccination and testing......................................................194 18. Secondary data sources on drug use ........................................................................................ 195 18.1
18.2
18.3
18.4
18.5
Introduction.........................................................................................................................195 Alcohol and Drug Help-line................................................................................................195 Odyssey house drug treatment services ..............................................................................197 Community Alcohol and Drug Services (CADS)...............................................................199 Summary of secondary data sources on drug use ...............................................................200 References....................................................................................................................................... 201 Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
7
Acknowledgements
The Illicit Drug Monitoring System (IDMS) is conducted as part of the National Drug Policy. We gratefully
acknowledge the support of a number of government agencies including the New Zealand Police, Ministry of
Health, New Zealand Customs Service, Ministry of Justice, Department of Corrections, Ministry of Pacific
Island Affairs and Te Puni Kōkiri. We would like to thank Associate Professor Louisa Degenhardt and other
researchers at the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC) in Australia for their assistance and
materials provided during the development of the IDMS. We acknowledge the New Zealand Needle
Exchange who assisted us with the recruitment of frequent drug users for the project. We would like to thank
a number of drug treatment organisations who allowed us to recruit frequent drug users from among their
clients including Odyssey House, the Salvation Army Bridge Programme, Community Alcohol and Drug
Services (CADS) and Higher Ground. We would like to thank all the key experts (KE) who offered their
insights for the project and who received no compensation for their time. We would also like to thank the
following agencies and organisations who provided secondary data sources on drug use and drug related
harm in New Zealand for this report:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Alcohol Drug Association New Zealand (ADANZ)
Community Alcohol and Drug Services (CADS)
New Zealand Ministry of Health
National Drug Intelligence Bureau (NDIB)
New Zealand Police
New Zealand Customs Service
Odyssey House
The 1998 and 2001 National Drug Surveys were funded by contestable research grants from the Health
Research Council (HRC) and partially by direct funding from the Ministry of Health. The 2003 Health
Behaviour Survey-Drug Use (2003 HBS-Drug Use) was directly funded by the New Zealand Ministry of
Health. The 2006 national survey of legal party pill use was funded from the National Drug Policy
Discretionary Fund which is a contestable research pool jointly managed by the New Zealand Inter-Agency
Committee of Drugs (IACD) and the New Zealand Ministerial Committee on Drug Policy (MCDP).
We acknowledge the ongoing support of the New Zealand Drug Foundation.
Last, but by no means least, we would like to thank all the interviewers who worked with us on the project
and the frequent drug users who agreed to be interviewed for the study.
Correspondence
Dr Chris Wilkins, 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]
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
8
Executive Summary
Introduction
The Illicit Drug Monitoring System (IDMS) is conducted annually to provide ongoing and timely
information on changes in drug use and drug related harm in New Zealand. The IDMS was first established
in 2005. The 2007 IDMS interviewed 324 frequent drug users (similar to the 318 interviewed in 2006) in
Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch using purposive sampling and snowballing.
Methamphetamine (‘P’)
Availability remained ‘easy/very easy’ in 2005, 2006 and 2007. Price and purity has not changed. Seizures of
precursors and detection of clandestine laboratories have remained high in recent years.
Crystal methamphetamine (Ice)
Availability was reported to have become ‘more difficult’ in both 2006 and 2007 compared to 2005.
Disruptions in availability are likely to reflect the impact of some very large seizures made at the border in
2006 and 2007.
Ecstasy (MDMA)
Availability was ‘easy’ in 2006 and 2007. Price may be declining. More people were considered to be using
in 2006 than in 2007. National household survey results indicate increasing use. The situation is somewhat
confused by the high availability of BZP party pills which are sometimes sold as ecstasy by drug dealers.
Chemical analysis of alleged ‘ecstasy’ tablets has discovered a range of substances including BZP.
LSD
Availability reported to be ‘difficult/easy’ in 2006 and 2007. Price and purity stable. Some increase in use
among those in the dance party community. Use among other drug users stable or declining.
Cocaine
Availability was described as ‘more difficult’ in both 2006 and 2007. Less people were reported to be using
in both 2007 and 2006. Purity was low in 2006 and 2007. Price was reported to be increasing in 2007.
Cannabis
Availability described as ‘very easy/easy’ in 2006 and 2007. Some users considered strength and price to be
increasing. This has been attributed to more high potency hydroponic cannabis cultivation.
Opiates
Availability was reported to be ‘easy/very easy’ in 2007 and 2006. Price and purity has increased. Lower
proportions of users reported recent use of heroin in 2007 compared to 2006. Seizures of heroin at the border
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
9
have remained low level. The main source of opiates are opiates illicitly diverted from the medical and drug
treatment systems, including morphine, morphine sulphate tablets (MST) and methadone.
GHB (Fantasy)
Availability was ‘easy’ in 2006 and 2007. Price was increasing. Number of users was the ‘same/more’.
Ketamine
Availability was ‘difficult’ in 2006 and 2007. Purity was high. Number of users was declining.
Nitrous oxide (Nos)
Lower proportions of all three groups of frequent drug users reported recent use in 2007 compared to 2006.
This appears to be due to the pressure put on retailers to stop selling nitrous oxide and related prosecutions
conducted by the Ministry of Health.
BZP party pills
Reports of increased use and injection of BZP party pills by frequent injecting drug users.
Ritalin
More of the frequent injecting drug users named Ritalin as their ‘drug of choice’ in 2007 compared to 2006.
The frequent methamphetamine users used Ritalin on a greater number of days in 2007 compared to 2006.
Drug related harm
The frequent methamphetamine users were more likely to report ‘financial problems’ and ‘legal/police’
problems in relation to their drug use in 2007 compared to 2006 and 2005. The frequent injecting drug users
were more likely to report ‘legal/police’ problems related to their drug use in 2007 compared to 2006.
Accessing health services
The frequent methamphetamine users were more likely to have accessed an ambulance and an Accident and
Emergency Department in relation to their drug use in 2007 compared to 2006. The frequent
methamphetamine users were also more likely to have accessed a drug and alcohol worker, counsellor and
General Practitioner in relation to their drug use in 2007 compared to 2005. Greater utilisation of medical
and emergency services suggests heavier use of methamphetamine and other drugs by some
methamphetamine users. A higher proportion of the frequent methamphetamine users had also used opiates
in 2007 compared to 2006, and this may have contributed to a greater risk of drug overdose and subsequent
demand for emergency medical services.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
10
Summary
Introduction
The aim of the IDMS is to provide timely information on illegal drug use and drug related harm to inform
appropriate responses to drug problems in New Zealand. This is the third year that the IDMS has been
conducted, and the second year it has been conducted with the expanded methodology. The 2006 and 2007
IDMS each interviewed three groups of frequent drug users (i.e. frequent methamphetamine users, frequent
injecting drug users and frequent injecting drug users). The first IDMS, conducted in 2005, did not include
interviews with frequent injecting drug users.
The IDMS consists of three sources of information: (1) face-to-face interviews with frequent drug users from
the community; (2) interviews with key experts (KE) who have regular contact with drug users through their
work; and (3) the collation of secondary data sources on drug related statistics. Frequent drug users are
considered a sentinel group who can provide accurate information on trends in drug use and drug related
harm (see Hando et al., 1997; Breen et al., 2002, Wilkins et al., 2004). A unique feature of the IDMS is that
it simultaneously interviews three groups of frequent drug users. The validity of the IDMS comes from the
knowledge and experience of the frequent drug users and KE interviewed, rather than from the representative
nature of the sampling methodology. The sample of frequent drug users interviewed is not intended to be
statistically representative of drug use in the general population.
Method
A total of 324 frequent drug users were interviewed for the 2007 IDMS, including 110 frequent
methamphetamine users, 105 frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users and 109 frequent injecting drug users. The
frequent drug users were recruited from the three main centres (i.e. Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch)
using purposive sampling and ‘snowballing’ (Biernacki and Waldorf, 1981, Watters and Biernacki, 1989).
Three separate promotional campaigns were carried to recruit the three groups of frequent drugs users of
interest, using posters, flyers and business cards. To be eligible to be interviewed for the study, a respondent
had to be 16 years or older, to have used one of three drugs of central interest at least monthly in the past six
months, and to have resided in the site location for the past 12 months.
The methodological design of the IDMS (i.e. the simultaneous interview of three groups of frequent drug
users) allows aspects of drug use to be examined from a number of perspectives. The findings can be
presented and compared by the specific drug user group (i.e. frequent methamphetamine users, frequent
ecstasy users and frequent injecting drug users) or as a combined group of all the frequent drug users. As
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
11
further annual waves of the IDMS are completed, findings from the specific drug user groups and the
combined group of frequent drug users can also be compared through time. In this year’s report we compare
the findings from the frequent methamphetamine users, frequent ecstasy users and frequent injecting drug
users for 2007 and 2006. We also compare the findings from the frequent methamphetamine users for 2005,
2006 and 2007.
Demographic characteristics of the frequent drug users
In 2007, 69% of the frequent drug users were male. There was no statistically significant difference in the
gender of the frequent drug users in 2007 compared to 2006. There was also no statistically significant
difference in the gender of the frequent methamphetamine users in 2007 compared to 2006 and 2005.
In 2007, the median age of the sample was 28 years (mean 30 years old, range 16-58 years old). The frequent
ecstasy (MDMA) users were younger than either the frequent methamphetamine users (23 years old vs. 31
years old, p<0.0001) or the frequent injecting drug users (23 years old vs. 36 years old, p<0.0001). The
frequent injecting drug users were older in 2007 compared to 2006 (36 years old vs. 32 years old, p=0.0046).
There was no statistically significant difference in the mean age of the frequent methamphetamine users in
2007 compared to 2006 and 2005.
In 2007, 80% of the frequent drug users were European and 15% were Maori. The frequent
methamphetamine users were less likely to be European than the frequent ecstasy users (67% vs. 90%,
p=0.0003) or the frequent injecting drug users (67% vs. 83%, p=0.0148). There was no statistically
significant difference in the ethnic characteristics of the frequent drug users in 2007 compared to 2006. There
was no statistically significant change in the proportion of the frequent methamphetamine users who were
non-European in 2007 compared to 2006 and 2005.
In 2007, 46% of the frequent drug users were ‘unemployed, sick or invalid’, 27% were employed (part time
or full time) and 20% were high school or tertiary students. The frequent methamphetamine users (64% vs.
17%, p<0.0001) and frequent injecting drug users (75% vs. 17%, p<0.0001) were more likely to be
‘unemployed/sick or invalid’ than the frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users. The frequent ecstasy users were more
likely to be students and to be unemployed in 2007 compared to 2006. The frequent methamphetamine users
were more likely to be employed and students in 2005 compared to 2006 and 2007.
In 2007, 27% of the frequent drug users had no educational qualifications. The frequent methamphetamine
users (33% vs. 7%, p<0.0001) and frequent injecting drug users (41% vs. 7%, p<0.0001) were more likely to
have no educational qualifications than the frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users. There was no statistically
significant difference in the educational achievement of the sample in 2007 compared to 2006. There was no
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
12
difference in the proportion of the frequent methamphetamine users who had no educational qualifications in
2007 compared to 2006 and 2005.
In 2007, the frequent drug users had a median gross annual income of $22,500. The frequent
methamphetamine users had a higher mean annual income than either the frequent injecting drug users
($43,438 vs. 26,589, p=0.0355) or the frequent ecstasy users ($43,438 vs. 23,939, p=0.0111). The frequent
drug users had lower mean gross annual incomes in 2007 compared to 2006 ($31,246 vs. $40,942,
p<0.0001). Low incomes were found among all the frequent drug users in 2007 compared to 2006, but were
particularly lower among the frequent ecstasy users ($32,500 vs. $23,939, p<0.0001). The frequent ecstasy
users were more likely to be students and unemployed in 2007 compared to 2006 and this is likely to have
negatively impacted on their income levels. There was no difference in the mean income of the frequent
methamphetamine users in 2007 compared to 2006 and 2005.
Drug use patterns of the frequent methamphetamine users
In 2007, the drug types most commonly used by the frequent methamphetamine users in the previous six
months were methamphetamine (97%), cannabis (87%), tobacco (84%), alcohol (79%), crystal
methamphetamine (66%), ecstasy (MDMA) (52%), BZP party pills (43%) and LSD (34%). A lower
proportion of the frequent methamphetamine users had used BZP party pills in 2006 compared to 2005 (31%
vs. 58%, p=0.0009). A higher proportion of frequent methamphetamine users had used ‘other opiates’ in
2007 compared to 2006 (32% vs. 18%) and this was close to being statistically significant (p=0.0582). A
higher proportion of the frequent methamphetamine users had used methadone in 2007 compared to 2005
(26% vs. 12%, p=0.048). A lower proportion of the frequent methamphetamine users had used nitrous oxide
in 2006 compared to 2005 (15% vs. 47%, p<0.0001) and in 2007 compared to 2005 (24% vs. 47%,
p=0.0018).
The frequent methamphetamine users had, on average, used methamphetamine on a greater number of days
in 2007 compared to 2005 (68 days vs. 46 days, p=0.006) and in 2006 compared to 2005 (59 days vs. 46
days, p=0.0364). The frequent methamphetamine users had, on average, smoked tobacco on more days in
2007 than in 2006 (175 days vs. 162 days, p=0.0344) and compared to 2005 (175 days vs. 160 days,
p<0.0001). The frequent methamphetamine users had, on average, used crystal methamphetamine on more
days in 2007 than in 2005 (46 days vs. 30 days, p=0.044) and on more days in 2006 compared to 2005 (56
days vs. 30 days, p=0.0333). The frequent methamphetamine users had, on average, used Ritalin
(methylphenidate) on a greater number of days in 2007 compared to 2006 (31 days vs. 12 days, p=0.0369).
In 2007, the drug types most commonly injected by the frequent methamphetamine users in the past six
months were heroin (100%), other opiates (77%), Ritalin (62%), methadone (59%), methamphetamine
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
13
(35%) and crystal methamphetamine (34%). There was no statistically significant change among the frequent
methamphetamine users with respect to the level of injection of drug types in 2007 compared to 2006.
Drug use patterns of the frequent ecstasy users
In 2007, the drug types most commonly used by the frequent ecstasy users in the past six months were
ecstasy (100%), alcohol (96%), cannabis (89%), tobacco (67%), BZP party pills (45%) and LSD (40%). The
drug types which a lower proportion of the frequent ecstasy users had used in 2007 compared to 2006 were
BZP party pills (45% vs. 65%, p=0.004) and nitrous oxide (32% vs. 49%, p=0.0185).
The drug type which the frequent ecstasy users had, on average, used on a greater number of days in the past
six months in 2007 compared to 2006 was alcohol (66 vs. 50 days, p=0.0029). The drug types which the
frequent ecstasy users had, on average, used on a fewer number of days in the past six months in 2007
compared 2006 were magic mushrooms (psilocybin) (3 vs. 6 days, p=0.0169) and crystal methamphetamine
(4 days vs. 31 days, p=0.011).
In 2007, the drug types most commonly injected by the frequent ecstasy users in the past six months were
methadone (33%), other opiates (25%), anti-depressants (20%), and MDA (18%) (Table 3.2). There was no
statistically significant change among the frequent ecstasy users with respect to the level of injection of drug
types in 2007 compared to 2006.
Drug use patterns of the frequent injecting drug users
In 2007, the drug types most commonly used by the frequent injecting drug users in the past six months were
tobacco (90%), cannabis (85%), alcohol (72%), methadone (72%), other opiates (71%), benzodiazepines
(54%), methamphetamine (45%) and Ritalin (42%). The drug types which a lower proportion of the frequent
injecting drug users had used in 2007 compared to 2006 were heroin (12% vs. 24%, p=0.0394) and MDA
(1% vs. 8%, p=0.0253). A lower proportion of the frequent injecting drug users had used nitrous oxide in
2007 compared to 2006, and this was close to being statistically significant (22% vs. 11%, p=0.053).
The drug types which the frequent injecting drug users had, on average, used on a greater number of days in
the past six months in 2007 compared to 2006 were BZP party pills (23 vs. 6 days, p=0.0275) and methadone
(133 days vs. 92 days, p=0.0033). The drug types which the frequent injecting drug users had, on average,
used on a fewer number of days in the past six months in 2007 compared 2006 were crystal
methamphetamine (16 vs. 42 days, p=0.0419) and methamphetamine (12 days vs. 43 days, p=0.0064).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
14
In 2007, the drug types most commonly injected by the frequent injecting drug users in the past six months
were other opiates (99%), Ritalin (93%), heroin (92%), crystal methamphetamine (80%), ketamine (67%),
methamphetamine (65%) and methadone (64%). The frequent injecting drug users were statistically
significantly more likely to have injected BZP party pills in 2007 compared to 2006 (74% vs. 32%,
p=0.0019).
There were changes in the drug types which the frequent injecting drug users named as their ‘drug of choice’
in 2007 compared to 2006. A lower proportion of the frequent injecting drug users named heroin (4% vs.
12%, p=0.0295) and amphetamine sulphate (5% vs. 13%, p=0.0393) as their drug of choice in 2007
compared to 2006. A higher proportion of frequent injecting drug users named methadone (19% vs. 8%,
p=0.0246) and Ritalin (11% vs. 0%, p<0.0001) as their drug of choice in 2007 compared to 2006.
New drug types
The frequent drug users were asked if they had heard about any new drug types in the past six months. Six
frequent drug users reported new types of ‘BZP free’ party pills. Five frequent drug users reported an
increase in the number of people injecting BZP party pills. Five frequent drug users reported a new type of
slow release Ritalin available in new quantities. Three frequent drug users reported an increase in ecstasy use
and new types of ecstasy.
New types of drug users
The frequent drug users were asked if they had seen any new types of drug users in the previous six months.
Thirty-five frequent drug users said they had noticed more ‘younger’ drug users in the past six months.
Twenty-three frequent drug users said there was now a wider range of people using drugs including older
people, middle class people and professionals. Six frequent drug users reported increased intravenous drug
use. Three frequent drug users reported that more people were injecting BZP party pills.
Increase in drug use by some users
The frequent drug users were asked if there had been any increase in drug use by some drug users in the
previous six months. Twenty-one frequent drug users said they were seeing more people using
methamphetamine over the past six months. Related to this theme, a further 11 frequent drug users reported
existing methamphetamine users using more methamphetamine. Sixteen frequent drug users said they were
seeing more ‘younger’ drug users. Eight frequent drug users reported they had seen an increase in ecstasy
use over the past six months. Related to this theme, a further six frequent drug users said that ecstasy users
were using ecstasy more often and were also using more of other drugs. Five frequent drug users said they
had observed greater use of Ritalin over the previous six months.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
15
Different means of administering drugs
The frequent drug users were asked if they had seen people administering drugs in new ways in the past six
months. Eleven frequent drug users reported more injection of drugs. One frequent drug user specifically
reported an increase in the injection of ecstasy. Another frequent drug user mentioned an increase in the
injection of BZP and two frequent drug users had observed an increase in the injection of methamphetamine.
Eleven frequent drug users reported more powder ecstasy and more snorting of ecstasy.
Current availability of different drug types
In 2007, the average score for the current availability of methamphetamine for all the frequent drug users
was 1.8 which indicates that overall the current availability of methamphetamine was ‘easy/very easy’ (Table
1a). The average score for the current availability of crystal methamphetamine for all the frequent drug users
was 2.1 which indicates that overall the current level of availability of crystal methamphetamine was ‘easy’.
The average score for the current availability of ecstasy (MDMA) for all the frequent drug users was 2.0
which indicates that overall the current level of availability of ecstasy (MDMA) was ‘easy’. The average
score for the current availability of LSD for all the frequent drug users was 2.4 which indicates that overall
the current level of availability of LSD was ‘easy/difficult’. The average score for the current availability of
cannabis for all the frequent drug users was 1.4 which indicates that overall the current level of availability
of cannabis was ‘very easy/ easy’ (Table 1b). The average score for the current availability of opiates for all
the frequent drug users was 1.9 which indicates that overall the current availability of opiates was ‘easy/very
easy’. The average score for the current availability of cocaine for all the frequent drug users was 3.0 which
indicates that overall the current level of availability of cocaine was ‘difficult’. There was no statistically
significant change in the current availability of these drug types in 2007 compared to 2006. The frequent
methamphetamine users considered the availability of methamphetamine to be ‘easy/very easy’ in 2005,
2006 and 2007. The frequent methamphetamine users considered the availability of crystal
methamphetamine to be ‘easy’ in 2005, 2006 and 2007.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
16
Table 1a: Current availability of different drug types, 2006-2007
CURRENT
AVAILABILITY
Number with
knowledge
Very easy [1]
Easy [2]
Difficult [3]
Very difficult
(%) [4]
Average
availability
score (1=very
easy – 4=very
difficult)
Overall current
status
2006
2007
2006
2007
2006
Methamphetamine
Methamphetamine
Crystal
Meth
amphetamine
Crystal
Meth
amphetamine
Ecstasy
(MDMA)
n=176
n=176
n=107
n=71
n=200
n=157
n=124
n=102
38%
38%
24%
25%
20%
25%
8%
17%
44%
47%
48%
41%
54%
55%
47%
33%
16%
13%
23%
31%
27%
19%
38%
42%
1%
2%
5%
3%
0%
2%
7%
8%
1.8
1.8
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.4
2.4
Easy/
very easy
Easy/
very easy
Easy
Easy
Easy
Easy
Easy/
difficult
Difficult/
easy
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
2007
2006
Ecstasy
(MDMA)
2007
LSD
LSD
17
Table 1b: Current availability of different drug types, 2006-2007
CURRENT
AVAILABILITY
Number with
knowledge
Very easy [1]
Easy [2]
Difficult [3]
Very difficult
(%) [4]
Average
availability
score (1=very
easy – 4=very
difficult)
Overall current
status
2006
2007
2006
2007
Cannabis
Cannabis
Opiates
Opiates
n=276
n=263
60%
64%
36%
2006
2007
Cocaine
n=114
n=132
41%
35%
30%
45%
4%
5%
0%
Cocaine
n=29
n=29
10%
3%
43%
17%
17%
10%
18%
48%
52%
1%
4%
4%
24%
28%
1.4
1.4
1.8
1.9
2.9
3.0
Very easy/
easy
Very easy/
easy
Easy/
very easy
Easy/
very easy
Difficult
Difficult
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
18
Current purity of different drug types
In 2007, the average score for the current purity of methamphetamine for all the frequent drug users was 2.3
which indicates that overall the purity of methamphetamine was ‘medium/high’. The average score for the
current purity of crystal methamphetamine for all the frequent drug users was 2.5 which indicates that overall
the purity of crystal methamphetamine was ‘high/medium’. The average score for the current purity of
ecstasy (MDMA) for all the frequent drug users was 2.2 which indicates that overall the purity of ecstasy
(MDMA) was ‘medium/high’. The average score for the current strength of LSD for all the frequent drug
users was 2.2 which indicates that overall the strength of LSD was ‘medium/high’. The average score for the
current strength of cannabis for all the frequent drug users was 2.5 which indicates that overall the strength
of cannabis was ‘high/medium’. The frequent methamphetamine users were more likely than the frequent
ecstasy users to describe the current strength of cannabis as high (2.6 vs. 2.3, p=0.0046). The average score
for the current purity of opiates for all the frequent drug users was 2.6 which indicates that overall the purity
of opiates was ‘high’. The average score for the current purity of cocaine for all the frequent drug users was
2.0 which indicates that overall the purity of cocaine was ‘medium’. The purity of opiates was considered to
be higher in 2007 than in 2006 (2.6 vs. 2.3, p=0.0006). Otherwise, there was no statistically significant
change in the current purity of these drug types in 2007 compared to 2006. The frequent methamphetamine
users described the purity of methamphetamine as ‘medium/high’ in 2005, 2006 and 2007. The frequent
methamphetamine users described the purity of crystal methamphetamine as ‘high/medium’ in 2005, 2006
and 2007.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
19
Change in the availability of different drug types
In 2007, the average score for the change in availability of methamphetamine for all the frequent drug users
was 1.9 which indicates that overall the availability of methamphetamine was ‘stable’ over the past six
months (Table 2a). The average score for the change in availability of crystal methamphetamine for all the
frequent drug users was 2.1 which indicates that overall the availability of crystal methamphetamine was
‘stable/more difficult’ over the past six months. The average score for the change in the availability of
ecstasy (MDMA) for all the frequent drug users was 1.9 which indicates that overall the availability of
ecstasy (MDMA) was ‘stable’ over the previous six months. The average score for the change in availability
of LSD for all the frequent drug users was 2.0 which indicates that overall the availability of LSD was
‘stable/fluctuating’ over the last six months. The frequent methamphetamine users were more likely than the
frequent ecstasy users to say the availability of LSD had become ‘more difficult’ over the past six months
(2.2 vs. 1.9, p=0.0327). The average score for the change in the availability of cannabis for all the frequent
drug users was 2.0 which indicates that overall the availability of cannabis was ‘stable’ over the past six
months (Table 2b). The average score for the change in availability of opiates for all the frequent drug users
was 2.0 which indicates that overall the availability of opiates was ‘stable’ over the past six months. The
average score for the change in the availability of cocaine for all the frequent drug users was 2.2 which
indicates that overall the availability of cocaine was ‘stable/more difficult’ over the past six months. There
was no statistically significant change in the availability of these drug types in 2007 compared to 2006. The
frequent methamphetamine users were more likely to report the availability of crystal methamphetamine as
becoming ‘more difficult’ in 2007 than in 2005.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
20
Table 2a: Change in availability of different drug types in the past six months, 2006-2007
CHANGE IN
AVAILABILITY
Number with
knowledge
Easier [1]
Stable [2]
Fluctuates [2]
More
difficult [3]
Average
change in
availability
score (1=easier
– 3=more
difficult)
Overall current
status
2006
2007
2006
2007
2006
2007
Methamphetamine
Methamphetamine
Crystal
Meth
amphetamine
Crystal
Meth
amphetamine
Ecstasy
(MDMA)
Ecstasy
(MDMA)
n=175
n=174
n=106
n=69
n=194
n=154
n=119
n=96
20%
28%
10%
16%
19%
28%
16%
20%
53%
51%
50%
52%
45%
47%
34%
40%
9%
6%
10%
6%
23%
6%
31%
20%
19%
16%
29%
26%
13%
18%
18%
21%
2.0
1.9
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.9
2.0
2.0
Stable
Stable
Stable/
more difficult
Stable/
more difficult
Stable
Stable
Stable/
fluctuating
Stable/
fluctuating
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
2006
2007
LSD
LSD
21
Table 2b: Change in availability of different drug types in the past six months, 2006-2007
CHANGE IN
AVAILABILITY
Number with
knowledge
Easier [1]
Stable [2]
Fluctuates [2]
More
difficult [3]
Average
change in
availability
score (1=easier
– 3=more
difficult)
Overall current
status
2006
2007
2006
2007
2006
Cannabis
Cannabis
Opiates
Opiates
Cocaine
2007
Cocaine
n=274
n=261
n=114
n=128
n=29
n=28
7%
11%
10%
15%
7%
0%
69%
71%
73%
61%
57%
64%
15%
8%
8%
8%
13%
14%
9%
9%
10%
16%
23%
21%
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.2
2.2
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable/
more difficult
Stable/
more difficult
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
22
Perceptions of the change in the number of people using different drugs
In 2007, the average score for all the frequent drug users in regard to the change in the number of
methamphetamine users was 2.3 indicating that overall the ‘same/more’ people were using
methamphetamine (Table 3a). The average score for all the frequent drug users in regard to the change in the
number of crystal methamphetamine users was 2.1 indicating that overall the ‘same/more’ people were using
crystal methamphetamine. The average score for all the frequent drug users in regard to the change in the
number of ecstasy (MDMA) users was 2.5 indicating that overall the ‘more/same’ people were using ecstasy
(MDMA). The frequent ecstasy users were statistically significantly more likely than the frequent
methamphetamine users to say that ‘more’ people they know were using ecstasy in 2007 (2.5 vs. 2.3,
p=0.0459). The average score for all the frequent drug users in regard to the change in the number of LSD
users was 2.0 indicating that overall ‘about the same’ number of people were using LSD. The frequent
ecstasy users were statistically significantly more likely than the frequent methamphetamine users to say that
‘more’ people they know were using LSD compared to six months ago in 2007 (2.3 vs. 1.8, p=0.0036). The
average score for all the frequent drug users in regard to the change in the number of cannabis users was 2.1
indicating that overall the ‘same/more’ people were using cannabis (Table 3b). The average score for all the
frequent drug users in regard to the change in the number of opiate users was 2.1 indicating that overall the
‘same/more’ people were using opiates. The frequent injecting drug users were statistically significantly
more likely than the frequent methamphetamine users to say that ‘more’ people they know were using
opiates over the past six months (2.2 vs. 1.8, p=0.0256). The average score for all the frequent drug users in
regard to the change in the number of cocaine users was 1.9 indicating that overall the ‘same/less’ people
were using cocaine. The average score of the number of people using ecstasy was statistically significantly
higher in 2007 compared to 2006 (2.5 vs. 2.3, p=0.0111) indicating that more people were using ecstasy in
2007 compared to 2006. Otherwise there was no statistically significant change in perceptions of the number
of people using these drug types in 2007 compared to 2006. The frequent methamphetamine users described
the number of people using methamphetamine as ‘more/the same’ in 2005, 2006 and 2007. The frequent
methamphetamine users described the number of people using crystal methamphetamine as ‘same/more’ in
2005, 2006 and 2007.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
23
Table 3a: Users’ perceptions of the change in the number of people using different drugs in the past six months, 2006-2007
CHANGE IN
NUMBER
PEOPLE
USING
Number with
knowledge
Less [1]
Same [2]
More [3]
Average
change in
number of
people using
score (1=less –
3=more)
Overall current
status
2006
2007
2006
2007
Methamphetamine
Methamphetamine
Crystal
Meth
amphetamine
n=175
n=178
n=108
n=71
n=196
n=159
n=125
n=101
23%
17%
25%
29%
11%
6%
27%
24%
34%
31%
37%
35%
51%
42%
51%
50%
43%
48%
38%
36%
39%
52%
22%
22%
2.2
2.3
2.1
2.1
2.3
2.5
1.9
2.0
Same/
more
Same/
more
Same/
more
Same/
more
Same/
more
More/
same
Same
Same
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
2006
Crystal
Ecstasy
Meth
(MDMA)
amphetamine
2007
2006
2007
Ecstasy
(MDMA)
LSD
LSD
24
Table 3b: Users’ perceptions of the change in the number of people using different drugs in the past six months, 2006-2007
CHANGE IN
NUMBER
PEOPLE
USING
Number with
knowledge
Less [1]
Same [2]
More [3]
Average
change in
number of
people using
score (1=less –
3=more)
Overall current
status
2006
2007
2006
2007
2006
2007
Cannabis
Cannabis
Opiates
Opiates
Cocaine
Cocaine
n=279
n=262
n=114
n=127
n=27
n=26
10%
12%
19%
28%
30%
28%
73%
66%
46%
38%
48%
56%
17%
22%
34%
35%
22%
16%
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
1.9
1.9
Same/
more
Same/
more
Same/
more
Same/
more
Same/
less
Same/
less
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
25
Current prices for drugs
Table 4a and 4b present the mean and median prices paid for common retail quantities of different illegal
drugs for 2007 and 2006. In 2007, the frequent methamphetamine users paid a lower mean price for a gram
of methamphetamine than the frequent injecting drug users ($583 vs. $861, p=0.0004). There was no
statistically significant difference in the mean price paid for a point (p=0.4443) or gram (p=0.1763)
of methamphetamine in 2007 compared to 2006. There was no statistically significant change in the
mean price of a point of crystal methamphetamine in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.1914). The mean price
paid for a pill of ecstasy by the frequent drug users was lower in 2007 than in 2006 ($55 vs. $59, p=0.0243).
There was no statistically significant difference in the mean price paid for a tab of LSD in 2007 compared to
2006 (p=0.486). The mean price paid for an ounce of cannabis was higher in 2007 than in 2006 ($313 vs.
$300, p=0.0168). The mean price paid for a milligram of opiates was slightly higher in 2007 compared to
2006 ($1.01 vs. $0.95, p=0.0433). There was no statistically significant change in the mean price paid for a
gram of cocaine in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.4132).
Table 4a: Mean and median price paid for different drug types by frequent drug users, 2006-2007
CURRENT
PRICE
Number
with
knowledge
Mean price
($)
Median
price ($)
Mean price
($)
Median
price ($)
2006
2007
2006
2007
2006
2007
2006
2007
Meth
amphet
amine
Meth
amphet
amine
Crystal
Meth
amphet
amine
Crystal
Meth
amphet
amine
Ecstasy
(MDMA)
Ecstasy
(MDMA)
LSD
LSD
n=144
n=130
n=76
n=45
n=190
n=122
n=117
n=75
$96
point
$100
point
$606
gram
$600
gram
$97
point
$100
point
$663
gram
$600
gram
$100 point
$106 point
$59 pill
$55 pill
$35 tab
$36 tab
$100 point
$100 point
$60 pill
$60 pill
$35 tab
$40 tab
-
$685
gram
$700
gram
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Table 4b: Mean and median price paid for different drug types by frequent drug users, 2006-2007
CURRENT
PRICE
Number
with
knowledge
Mean price
($)
Median
price ($)
Mean price
($)
Median
price ($)
2006
2007
2006
2007
2006
2007
Cannabis
Cannabis
Opiates
Opiates
Cocaine
Cocaine
n=229
n=207
n=87
n=96
n=25
n=20
$20 foil
$20 foil
$20 foil
$20 foil
$313
ounce
$300
ounce
$1.01 per
milligram
$1.00 per
milligram
-
$353
gram
$300
gram
-
$431
gram
$350
gram
$300
ounce
$300
ounce
$0.95 per
milligram
$1.00 per
milligram
-
-
-
-
-
-
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
26
Change in prices for drugs in past six months
In 2007, the average score for the change in the price of methamphetamine for all the frequent drug users
was 2.0 which indicates that overall the price was ‘stable’ over the previous six months (Table 5a). The
average score for the change in the price of crystal methamphetamine for all the frequent drug users was 2.1
which indicates that overall the price was ‘stable’ over the previous six months. The average score for the
change in the price of ecstasy (MDMA) for all the frequent drug users was 1.9 which indicates that the price
was ‘stable/decreasing’ over the previous six months. The average score for the change in the price of LSD
for all the frequent drug users was 2.1 which indicates that overall the price of LSD was ‘stable’ over the past
six months. The average score for the change in the price of cannabis for all the frequent drug users was 2.0
which indicates that overall the price of cannabis was ‘stable’ over the previous six months (Table 5b). The
average score for the change in the price of opiates for all the frequent drug users was 2.1 which indicates
that overall the price of opiates was ‘stable’ over the previous six months. The average score for the change
in the price of cocaine for all the frequent drug users was 2.1 which indicates that overall the price of cocaine
was ‘stable/increasing’ over the past six months. The average score for the change in the price of opiates was
statistically significantly higher in 2007 compared to 2006 (2.1 vs. 1.9, p=0.0137) indicating that the price of
opiates has increased over the past two years. Otherwise there was no statistically significant change in the
price of these drug types in 2007 compared to 2006. The frequent methamphetamine users reported no
change in the price of methamphetamine or crystal methamphetamine in 2007 compared to 2006 and 2005.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
27
Table 5a: Change in price paid for different drug types in the past six months, 2006-2007
CHANGE IN
PRICE
Number with
knowledge
Decreasing [1]
Stable [2]
Fluctuating [2]
Increasing [3]
Average
change in price
score
(1=decreasing
– 3=increasing)
Overall current
status
2006
2007
2006
2007
Methamphetamine
Methamphetamine
Crystal
Meth
amphetamine
Crystal
Meth
amphetamine
2006
2007
2006
2007
Ecstasy
(MDMA)
Ecstasy
(MDMA)
LSD
LSD
n=155
n=167
n=98
n=69
n=187
n=158
n=117
n=96
23%
16%
11%
9%
22%
14%
10%
5%
48%
60%
61%
59%
58%
64%
70%
70%
12%
10%
10%
12%
12%
15%
9%
11%
17%
14%
17%
20%
7%
8%
10%
14%
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.1
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable/
decreasing
Stable/
decreasing
Stable
Stable
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
28
Table 5b: Change in price paid for different drug types in the past six months, 2006-2007
CHANGE IN
PRICE
Number with
knowledge
Decreasing [1]
Stable [2]
Fluctuating [2]
Increasing [3]
Average
change in price
score
(1=decreasing
– 3=increasing)
Overall current
status
2006
2007
2006
2007
2006
2007
Cannabis
Cannabis
Opiates
Opiates
Cocaine
Cocaine
n=269
n=253
n=106
n=121
n=24
n=22
4%
4%
19%
6%
19%
5%
74%
82%
65%
75%
63%
68%
10%
5%
5%
4%
21%
9%
11%
9%
11%
15%
8%
18%
2.1
2.0
1.9
2.1
2.0
2.1
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable/
increasing
Stable/
decreasing
Stable/
increasing
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
29
Drug related harm
The frequent drug users were asked if their drug use had had any harmful impact on different areas of their
lives in the past six months. The frequent methamphetamine users were statistically significantly more likely
to report ‘financial problems’ in 2007 compared to 2006 (75% vs. 54%, p=0.0039) and compared to 2005
(75% vs. 57%, p=0.0222) (Table 6). The frequent methamphetamine users were also more likely to report
‘legal/police’ problems in 2007 compared to 2006 (54% vs. 33%, p=0.0058) and compared to 2005 (54% vs.
22%, p<0.0001). The frequent injecting drug users (45% vs. 28%, p=0.019) were more likely to report
‘legal/police problems’ in 2007 than in 2006.
Table 6: Drug related harms by frequent methamphetamine users, 2005-2007
Different areas of
life
2005
2006
2007
Methamphetamine
users
Methamphetamine
users
Methamphetamine
users
(n=77)
(n=114)
(n=110)
Financial problems
57%
54%
75%
Relationship/social
problems
63%
72%
71%
Work/study
problems
43%
54%
55%
Legal/police
problems
22%
33%
54%
In 2007, the frequent drug users were asked if they had experienced any of a list of specific harmful incidents
in relation to their drug use in the past six months. In 2007, the drug related incidents most commonly
reported by the frequent methamphetamine users were ‘argued with others’ (77%), ‘lost temper’ (73%) and
‘had reduced work/study performance’ (67%) (Table 7). The drug related incidents most commonly reported
by the frequent ecstasy users were ‘couldn’t remember what happened the night before’ (75%), ‘did
something under the influence of drugs and later regretted it’ (63%) and ‘had reduced work/study
performance’ (59%). The drug related incidents most commonly reported by the frequent injecting drug
users were ‘no money for luxuries’ (71%), ‘got into debt/owing money’ (69%) and ‘argued with others’
(68%).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
30
Table 7: Drug related incidents by frequent drug user group, 2007
Methamphetamine
users
(n=110)
Drug related incident
Ecstasy
users
(MDMA)
(n=105)
Intravenous
drug users
(IDU)
(n=109)
Combined
modules
(n=324)
Argued with others
77%
38%
68%
61%
Lost your temper
73%
41%
61%
59%
Had reduced work/study
67%
59%
42%
56%
No money for luxuries
66%
41%
71%
59%
Damaged a friendship
66%
25%
50%
47%
Did something under the influence of
65%
63%
48%
59%
63%
36%
69%
56%
61%
51%
32%
48%
Upset a family relationship
60%
14%
48%
41%
Ended a personal relationship
58%
10%
37%
35%
Couldn’t remember what happened
55%
75%
42%
57%
Damaged property (you)
55%
33%
27%
38%
No money for food or rent
53%
21%
50%
42%
Got arrested
46%
12%
31%
30%
Had unprotected sex
45%
39%
39%
41%
Passed out
44%
39%
38%
40%
Stole property (you)
44%
21%
31%
32%
Physically hurt someone else
40%
9%
24%
24%
Spent some nights sleeping rough
39%
10%
27%
26%
performance
drugs and later regretted it
Got into debt/owing money
Took
sick
leave/did
not
attend
classes
the night before
(i.e living on the streets)
Got a traffic ticket
37%
7%
28%
24%
Had sex and later regretted it
32%
29%
23%
28%
Was kicked out of where I was living
31%
7%
27%
22%
Sacked/lose
31%
3%
15%
16%
Physically hurt yourself
29%
32%
29%
30%
Charged with a driving offence (eg.
23%
4%
12%
14%
Overdosed on drugs
20%
10%
17%
16%
Had a car crash
17%
5%
13%
12%
Were sexually harassed
11%
10%
11%
11%
Were sexually assaulted
8%
3%
5%
5%
business/quit
study
course
DIC)
Accessing health services
The frequent drug users were asked if they had accessed any of a list of health services in relation to their
drug use in the previous six months. The frequent methamphetamine users were statistically significantly
more likely to have accessed an ambulance (15% vs. 3%, p=0.0014) and accident and emergency (17% vs.
6%, p=0.0351) in relation to their drug use in 2007 compared to 2006 (Table 8). The frequent
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
31
methamphetamine users were also statistically significantly more likely to have accessed a drug and alcohol
worker (37% vs. 18%, p=0.015), counsellor (42% vs. 18%, p=0.0021) and General Practitioner (38% vs.
18%, p=0.0096) in relation to their drug use in 2007 compared to 2005.
Table 8: Health services accessed in relation to drug use in the past six months by frequent
methamphetamine users, 2005-2007
Health service
2005
2006
2007
Methamphetamine
users
Methamphetamine
users
Methamphetamine
users
(n=73)
(n=114)
(n=110)
Counsellor
18%
33%
42%
General Practitioner
18%
27%
38%
Drug and Alcohol
worker
18%
38%
37%
Accident and
Emergency
14%
6%
17%
Ambulance
10%
3%
15%
Psychologist
7%
10%
15%
Social worker
10%
7%
14%
Psychiatrist
11%
10%
10%
Hospital (admitted)
8%
4%
12%
First Aid
3%
2%
6%
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
32
1. Introduction
The IDMS is intended to serve as a strategic drug monitoring system to inform policy and strategic response
to illegal drug use and drug related harm in New Zealand. It is designed to be sensitive to new trends in
illegal drug use and drug related harm, and to provide ongoing monitoring of existing drug use and drug
related harm. The IDMS provides detailed data on the harms and problems experienced by frequent drug
users, and the extent to which they access health, medical and emergency services in relation to their drug
use. The IDMS also collates a range of leading statistical indicators of changes in illegal drug use and drug
related harm, such as national household drug survey data, drug seizure data, calls to the alcohol and drug
help-line and admissions to drug treatment programmes.
The information provided by the IDMS is intended to be used by a wide range of people and organisations
concerned with drug related harm and drug policy. The value of the IDMS will grow with the completion of
each successive annual wave as trends in illegal drug use and drug related harm are able to be viewed over a
number of years.
The data collected in the IDMS is not intended to be representative of drug use in the general population in
New Zealand; rather the information is intended to be indicative of emerging trends in drug use and drug
related harm in New Zealand. The IDMS is not intended to be a definitive study of drug use in New Zealand,
but rather to identify trends and characteristics of drug use which merit further research attention and
investigation. In this way it is hoped that the IDMS will stimulate best practice and further research as much
as it informs drug policy and drug strategy.
The IDMS is a collaborative project drawing on the knowledge and goodwill of people from a range of
sectors including central government agencies, drug treatment organisations, drug health services, drug user
groups and drug researchers. The success of the IDMS is a testimony to the commitment and cooperation of
these people and organisations.
1.1 Aims of IDMS
The principal aims of the IDMS are to:
y Track trends in illegal drug use;
y Detect the emergence of new illegal drug types;
y Document the availability, price, and purity of illegal drugs of greatest concern;
y Document the harms and problems users experience from the use of illegal drugs;
y Document social disruption related to illegal drug use.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
33
1.2 Methodology
The IDMS employs research methodologies which have been successfully used in a number of countries to
monitor trends in illegal drug use and drug related harm (see Wilkins and Rose, 2003, Griffiths et al., 2000,
WHO, 2003, Mounteney and Leirvag, 2004). The drug monitoring programmes which have been conducted
in Australia for a number of years, 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). The methodologies used
overseas have been adapted and extended in the IDMS to address the unique features of illegal drug use in
New Zealand.
The research methods used in the IDMS were developed and piloted during early research into the socioeconomic impact of methamphetamine in New Zealand (see Wilkins et al., 2004). The IDMS proper was
conducted for the first time in 2005, and it is intended that it will be conducted annually on an ongoing basis.
A unique design feature of the IDMS is that it simultaneously recruits and interviews three groups of
frequent drug users from the community:
(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 Ritalin.
The information provided by the interviews with the frequent drug users is contextualised with information
provided by key experts (KE), who have regular contact with illegal drug users through their employment,
and with secondary data sources on illegal drug use such as national household drug survey data, drug
seizure statistics, admissions to drug treatment programmes, and calls to drug support and information lines.
1.3 Survey of frequent drug users
Frequent drug users are considered to be a sentinel group for detecting trends in illegal drug use as they often
use a number of drug types (rather than just one substance exclusively) and have knowledge of other drug
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
34
types through interaction with drug using peers and drug dealers (see Hando et al., 1997, Breen et al., 2002,
Wilkins et al., 2004). A total of 324 frequent drug users were interviewed for the 2007 IDMS, including 110
frequent methamphetamine users, 105 frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users and 109 frequent IDU. The frequent
drug users interviewed for the study participated in an in-depth, hour-long interview. The questionnaire
consisted of ten sections with a total of over 200 possible questions. The interviews with the frequent drug
users thus generated an extensive data base of information of recent trends in drug use and related behaviour.
Recruitment and interviewing of the frequent drug users was carried out in the three main centres (i.e.
Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch) from July to October 2007. In order to be eligible to be interviewed
for the study a respondent had to be 16 years or older, have used one of the main drugs of interest
approximately monthly or more often in the past six months, and have resided in the site location for the past
12 months. Participants were recruited through purposive sampling and ‘snowballing’ (Biernacki and
Waldorf, 1981, Watters and Biernacki, 1989). Purposive sampling involves the use of targeted recruitment
strategies and is used to reach hard-to-reach populations, such as illegal drug users, when general population
sampling is not feasible. ‘Snowballing’ is a peer recruitment strategy where interviewers ask those who have
recently interviewed to recommend the study to their friends and social acquaintances who may be eligible to
participate. In order to ensure that a broadly representative sample of frequent drug users is interviewed for
the study, 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., 2004, Wilkins et al., 2005d, Wilkins et al., 2005e).
The recruitment of the three samples of frequent drug users was achieved through three separate promotional
campaigns. Three separate sets of posters, flyers and business cards were used to recruit each group of
frequent drug user. The interviewers left promotional material at a wide range of locations including needle
exchanges, pharmacies, music shops, university campuses, clubs and pubs and supermarkets. 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 in the study. 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 or music voucher to compensate them for their time.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
35
1.4 Survey of key experts (KE)
Key experts (KE) are people who have had regular contact with frequent drug users through their work over
the past six months. A total of 19 KE were interviewed for the 2007 IDMS including those working in
alcohol and drug treatment agencies, youth services, prisons, needle exchanges, Women’s Refuge, hospital
emergency departments, the Prostitutes Collective, New Zealand Drug Foundation, law enforcement, social
agencies and local pharmacies.
1.5 Secondary data sources
A range of secondary data sources were used in the 2007 IDMS to place the reports of the frequent drug
users and KEs in wider context. Secondary data sources included in this report are:
•
2003 Health Behaviours Survey: Drug Use (HBS-Drug Use)
•
2006 national household survey data on drug use,
•
Drug seizure data
•
Call statistics from the Drug and Alcohol Help-line
•
Drug treatment admission statistics
1.6 Analysis
Statistical testing was carried out to identify differences between the frequent methamphetamine users,
frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users and frequent injecting drug users for a range of drug measures collected in
the study. Testing for differences in proportions (e.g. yes/no questions) was done using Fisher’s exact test. A
p-value of greater than 0.05 was defined as indicating no evidence of any differences between the three
groups. If a p-value of less than 0.05 was obtained, three Fisher’s exact tests were used to test for differences
between each pair-wise combination of modules. The three p-values were adjusted for using Holm’s stepdown procedure to maintain an overall alpha level of 0.05. One-way ANOVAs with Tukey-Kramer post-hoc
adjustments were used to test for differences between means. Differences between medians were tested using
non-parametric one-way ANOVAs. If a p-value of less than 0.05 was obtained, three -parametric one-way
ANOVAs were used to test for differences between each pair-wise combination of modules. The three pvalues were adjusted for using Holm’s step-down procedure to maintain an overall alpha level of 0.05. Scaletype questions such as difficulty of obtaining a drug or perceived health risk of using a drug were allocated
scores (e.g. very difficult=4, difficult=3, easy=2 and very easy=1). Differences between the mean scores
were tested using one-way ANOVAs with Tukey-Kramer post-hoc adjustments. One-way ANOVAs 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
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
36
mound shaped, providing an approximation of a normal probability distribution. Comparisons between 2006
and 2007 were made using t-tests, non-parametric one-way ANOVAs and Fisher’s exact tests for means,
medians and proportions respectively. Comparisons between 2005, 2006 and 2007 for the frequent
methamphetamine users were made using t-tests, non-parametric one-way ANOVAs and Fisher’s exact tests
for means, medians and proportions respectively. All analysis was run using SAS software.
National household survey data on drug use in the New Zealand population was able to be compared for the
age range 15-45 years old for the years 1998, 2001, 2003 and 2006 (Wilkins and Sweetsur, 2008, Wilkins et
al., 2002d). All four years of surveying used the same Computer Assisted Interview (CATI) methodology. A
previous comparison of national household drug survey data for the age range 15-45 years old using the
same CATI methodology has been completed for 1998, 2001 and 2003 (Wilkins et al., 2006). We also
present additional population level comparison data for drug types not featured in the publications above,
including opiates, ketamine and GHB. Only small numbers of respondents reported using these drug types in
the national household surveys and so the findings should be interpreted with caution. To maximise the
sample size we do have available for these drug types we provide comparisons for those aged 13-45 years
old in these cases.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
37
2. Demographics of sample
2.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the demographic characteristics of the frequent drug users interviewed for the 2007
IDMS. The demographic characteristics of the sample are presented by type of drug recruited for, and as a
combined sample of all the frequent drug users interviewed. The demographic profile of the 2007 sample is
compared with the previous 2006 sample.
2.2 Gender
In 2007, 69% of the frequent drug users were male and this is consistent with the demographic profile of
drug users interviewed for previous national household drug surveys (see Wilkins et al., 2005d) (Figure 2.1).
There were no statistically significant difference in the gender of the three groups of frequent drug user in
2007 (p=0.3323). There was no statistically significant difference in the gender of the frequent drug users in
2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.2427). There was also no statistically significant change in the gender of the
frequent methamphetamine users in 2007 compared to 2006 and 2005 (p=0.5748)
Figure 2.1: Frequent drug users by gender, 2007
100%
90%
26%
31%
31%
36%
80%
70%
60%
Female
50%
40%
Male
74%
69%
64%
69%
Ecstasy
IDU
All
30%
20%
10%
0%
Meth
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
38
2.3 Age
In 2007, the age of the frequent drug users ranged from 16-58 years old (Table 2.1). The median age of the
whole sample was 28 years (mean 30 years). The frequent ecstasy users had a lower mean age than either the
frequent methamphetamine users (23 years vs. 31 years, p<0.0001) or the frequent injecting drug users (23
years vs. 36 years, p<0.0001). The frequent methamphetamine users had a lower mean age than the frequent
injecting drug users (31 years vs. 36 years, p<0.0001).
Table 2.1: Frequent drugs users by age, 2007
Age (years)
Methamphetamine
users (n=110)
Ecstasy users
(MDMA) (n=105)
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=109)
Combined
modules (n=324)
Median age (years)
29
21
37
28
Mean age (years)
31
23
36
30
16-57
16-50
16-58
16-58
Range age (years)
The mean age of the frequent drug users was higher in 2007 than in 2006 (30 years old vs. 28 years old,
p=0.0131) and this was largely due to changes among the frequent injecting drug user sample. The mean age
of the frequent injecting drug users was higher in 2007 than in 2006 (i.e. 36 years old vs. 32 years old,
p=0.0046). There was no statistically significant difference in the mean age of the other two groups of
frequent drug users in 2007 compared to 2006. There was also no statistically significant difference in the
mean age of the frequent methamphetamine users in 2007 compared to 2006 and 2005 (p=0.5243).
2.4 Ethnicity
In 2007, 80% of the frequent drug users were European, 15% were Maori, 2% were Pacific Islanders and 2%
Asian (Table 2.2). More of the frequent ecstasy users than the frequent methamphetamine users were
European (90% vs. 67%, p=0.0003) (Figure 2.2). More of the frequent injecting drug users than the frequent
methamphetamine users were European (83% vs. 67%, p=0.0148). There was no statistically significant
difference in the proportion of the frequent drug users who identified as European in 2007 compared to 2006
(p=0.6162).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
39
Table 2.2: Frequent drugs users by ethnicity, 2007
Ethnicity
Methamphetamine
users (n=110)
Ecstasy users
(MDMA) (n=105)
Intravenous
drug users (IDU)
(n=109)
Combined
modules (n=324)
European
67%
90%
83%
80%
Maori
25%
5%
15%
15%
Pacific Island
4%
1%
0%
2%
Asian
1%
4%
0%
2%
Other
3%
1%
2%
2%
Figure 2.2: Frequent drugs users by main ethnic group, 2007
100%
6%
6%
2%
6%
83%
80%
90%
80%
70%
60%
67%
50%
Other
European
90%
Maori
40%
30%
20%
10%
25%
15%
15%
IDU
All
5%
0%
Meth
Ecstasy
There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of the frequent methamphetamine users
who identified as European in 2007 compared to 2006 and 2005 (p=0.8133) (Table 2.3).
Table 2.3: Frequent methamphetamine users by ethnicity, 2005-2007
2005
2006
2007
Ethnicity
Methamphetamine
users (n=78)
Methamphetamine
users (n=114)
Methamphetamine
users (n=110)
European
68%
71%
67%
Maori
26%
23%
25%
Pacific Island
4%
3%
4%
Asian
3%
1%
1%
Other
0%
3%
3%
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
40
2.5 Employment status
In 2007, 35% of the frequent drug users were ‘sick or invalid’, 19% were tertiary students and 18% were
working full-time (Table 2.4). A further 9% of the frequent drug users were employed on a part-time basis
and 11% were unemployed.
Table 2.4: Frequent drug users by employment status, 2007
Employment status
Sick or invalid
Methamphetamine
users (n=110)
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n=105)
Intravenous
drug users
(IDU) (n=109)
Combined
modules
(n=324)
40%
8%
56%
35%
6%
53%
0%
19%
Working (full-time)
16%
26%
13%
18%
Unemployed
15%
9%
11%
11%
Working (parttime/casual)
14%
2%
11%
9%
Parenting/care-giving or
doing unpaid work at
home
7%
1%
7%
5%
School student
0%
2%
1%
1%
Retired
1%
0%
1%
1%
Doing illegal work
1%
0%
0%
<1%
Tertiary student
The frequent ecstasy users were less likely to be ‘unemployed/sick or invalid’ than either the frequent
methamphetamine users (17% vs. 64%, p<0.0001) or the frequent injecting drug users (17% vs. 75%,
p<0.0001) (Figure 2.3). The frequent injecting drug users were more likely to be ‘unemployed/sick or
invalid’ than the frequent methamphetamine users (75% vs. 64%, p=0.0411). The frequent ecstasy users
were more likely to be students than either the frequent methamphetamine users (55% vs. 6%, p<0.0001) or
the frequent injecting drug users (55% vs. 1%, p<0.0001).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
41
Figure 2.3: Frequent drugs users by main employment status, 2007
100%
17%
90%
80%
70%
Unemployed/sickness/
retired/parenting
52%
64%
28%
75%
60%
Employed (full/part
time)
50%
40%
27%
30%
20%
Student (tertiary/high
school)
55%
30%
24%
10%
0%
6%
Meth
20%
1%
Ecstasy
IDU
All
Overall, there was no statistically significant difference in the employment status of the frequent drug users
in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.1377). The frequent ecstasy users were statistically significantly more likely
to be students and unemployed in 2007 than in 2006 (p<0.0001) (Table 2.5).
Table 2.5: Employment status of the frequent ecstasy users, 2006-2007
Employment status
2006
2007
Ecstasy users
(n=111)
Ecstasy users
(n=105)
Students
42%
55%
Employed
51%
28%
6%
17%
Unemployed
The frequent methamphetamine users were more likely to employed and students in 2005 compared to 2006
(p<0.0001) and 2007 (p<0.0001) (Table 2.6)
Table 2.6: Employment status of the frequent methamphetamine users, 2005-2007
2005
2006
2007
Methamphetamine
users (n=77)
Methamphetamine
users (n=114)
Methamphetamine
users (n=110)
Students
18%
13%
6%
Employed
51%
22%
30%
Unemployed
31%
65%
64%
Employment status
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
42
2.6 Accommodation
In 2007, 62% of the frequent drug users were currently living in a rented private house with a further 9%
currently living in their parents’ or family’s private house (Table 2.7). Ten percent of the frequent drug users
were currently living at a boarding house or hostel. Four percent of the frequent drug users were currently
homeless or living in a shelter or refuge.
Table 2.7: Frequent drugs users by type of current accommodation type, 2007
Accommodation type
Rented house
Methamphetamine
users (n=110)
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n=105)
Intravenous
drug users
(IDU) (n=109)
Combined
modules
(n=324)
48%
77%
62%
62%
Boarding house/hostel
9%
5%
17%
10%
Parents/family house
8%
12%
7%
9%
Drug treatment residence
21%
0%
1%
7%
Own house
11%
1%
6%
6%
No fixed
address/homeless
2%
2%
6%
3%
Shelter/refuge
0%
2%
0%
1%
Other
1%
1%
1%
1%
2.7 Education
In 2007, 27% of the frequent drug users had no educational qualifications, 31% had a high school
qualification, 21% a trade qualification and 20% a tertiary qualification as their highest educational
qualification (Figure 2.4). The frequent ecstasy users were less likely to have no educational qualifications
than either the frequent methamphetamine users (7% vs. 33%, p<0.0001) or the frequent injecting drug users
(7% vs. 41%, p<0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of the frequent
drug users who had no educational qualifications 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.5909). There was also no
statistically significant difference in the proportion of the frequent methamphetamine users who had no
educational qualifications in 2007 compared to 2006 and 2005.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
43
Figure 2.4: Frequent drugs users by highest educational achievement, 2007
100%
10%
20%
90%
24%
28%
80%
24%
70%
22%
21%
60%
Trade/Technical
Certificate/Other
25%
50%
Tertiary Qualifications
18%
21%
31%
40%
High School
Qualifications
No Qualifications
48%
30%
41%
20%
33%
27%
10%
7%
0%
Meth
Ecstasy
IDU
All
2.8 Sexual orientation
The frequent drug users were read four categories of sexual orientation and were asked which best described
their own sexual identity. Due to the small numbers of participants indicating non-heterosexual orientations,
we do not present a comparison of specific sexual orientation by frequent drug user group. In 2007, 87% of
the frequent drug users were heterosexual (n=283), 8% were bisexual (n=25), 4% were gay males (n=12) and
1% lesbian females (n=2) (Figure 2.5).
Figure 2.5: Frequent drugs users by sexual orientation, 2007
1%
8%
4%
Heterosexual
Gay male
Lesbian
Bisexual
87%
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
44
In 2007, statistically significantly more of the frequent injecting drug users were non-heterosexual than the
frequent methamphetamine users (17% vs. 6%, p=0.0375) (Table 2.8).
Table 2.8: Frequent drug users by broad sexual orientation, 2007
Broad sexual
orientation
Heterosexual
Non-heterosexual
Methamphetamine
users (n=110)
Ecstasy users
(MDMA) (n=105)
Intravenous
drug users (IDU)
(n=109)
Combined
modules (n=324)
94%
86%
83%
87%
6%
14%
17%
13%
2.9 Marital status
In 2007, 50% of the frequent drug users were single, 40% were in regular relationships (i.e. regular partner
or defacto/married), and 10% were separated, divorced or widowed (Table 2.9). The frequent ecstasy users
were statistically significantly more likely to be ‘single’ than either the frequent methamphetamine users
(67% vs. 41%, p=0.0006) or frequent injecting drug users (67% vs. 44%, p=0.0078).
Table 2.9: Frequent drugs users by marital status, 2007
Marital status
Methamphetamine
users (n=108)
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n=105)
Intravenous
drug users (IDU)
(n=108)
Combined
modules
(n=321)
Single
41%
67%
44%
50%
With a regular partner
29%
27%
25%
27%
Married/ defacto
15%
3%
21%
13%
Separated
6%
3%
7%
6%
Divorced
9%
0%
1%
3%
Widowed
0%
1%
1%
1%
2.10 Income
In 2007, the frequent methamphetamine users had a statistically significantly higher mean gross annual
income (i.e. both from legal and illegal sources) than the frequent injecting drug users ($43,438 vs. $26,589,
p=0.0355) (Table 2.10). The frequent methamphetamine users also had a higher mean income than the
frequent ecstasy users ($43,438 vs. $23,939, p=0.0111).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
45
Table 2.10: Frequent drugs users by gross annual income, 2007
Gross Annual
income (legal +
illegal)
Methamphetamine
users (n=96)
Ecstasy users
(MDMA) (n=99)
Intravenous drug
users (IDU) (n=96)
Combined
modules (n=291)
Median income
$27,500
$17,500
$17,500
$22,500
Mean income
$43,438
$23,939
$26,589
$31,246
$0-$500,000
$0-$85,000
$2,500-$85,000
$0-$500,000
Range income
In 2007, the frequent ecstasy users were statistically significantly more likely to earn less than $20,000 gross
annual income than the frequent methamphetamine users (56% vs. 35%, p=0.0186) (Table 2.11).
Table 2.11: Frequent drug users by gross annual income group, 2007
Income
Methamphetamine
users (n=96)
Ecstasy users
Intravenous drug
users (IDU) (n=96)
(MDMA) (n=99)
Combined
modules (n=291)
0$-$20,000
35%
56%
51%
47%
$20,001-$50,000
46%
38%
41%
42%
$50,001-$100,000
15%
6%
8%
10%
4%
0%
0%
1%
$100,000+
The frequent drug users had statistically significantly lower mean gross annual incomes ($31,246 vs.
$40,942, p<0.0001) and median gross annual incomes ($22,500 vs. $27,500, p=0.023) in 2007 compared to
2006. Lower incomes were found among all the frequent drug user groups (Table 2.12). The mean income of
the frequent ecstasy users ($23,939 vs. $32,500, p<0.0001) and the frequent injecting drug users ($26,589 vs.
$33,430, p<0.0001) was statistically significantly lower in 2007 compared to 2006. The median income of
the frequent methamphetamine users was statistically significantly lower in 2007 than in 2006 ($27,500 vs.
$35,000, p=0.0432).
Table 2.12: Frequent drugs users by gross annual income, 2006-2007
Gross Annual
income (legal +
illegal)
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=292)
Combined
modules
(n=291)
Median income
27,500
$22,500
Mean income
40,942
$31,246
$0-600,000
$0-$500,000
Range income
The frequent ecstasy users were statistically significantly more likely to earn less than $20,000 gross annual
income in 2007 compared to 2006 (56% vs. 30%, p<0.0001) (Table 2.13).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
46
Table 2.13: Frequent ecstasy users by gross annual income group, 2006-2007
Income
2006
2007
Ecstasy users
(n=103)
Ecstasy users
(n=99)
$0-$20,000
30%
56%
$20,000+
70%
44%
There was no statistically significant difference in the mean gross annual income of the frequent
methamphetamine users in 2007 compared to 2006 and 2005 (p=0.4519) (Table 2.14).
Table 2.14: Frequent methamphetamine users by gross annual income, 2005-2007
Gross Annual
income (legal +
illegal)
2005
2006
2007
Methamphetamine
users (n=71)
Methamphetamine
users (n=103)
Methamphetamine
users (n=96)
Median income
27,500
35,000
$27,500
Mean income
43,873
55,655
$43,438
$2,500-500,000
$0-500,000
$0-$500,000
Range income
2.11 Location
The IDMS sample of frequent drug users is not intended to be representative of drug use in the general
population or of drug use in the centres where recruitment takes place. However, when we employed the
same promotion and recruitment methods in each of the three sites we obtained three quite different samples
of frequent drug users which may indicate some local variation in drug use. Epidemiological research is
required to establish whether the local differences found reflect real differences in drug use between
localities or were merely some function of the way the drug using populations responded to the study in each
location. In 2007, higher proportions of frequent injecting drug users were recruited in Christchurch while
higher proportions of frequent methamphetamine users were recruited in Auckland (Figure 2.6). The higher
proportions of frequent methamphetamine users recruited in Auckland are consistent with previous findings
from the national household drug survey which found higher proportions of amphetamine use in Auckland
and the upper half of the North Island (Wilkins et al., 2005d).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
47
Figure 2.6: Frequent drugs users by location, 2007
100%
90%
80%
5%
17%
25%
12%
37%
52%
70%
28%
60%
50%
40%
Christchurch
Wellington
Auckland
71%
30%
58%
36%
47%
20%
10%
12%
0%
Meth
Ecstasy
IDU
All
2.12 Drug treatment
In 2007, 28% of the frequent drug users reported they were in some form of drug treatment. The frequent
ecstasy users were less likely to currently be in drug treatment than either the frequent methamphetamine
users (4% vs. 37%, p<0.0001) or the frequent injecting drug users (4% vs. 41%, p<0.0001).
In 2007, 21% of the frequent drug users indicated that they were currently in a methadone maintenance
programme and a further 9% said they had been in a methadone programme in the past. More of those
among the frequent injecting drug users than frequent methamphetamine users reported they had ever been in
a methadone maintenance programme (65% vs. 22%, p<0.0001). Only one frequent ecstasy user reported
having ever been in a methadone maintenance programme.
2.13 Previously interviewed for the IDMS
In 2007, 4% of the frequent drug users (n=12) indicated they had participated in a previous wave of the
IDMS. This included 2% of the frequent methamphetamine users, 1% of the frequent ecstasy (MDMA) and
8% of the frequent injecting drug users.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
48
2.14 Summary of the demographics of the frequent drug users
• Two thirds of the frequent drug users were male in 2007 and 2006
• In 2007, the median age of the frequent drug users was 28 years old
• The frequent ecstasy users were younger than both the frequent methamphetamine users and the
frequent injecting drug users in 2007 and 2006
• The mean age of the frequent injecting drug users was higher in 2007 than in 2006
• There was no difference in the mean age of frequent methamphetamine users in 2007 compared to
2006 and 2005
• In 2007, 80% of the frequent drug users were European and 15% Maori.
• The frequent ecstasy users and frequent injecting drug users were more likely to be European than
the frequent methamphetamine users in 2007 and 2006
• There was no change in the proportion of the frequent methamphetamine users who were nonEuropean in 2007 compared to 2006 and 2005
• In 2007, 46% of the frequent drug users were unemployed, sick or invalid. Only 27% of the frequent
drug users were employed (i.e. part-time or full-time) with 20% students (i.e. high school or tertiary).
The frequent methamphetamine users and frequent injecting drug users were more likely than the
frequent ecstasy users to be unemployed/sick or invalid
• The frequent ecstasy users were more likely to be students and unemployed in 2007 compared to
2006
• The frequent methamphetamine users were more likely to be employed and students in 2005 than in
2006 and 2007
• In 2007, 27% of the frequent drug users had no educational qualifications. The frequent
methamphetamine users and frequent injecting drug users were more likely to have no educational
qualifications than the frequent ecstasy users
• There was no difference in the proportion of frequent drug users who had no educational
qualifications in 2007 compared to 2006
• There was also no difference in the proportion of frequent methamphetamine users who had no
educational qualifications in 2007 compared to 2006 and 2005
• In 2007, the frequent drug users had a median annual gross income of $22,500. The frequent ecstasy
users were more likely to earn less than $20,000 gross annual income than the frequent
methamphetamine users
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
49
• The frequent drug users had lower mean gross annual incomes ($31,246 vs. $40,942, p<0.0001) and lower median gross annual incomes (22,500 vs. $27,500, p=0.023) in 2007 compared to 2006 • In 2007, the largest fall in annual incomes was found among the frequent ecstasy users and this is
likely to reflect the fact that more of the frequent drug users were students and unemployed in 2007
than in 2006 • There was no difference in the mean income of the frequent methamphetamine users in 2007
compared to 2006 and 2005
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
50
3. Drug use patterns
3.1 Introduction
The frequent drug users were asked a series of questions about their use of a range of different drug types
including alcohol, tobacco, amphetamines, hallucinogens, opiates, and pharmaceuticals. The frequent drug
users were asked whether they had used a particular drug type in their lifetimes and whether they had used
the drug in the past six months. If a frequent drug user indicated they had used a drug type in the past six
months they were asked on how many days they had used the drug in the past six months and how they had
administered the drug in the previous six months.
3.2 Extent of poly drug use
In 2007, the frequent drug users had tried an average of 14 drug types in their lifetimes (median 14, range 324). The frequent injecting drug users had used a greater average number of drug types in their lifetimes than
the frequent ecstasy users (15 vs. 11 drug types, p<0.0001). The frequent methamphetamine users had also
used a greater average number of drug types in their lifetimes than the frequent ecstasy users (15 vs. 11 drug
types, p<0.0001).
In 2007, the frequent drug users had used an average of seven drug types in the past six months (median 7,
range 1-21). The frequent methamphetamine users had used a greater number of drug types in the previous
six months than the frequent ecstasy users (8 vs. 7 drug types, p=0.0045) and the frequent injecting drug
users (8 vs. 7 drug types, p=0.05).
3.3 Drug use patterns of the frequent methamphetamine users
In 2007, the drug types most commonly used by the frequent methamphetamine users in the previous six
months were methamphetamine (97%), cannabis (87%), tobacco (84%), alcohol (79%), crystal
methamphetamine (66%), ecstasy (MDMA) (52%), BZP party pills (43%) and LSD (34%) (Table 3.1). A
lower proportion of the frequent methamphetamine users had used BZP party pills in 2006 compared to 2005
(31% vs. 58%, p=0.0009). A higher proportion of frequent methamphetamine users had used ‘other opiates’
in 2007 compared to 2006 (32% vs. 18%) and this was close to being statistically significant (p=0.0582). A
higher proportion of the frequent methamphetamine users had used methadone in 2007 compared to 2005
(26% vs. 12%, p=0.048). A higher proportion of the frequent methamphetamine users had used magic
mushrooms (psilocybin) in 2007 compared to 2006 (26 vs. 11%, p=0.0058). Changes to the format of the
magic mushrooms question may have inflated the number of people indicating they had used this drug in
2007 compared to 2006. In 2007, a stand alone category was created in the questionnaire for magic
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
51
mushrooms as fairly large numbers of people had mentioned this drug type in the ‘other’ category of the
question in 2006. As a result ‘magic mushrooms’ was actively read out to the participants in 2007.
Previously, in 2006, magic mushrooms was only recorded if the participant indicated they had used this drug
type in answer to a general question at the end of the section concerning whether they had used any other
drug types in the past six months which had not been previously mentioned by the interviewer (i.e. ‘any
other drugs?’). A lower proportion of the frequent methamphetamine users had used nitrous oxide in 2006
compared to 2005 (15% vs. 47%, p<0.0001) and in 2007 compared to 2005 (24% vs. 47%, p=0.0018).
Table 3.1: Poly drug use of the frequent methamphetamine users, 2005-2007
2005
2006
2007
2005
2006
2007
2005
2006
2007
Last six
months
(n=78)
100%
Last six
months
(n=114)
100%
Last six
months
(n=110)
97%
Mean
days
used
46 days
Mean
days
used
59 days
Mean
days
used
68 days
Injected
past six
months
31%
Injected
past six
months
28%
Injected
past six
months
35%
Cannabis
79%
86%
87%
105 days
118 days
123 days
-
-
-
Tobacco
71%
81%
84%
160 days
162 days
175 days
-
-
-
Alcohol
74%
86%
79%
58 days
66 days
67 days
-
-
-
Crystal
methamphetamine
Ecstasy (MDMA)
64%
66%
66%
30 days
56 days
46 days
27%
28%
34%
45%
49%
52%
12 days
7 days
9 days
6%
16%
7%
BZP party pills
58%
31%
43%
15 days
12 days
11 days
2%
3%
9%
LSD
31%
34%
34%
3 days
7 days
15 days
8%
0%
0%
Benzodiazepines
23%
25%
33%
29 days
45 days
42 days
11%
11%
3%
Other opiates
(morphine, MST,
homebake, MEslon, Kapanol)
Methadone
22%
18%
32%
63 days
41 days
51 days
82%
60%
77%
12%
15%
26%
78 days
93 days
86 days
89%
71%
59%
n/a
11%
26%
-
4 days
11 days
-
-
-
-
12 days
31 days
-
58%
62%
-
-
-
Drug type
Methamphetamine
Magic mushrooms
(psilocybin)
Ritalin
(methylphenidate)
Nitrous oxide
n/a
21%
24%
47%
15%
24%
12 days
10 days
3days
Amphetamine
28%
25%
20%
12 days
19 days
31 days
18%
24%
23%
GHB
21%
13%
16%
22 days
5 days
37 days
0%
0%
0%
8%
6%
14%
6 days
4 days
5 days
0%
0%
7%
Anti-depressants
13%
5%
14%
60 days
19 days
77 days
10%
0%
13%
Amyl nitrate
18%
11%
12%
4 days
6 days
18 days
-
-
-
Cocaine
15%
11%
7%
4 days
5 days
28 days
17%
17%
25%
MDA
9%
5%
7%
3 days
1 days
7 days
0%
0%
0%
Heroin
5%
8%
6%
63 days
35 days
73 days
75%
89%
100%
Ketamine
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
52
Solvents
n/a
1%
3%
-
24 days
3 days
-
-
-
When a frequent methamphetamine user indicated they had used a drug type in the past six months they were
then asked on how many days they had used the drug during the previous six months. In 2007, the drug types
used by the frequent methamphetamine users on the greatest number of days, on average, during the past six
months were tobacco (175 days), cannabis (123 days), methadone (86 days), anti-depressants (77 days) and
heroin (73 days) (Table 3.1). The frequent methamphetamine users had, on average, used methamphetamine
on a greater number of days in 2007 compared to 2005 (68 days vs. 46 days, p=0.006) and in 2006 compared
to 2005 (59 days vs. 46 days, p=0.0364). The frequent methamphetamine users had, on average, smoked
tobacco on more days in 2007 than in 2006 (175 days vs. 162 days, p=0.0344) and compared to 2005 (175
days vs. 160 days, p<0.0001). The frequent methamphetamine users had, on average, used crystal
methamphetamine on more days in 2007 than in 2005 (46 days vs. 30 days, p=0.044) and on more days in
2006 compared to 2005 (56 days vs. 30 days, p=0.0333). The frequent methamphetamine users had used
LSD on more days in 2007 than in 2005 (15 days vs. 3 days) and this was close to being statistically
significant (p=0.0528). The frequent methamphetamine users had, on average, used Ritalin
(methylphenidate) on a greater number of days in 2007 compared to 2006 (31 days vs. 12 days, p=0.0369).
When a frequent methamphetamine user had used a drug type in the past six months they were also asked
about all the different ways they had administered the drug during the past six months. In 2007, the drug
types most commonly injected by the frequent methamphetamine users in the past six months were heroin
(100%), other opiates (77%), Ritalin (62%), methadone (59%), methamphetamine (35%) and crystal
methamphetamine (34%) (Table 3.1). There was no statistically significant change among the frequent
methamphetamine users with respect to the level of injection of drug types in 2007 compared to 2006 and
2005.
3.4 Drug use patterns of the frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users
In 2007, the drug types most commonly used by the frequent ecstasy users in the past six months were
ecstasy (100%), alcohol (96%), cannabis (89%), tobacco (67%), BZP party pills (45%) and LSD (40%)
(Table 3.2). The drug type which a greater proportion of the frequent ecstasy users had used in 2007
compared to 2006 was magic mushrooms (31% vs. 17%, p=0.0169). As discussed in the previous section,
the magic mushrooms question was reformatted in 2007 and this may have resulted in a higher level of
recorded use in 2007 compared to 2006. The drug types which a lower proportion of the frequent ecstasy
users had used in 2007 compared to 2006 were BZP party pills (45% vs. 65%, p=0.004) and nitrous oxide
(32% vs. 49%, p=0.0185).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
53
Table 3.2: Poly drug use of the frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users, 2006-2007
2006
Last six
months
(n=111)
100%
2007
Last six
months
(n=105)
100%
2006
Mean
days used
9 days
10 days
0%
4%
Alcohol
98%
96%
50 days
66 days
-
-
Cannabis
92%
89%
58 days
61 days
-
-
Tobacco
61%
67%
107 days
104 days
-
-
BZP party pills
65%
45%
8 days
11 days
0%
0%
LSD
49%
40%
4 days
5 days
0%
0%
Nitrous oxide
49%
32%
10 days
8 days
-
-
Magic mushrooms
(psilocybin)
Amphetamine
17%
31%
6 days
3 days
-
-
32%
30%
5 days
5 days
3%
3%
Methamphetamine
23%
23%
13 days
6 days
8%
8%
Amyl nitrate
18%
15%
5 days
2 days
-
-
Ritalin
(methylphenidate)
Crystal
methamphetamine
Benzodiazepines
13%
14%
13 days
7 days
14%
7%
5%
11%
31 days
4 days
17%
0%
13%
10%
13 days
41 days
0%
0%
Ketamine
11%
10%
8 days
4 days
0%
0%
GHB
11%
10%
12 days
4 days
0%
0%
MDA
16%
10%
4 days
1 day
0%
18%
Other opiates
(morphine, MST,
homebake, MEslon, Kapanol)
Cocaine
10%
8%
6 days
3 days
18%
25%
9%
6%
2 days
7 days
0%
0%
Anti-depressants
3%
5%
5 days
4 days
0%
20%
Methadone
2%
3%
6 days
61 days
33%
33%
Solvents
0%
1%
0 days
1 day
-
-
Heroin
0%
0%
0 days
0 days
0%
0%
Drug type
Ecstasy (MDMA)
2007
Mean
days used
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
2006
Injected
past six
months
2007
Injected
past six
months
54
When a frequent ecstasy user indicated they had used a drug type in the past six months they were then asked
on how many days they had used the drug during the previous six months. In 2007, the drug types used by
the frequent ecstasy users on the greatest number of days, on average, during the past six months were
methadone (105 days), tobacco (104 days), alcohol (66 days), cannabis (61 days) and benzodiazepines (41
days) (Table 3.2). The drug type which the frequent ecstasy users had, on average, used on a greater number
of days in 2007 compared to 2006 was alcohol (66 vs. 50 days, p=0.0029). The drug types which the
frequent ecstasy users had, on average, used on a fewer number of days in 2007 compared 2006 were magic
mushrooms (3 vs. 6 days, p=0.0169) and crystal methamphetamine (4 days vs. 31 days, p=0.011).
When a frequent ecstasy user had used a drug type in the past six months they were also asked about all the
different ways they had administered the drug during the past six months. In 2007, the drug types most
commonly injected by the frequent ecstasy users in the past six months were methadone (33%), other opiates
(25%), anti-depressants (20%), and MDA (18%) (Table 3.2). There was no statistically significant change
among the frequent ecstasy users with respect to the level of injection of drug types in 2007 compared to
2006.
3.5 Drug use patterns of the frequent injecting drug users
In 2007, the drug types most commonly used by the frequent injecting drug users in the previous six months
were tobacco (90%), cannabis (85%), alcohol (72%), methadone (72%), other opiates (71%),
benzodiazepines (54%), methamphetamine (45%) and Ritalin (42%) (Table 3.3). The drug types which a
lower proportion of the frequent injecting drug users had used in 2007 compared to 2006 were ‘heroin’ (12%
vs. 24%, p=0.0394) and MDA (1% vs. 8%, p=0.0253). A lower proportion of the frequent injecting drug
users had used nitrous oxide in 2007 compared to 2006, and this was close to being statistically significant
(22% vs. 11%, p=0.053).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
55
Table 3.3: Poly drug use of the frequent injecting drug users, 2006-2007
2006
2007
2006
2007
2006
2007
Last six
months
(n=93)
86%
Last six
months
(n=109)
90%
Mean
days used
Mean
days used
Injected
past six
months
Injected
past six
months
181 days
174 days
-
-
Cannabis
80%
85%
123 days
107 days
-
-
Alcohol
68%
72%
48 days
36 days
-
-
Methadone
74%
72%
92 days
133 days
56%
64%
Other opiates
(morphine, MST,
homebake, MEslon, Kapanol)
Benzodiazepines
77%
71%
85 days
84 days
96%
99%
57%
54%
43 days
46 days
10%
12%
Methamphetamine
40%
45%
43 days
12 days
70%
65%
Ritalin
(methylphenidate)
BZP party pills
43%
42%
41 days
39 days
90%
93%
30%
31%
6 days
23 days
32%
74%
Ecstasy (MDMA)
29%
22%
6 days
8 days
44%
33%
Crystal
methamphetamine
Amphetamine
24%
18%
42 days
16 days
68%
80%
18%
17%
19 days
24 days
71%
61%
LSD
20%
15%
3 days
3 days
0%
6%
Amyl nitrate
16%
13%
15 days
2 days
-
-
Heroin
24%
12%
71 days
67 days
100%
92%
Nitrous oxide
22%
11%
7 days
7days
-
-
Magic mushrooms
(psilocybin)
Anti-depressants
5%
10%
3 days
3 days
-
-
9%
8%
8 days
12 days
0%
0%
Ketamine
4%
6%
2 days
2 days
100%
67%
Solvents
2%
2%
1 day
1 day
-
-
GHB
3%
2%
2 days
2 days
0%
0%
MDA
8%
1%
6 days
1 days
75%
-
Cocaine
9%
1%
9 days
1 days
17%
-
Drug type
Tobacco
When a frequent injecting drug user indicated they had used a drug type in the past six months they were
then asked on how many days they had used the drug during the previous six months. In 2007, the drug types
used by the frequent injecting drug users on the greatest number of days, on average, during the previous six
months were tobacco (174 days), methadone (133 days), cannabis (107 days), other opiates (84 days), heroin
(67 days), benzodiazepines (46 days) and Ritalin (39 days) (Table 3.3). The drug types which the frequent
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
56
injecting drug users had, on average, used on a greater number of days in 2007 compared to 2006 were BZP
party pills (23 vs. 6 days, p=0.0275) and methadone (133 days vs. 92 days, p=0.0033). The drug types which
the frequent injecting drug users had, on average, used on a fewer number of days in 2007 compared 2006
were crystal methamphetamine (16 vs. 42 days, p=0.0419) and methamphetamine (12 days vs. 43 days,
p=0.0064).
When a frequent injecting drug user had used a drug type in the previous six months they were also asked
about all the different ways they had administered the drug during the past six months. In 2007, the drug
types most commonly injected by the frequent injecting drug users in the past six months were other opiates
(99%), Ritalin (93%), heroin (92%), crystal methamphetamine (80%), ketamine (67%), methamphetamine
(65%) and methadone (64%) (Table 3.3). The frequent injecting drug users were statistically significantly
more likely to have injected BZP party pills in 2007 compared to 2006 (74% vs. 32%, p=0.0019).
3.6 Drug of choice
The frequent drug users were asked what their main drug of choice was (i.e. their favourite or preferred
drug). In 2007, the drug type most commonly mentioned by the frequent methamphetamine users as their
drug of choice was methamphetamine (31%), followed by cannabis (26%) and alcohol (11%) (Table 3.4).
The frequent methamphetamine users were more likely to name alcohol as their drug of choice in 2007
compared to 2006 and 2005, and this difference was close to being statistically significant (p=0.0666). The
frequent methamphetamine users were statistically significantly less likely to name ecstasy as their drug of
choice in 2007 compared to 2005 (4% vs. 18%, p=0.0069). They were also statistically significantly less
likely to name ecstasy as their drug of choice in 2006 compared to 2005 (5% vs. 18%, p=0.0194). Otherwise
there was no statistically significant change in the frequent methamphetamine user’s drug of choice between
2007 and 2006 and 2005.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
57
Table 3.4: Drug of choice by frequent methamphetamine users, 2005-2007
Drug of choice
2006
2006
2007
Methamphetamine
users (n=67)
Methamphetamine
users (n=112)
Methamphetamine
users (n=109)
Methamphetamine
25%
34%
31%
Cannabis
28%
27%
26%
Alcohol
3%
4%
11%
Heroin
6%
7%
8%
Amphetamine
sulphate
0%
1%
5%
Other opiates
6%
1%
5%
18%
5%
4%
Crystal meth
amphetamine
0%
6%
4%
LSD
3%
6%
3%
Tobacco
0%
1%
1%
Methadone
1%
0%
1%
Cocaine
6%
5%
1%
GHB
0%
0%
1%
Benzodiazepines
0%
0%
1%
BZP party pills
0%
0%
0%
Nitrous oxide
0%
0%
0%
Ketamine
1%
0%
0%
Steroids
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
Ecstasy (MDMA)
Ritalin
(methylphenidate)
The drug type most commonly mentioned by the frequent ecstasy users as their drug of choice in 2007 was
ecstasy (51%), followed by cannabis (17%) and alcohol (11%) (Table 3.5). There was no statistically
significant change in the frequent ecstasy user’s drug of choice between 2007 and 2006. The drug type most
commonly mentioned by the frequent injecting drug users as their drug of choice in 2007 was ‘other opiates’
(48%), followed by methadone (19%) and Ritalin (11%). The drug types which a lower proportion of
frequent injecting drug users named as their ‘drug of choice’ in 2007 compared to 2006 were heroin (4% vs.
12%, p=0.0295) and amphetamine sulphate (5% vs. 13%, p=0.0393). The drug types which a higher
proportion of frequent injecting drug users named as their ‘drug of choice’ in 2007 compared to 2006 were
methadone (19% vs. 8%, p=0.0246) and Ritalin (11% vs. 0%, p<0.0001).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
58
Table 3.5: Drug of choice by frequent ecstasy users and frequent injecting drug users, 2006-2007
Drug of choice
Methamphetamine
2006
2007
2006
2007
Ecstasy
users
(MDMA)
(n=103)
Ecstasy
users
(MDMA)
(n=103)
Intravenous
drug users
(IDU)
Intravenous
drug users
(IDU)
(n=109)
(n=109)
8%
1%
1%
Cannabis
16%
17%
0%
0%
Alcohol
17%
11%
0%
0%
Heroin
1%
0%
12%
4%
Amphetamine
sulphate
2%
1%
13%
5%
Other opiates
1%
0%
55%
48%
49%
51%
0%
2%
Crystal meth
amphetamine
0%
1%
3%
1%
LSD
7%
7%
0%
0%
Tobacco
0%
1%
0%
0%
Methadone
0%
0%
8%
19%
Cocaine
4%
4%
0%
0%
GHB
0%
0%
0%
0%
Benzodiazepines
1%
1%
0%
1%
BZP party pills
1%
0%
0%
4%
Nitrous oxide
0%
1%
0%
0%
Ketamine
1%
1%
0%
0%
Steroids
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
1%
0%
11%
Ecstasy (MDMA)
6%
Ritalin
(methylphenidate)
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
59
3.7 Concurrent use of drugs
In 2007, 91% of the frequent methamphetamine users usually used other drug types when they used
methamphetamine. The drug types most commonly used in combination with methamphetamine were
cannabis (66%), tobacco (58%), alcohol (55%) and other opiates (19%) (Table 3.6). Eighty-nine percent of
the frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users usually used other drug types with their ecstasy (MDMA). The drug
types most commonly used in combination with ecstasy (MDMA) were alcohol (85%), cannabis (41%) and
tobacco (40%). Forty-seven percent of the frequent ecstasy users typically drank five or more standard drinks
in a single session. Seventy-five percent of the injecting drug users usually used other drug types with the
drug they injected. The drug types most commonly used at the same time as the drug they injected were
tobacco (55%), cannabis (54%), benzodiazepines (30%) and alcohol (23%). There were some changes in the
drug types which the frequent methamphetamine used in combination with methamphetamine in 2007
compared to 2006. The frequent methamphetamine users were statistically significantly more likely to use
‘other opiates’ in combination with methamphetamine in 2007 compared to 2006 (19% vs. 4%, p=0.0021)
(Table 3.6). The frequent methamphetamine users were less likely to use ‘other opiates’ in combination with
methamphetamine in 2006 compared to 2005 (4% vs. 14%, p=0.0444). The frequent methamphetamine users
were statistically significantly less likely to have used nitrous oxide in combination with methamphetamine
in 2007 compared to 2005 (0% vs. 13%, p=0.0009).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
60
Table 3.6: Other drug types used concurrently with methamphetamine, 2005-2007
2006
2006
2007
Methamphetamine
users (n=71)
Methamphetamine
users (n=102)
Methamphetamine
users (n=100)
Cannabis
67%
74%
66%
Tobacco
68%
83%
58%
Alcohol
46%
61%
55%
Other opiates
14%
4%
19%
7%
9%
12%
Crystal
methamphetamine
17%
5%
12%
Ecstasy (MDMA)
18%
9%
11%
Amphetamine
sulphate
14%
4%
6%
GHB
13%
1%
6%
LSD
8%
4%
5%
BZP party pills
8%
7%
3%
Cocaine
6%
1%
3%
Heroin
1%
4%
2%
10%
0%
2%
Ketamine
6%
0%
2%
Amyl/Butyl nitrate
4%
0%
2%
13%
4%
0%
Drug types used
concurrently
Benzodiazepines
MDA
Nitrous oxide
3.8 Drug types used to recover from drug use
In 2007, 83% of the frequent methamphetamine users usually used other drug types to help them recover
from their methamphetamine use. The drug types most commonly used to recover from methamphetamine
were cannabis (69%), tobacco (45%), benzodiazepines (19%), alcohol (16%) and other opiates (12%) (Table
3.7). Sixty-two percent of the frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users usually used other drug types to help them
recover from their ecstasy (MDMA) use. The drug types most commonly used to recover from ecstasy
(MDMA) were cannabis (82%), tobacco (20%), alcohol (14%) and benzodiazepines (14%). Forty-five
percent of the injecting drug users usually used other drug types to help them recover from the drug they
inject. The drug types most commonly used to help recover from the drug they inject were cannabis (53%),
benzodiazepines (16%), tobacco (16%), alcohol (16%) and other opiates (14%).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
61
Table 3.7: Other drug types used to recover from methamphetamine, ecstasy (MDMA) and injecting drug
use, 2007
Drug types used to
recover
Methamphetamine
users (n=91)
Ecstasy users
(MDMA) (n=65)
Intravenous drug
users (IDU) (n=49)
Cannabis
69%
82%
53%
Tobacco
45%
20%
16%
Benzodiazepines
19%
14%
16%
Alcohol
16%
14%
16%
Other opiates
12%
0%
14%
Crystal
methamphetamine
4%
2%
2%
Ecstasy (MDMA)
2%
0%
0%
LSD
2%
2%
0%
GHB
2%
0%
0%
BZP party pills
1%
0%
0%
Amphetamine
sulphate
0%
0%
4%
Nitrous oxide
0%
2%
0%
Cocaine
0%
3%
0%
Methamphetamine
0%
2%
2%
MDA
0%
0%
0%
Ketamine
0%
2%
0%
Amyl/Butyl nitrate
0%
0%
0%
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
62
3.9 Binging on drugs
The frequent drug users were asked what drug types they had binged on in the previous six months. Binging
on a drug was defined as using a drug for 48 hours or more continuously without sleep. In 2007, 60% of the
frequent drug users had binged on a drug in the previous six months. This included 81% of the frequent
methamphetamine users, 45% of the frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users, and 52% of the frequent injecting drug
users. The drug types which the frequent methamphetamine users most commonly binged on were
methamphetamine (88%), alcohol (43%), cannabis (38%), and crystal methamphetamine (38%) (Table 3.8).
The drug types which the frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users most commonly binged on were alcohol (87%),
ecstasy (81%), cannabis (55%), legal piperazine party pills (21%), amphetamine sulphate (15%) and LSD
(13%). The drug types which the frequent injecting drug users most commonly binged on were
methamphetamine (56%), alcohol (50%), cannabis (41%), ecstasy (31%) and crystal methamphetamine
(23%).
Table 3.8: Drug types binged on in the previous six months, 2007
Drug types binged
on (used 48 hours
+)
Methamphetamine
users (n=89)
Ecstasy users
(MDMA) (n=47)
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=57)
Combined
modules
(n=193)
Methamphetamine
88%
19%
39%
56%
Alcohol
43%
87%
32%
50%
Cannabis
38%
55%
33%
41%
Crystal
methamphetamine
38%
2%
16%
23%
Ecstasy (MDMA)
19%
81%
7%
31%
LSD
18%
13%
2%
12%
BZP party pills
11%
21%
18%
16%
Other opiates
10%
0%
30%
13%
Amphetamine
sulphate
9%
15%
4%
9%
GHB
8%
6%
0%
5%
Methadone
7%
0%
11%
6%
Ketamine
4%
0%
0%
2%
Anti-depressants
4%
0%
0%
2%
Amyl/Butyl nitrate
3%
0%
0%
2%
Heroin
3%
0%
4%
3%
Cocaine
3%
6%
0%
3%
Benzodiazepines
2%
2%
16%
6%
MDA
2%
0%
0%
1%
Nitrous oxide
1%
6%
0%
2%
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
63
3.10 New drug types
The frequent drug users were asked if they had heard about any new drug types in the past six months. In
2007, a total of 58 frequent drug users provided reports of new drug types. We will present those changes
which were confirmed by from more than one frequent drug user. Six frequent drug users reported new types
of ‘BZP free’ party pills. Five frequent drug users reported an increase in the number of people injecting
BZP party pills. Five frequent drug users reported different forms of ice and that methamphetamine was
being used by a wider cross section of the population. Five frequent drug users reported a new type of slow
release Ritalin in new quantities. Three frequent drug users reported an increase in ecstasy use and new types
of ecstasy. Two frequent drug users said ketamine was now more popular.
3.11 New types of drug users
The frequent drug users were asked if they had seen any new types of drug users in the previous six months.
In 2007, a total of 77 frequent drug users provided reports of new types of drug user. We will present those
changes which were confirmed by from more than one frequent drug user. Thirty-five frequent drug users
said they had noticed more ‘younger’ drug users in the past six months. Two of the frequent drug users
noting this trend toward younger users also said they had observed more ‘girls’ using drugs. Twenty-three
frequent drug users said there was now a wider range of people using drugs including older people, middle
class people and professionals. Six frequent drug users reported increased intravenous drug use. Three
frequent drug users reported that more people were injecting BZP party pills.
3.12 Increase in drug use by some users
The frequent drug users were asked if there had been any increase in drug use by some drug users in the
previous six months. In 2007, a total of 77 frequent drug users provided reports of increases. We will present
those increases which were confirmed by more than one frequent drug user. There were further reports of
some of the themes raised in the previous open questions in this section. Sixteen frequent drug users said
they were seeing more ‘younger’ drug users. Five frequent drug users said they had observed greater use of
Ritalin over the previous six months. Twenty-one frequent drugs said they were seeing more people using
methamphetamine over the past six months. Related to this theme, a further 11 frequent drug users reported
existing methamphetamine users using more methamphetamine. Eight frequent drug users reported they had
seen an increase in ecstasy use over the past six months. Related to this theme, a further six frequent drug
users said that ecstasy users were using ecstasy more often and were also using more of other drugs.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
64
3.13 Different means of administering drugs
The frequent drug users were asked if there had seen people administering drugs in new ways in the past six
months. In 2007, a total of 65 frequent drug users provided reports of new ways of taking drugs. We will
present the reports which were confirmed by from more than one frequent drug user. Eleven frequent drug
users reported more injection of drugs. One frequent drug user specifically reported an increase in the
injection of ecstasy. Another frequent drug user specifically mentioned an increase in the injection of BZP
and two an increase in the injection of methamphetamine. Eleven frequent drug users said there was now
more shafting of drugs (i.e. insertion in the anus), and five of these frequent drug users mentioned this
behaviour in relation to ecstasy. Eleven frequent drug users reported more powder ecstasy and the snorting of
ecstasy.
3.14 Different ways of selling drugs
The frequent drug users were asked if they noticed any new ways that drugs were being sold in the past six
months. In 2007, a total of 26 frequent drug users provided reports of changes in the ways in which drugs
were being sold. Four frequent drug users reported more open selling of drugs from the streets.
3.15 Summary of drug use patterns
• In 2007, the drug types most commonly used by the frequent methamphetamine users were methamphetamine, cannabis, tobacco, alcohol, crystal methamphetamine and ecstasy
• A higher proportion of the frequent methamphetamine users had used methadone in 2007 compared
to 2005
• A lower proportion of the frequent methamphetamine users had used nitrous oxide in 2007 compared to 2005 • A lower proportion of the frequent methamphetamine users had used BZP party pills in 2006 compared to 2005 • The frequent methamphetamine increased the number of days they used methamphetamine and
tobacco in 2007 compared to 2006 and 2005
• The frequent methamphetamine users used crystal methamphetamine on more days in 2007 and
2006 compared to 2005
• In 2007, the drug types most commonly used by the frequent ecstasy users were ecstasy (MDMA),
alcohol, cannabis, tobacco and BZP party pills
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
65
• A lower proportion of the frequent ecstasy users had used BZP party pills and nitrous oxide in 2007 compared to 2006 • The frequent ecstasy users increased the number of days they used alcohol in 2007 compared to 2006 • The frequent ecstasy users decreased the number of days they used magic mushrooms and crystal methamphetamine in 2007 compared to 2006 • In 2007, the drug types most commonly used by the frequent injecting drug users were tobacco,
cannabis, alcohol, methadone, other opiates, benzodiazepines, methamphetamine and Ritalin
• A lower proportion of the frequent injecting drug users had used heroin, MDA and nitrous oxide in 2007 compared to 2006 • The frequent injecting drug users increased the number of days they used BZP party pills and methadone in 2007 compared to 2006 • The frequent injecting drug users decreased the number of days they used crystal methamphetamine and methamphetamine in 2007 compared to 2006 • A greater proportion of the frequent injecting drug users had injected BZP party pills in 2007 compared to 2006 • A higher proportion of the frequent injecting drug users named methadone and Ritalin as their drug of choice in 2007 compared to 2006 • A lower proportion of the frequent injecting drug users named heroin and amphetamine sulphate as their drug of choice in 2007 compared to 2006 Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
66
4. Methamphetamine
4.1 Introduction
Methamphetamine (‘P’, or ‘pure’) is a powerful psychostimulant with pharmacological characteristics and
effects which closely resemble those of cocaine (Gawin and Ellinwood, 1988, Hall and Hando, 1994, Kuhn
et al., 1998, Shearer et al., 2002). Chronic and high dose use of methamphetamine causes hostility, paranoia,
hallucinations, and obsessive behaviour (Hall and Hando, 1994, Kuhn et al., 1998, Shearer et al., 2002).
Heavy methamphetamine users often go on extended binges where they use the drug continuously over
several days or even weeks without sleep. As a binge lengthens the user experiences states of panic and
terror, which can lead to paranoid psychoses resembling schizophrenia in people with no pre-existing
psychological conditions (Gawin and Ellinwood, 1988). Binges end in a ‘crash’ characterised by depression,
fatigue, insomnia, headaches, and a strong psychological craving to use the drug again (Gawin and
Ellinwood, 1988). Physiological harm from methamphetamine use includes damage to cardiac and vascular
systems, and damage to dopamine terminals in the brain, with possible implications for mood and movement
disorder in later life (Kuhn et al., 1998, Shearer et al., 2002).
4.2 Knowledge of methamphetamine trends
In 2007, 56% of the frequent drug users interviewed (n=179) indicated they felt confident enough to
comment on the price, purity and availability of methamphetamine in the previous six months. This included
93% of the frequent methamphetamine users (n=100), 25% of the frequent ecstasy users (n=26) and 49% of
the frequent injecting drug users (n=53).
4.3 Availability of methamphetamine
4.3.1 Current availability
In 2007, 47% of the frequent drug users described the current availability of methamphetamine as ‘easy’,
with a further 38% describing the availability of the drug as ‘very easy’ (Table 4.1). The average score for
the current availability of methamphetamine for all the frequent drug users was 1.8 which indicates that
overall the current availability of methamphetamine was ‘easy/very easy’ in 2007. There was no statistically
significant difference in the average score of availability between the three groups of frequent drug users,
with all three groups indicating the current availability of methamphetamine was ‘easy/very easy’ in 2007
(p=0.597).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
67
Table 4.1: Current availability of methamphetamine by frequent drug user group, 2007
Current availability
of
methamphetamine
(%)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=102)
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n=23)
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=51)
Combined
modules
(n=176)
Very easy [1]
36%
35%
43%
38%
Easy [2]
50%
43%
43%
47%
Difficult [3]
13%
17%
12%
13%
Very difficult [4]
1%
4%
2%
2%
Average availability
score (1=very easy –
4=very difficult)
1.8
1.9
1.7
1.8
Easy/
very easy
Easy/
very easy
Easy/
very easy
Easy/
very easy
Overall current
status
There was no statistically significant change in the average score of the current availability of
methamphetamine in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.7732) indicating the availability of methamphetamine has
remained ‘easy/very easy’ over the past two years (Table 4.2).
Table 4.2: Current availability of methamphetamine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Current availability
of
methamphetamine
(%)
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=176)
Combined
modules
(n=176)
Very easy [1]
38%
38%
Easy [2]
44%
47%
Difficult [3]
16%
13%
Very difficult [4]
1%
2%
Average availability
score (1=very easy
– 4=very difficult)
1.8
1.8
Easy/
very easy
Easy/
very easy
Overall current
status
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
68
There was no statistically significant change in the average score of the current availability of
methamphetamine by the frequent methamphetamine users in 2007 compared to 2006 and 2005 (p=0.1614)
indicating the availability of methamphetamine has remained ‘easy/very easy’ over the past three years
(Table 4.3).
Table 4.3: Current availability of methamphetamine by frequent methamphetamine users, 2005-2007
2005
2006
2007
Methamphetamine
users
(n=71)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=106)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=102)
Very easy [1]
52%
43%
36%
Easy [2]
38%
42%
50%
Difficult [3]
10%
13%
13%
Very difficult [4]
0%
2%
1%
Average availability
score (1=very easy
– 4=very difficult)
1.6
1.7
1.8
Easy/
very easy
Easy/
very easy
Easy/
very easy
Current availability
of
methamphetamine
(%)
Overall current
status
4.3.2 Change in availability
In 2007, 51% of the frequent drug users reported that the availability of methamphetamine was ‘stable’ in the
past six months with 28% saying the availability of methamphetamine had become ‘easier’ over the past six
months (Table 4.4). The average score for the change in availability of methamphetamine for all the frequent
drug users was 1.9, which indicates that overall the availability of methamphetamine was ‘stable’ over the
past six months in 2007. There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the change
in availability between the three groups of frequent drug users, with all three groups indicating that
availability of methamphetamine had been ‘stable’ over the previous six months in 2007 (p=0.3786).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
69
Table 4.4: Change in availability of methamphetamine by frequent drug user group, 2007
Change in
availability of
methamphetamine
(%)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=102)
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n=21)
Intravenous
users (IDU)
(n=51)
drug
Combined
modules
(n=174)
Easier [1]
27%
29%
27%
28%
Stable [2]
48%
43%
59%
51%
7%
0%
8%
6%
18%
29%
6%
16%
1.9
2.0
1.8
1.9
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Fluctuates [2]
More difficult [3]
Average change in
availability score
(1=easier – 3=more
difficult)
Overall recent
change
There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the change in the availability of
methamphetamine in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.1096) indicating that the availability of methamphetamine
has remained stable over the past two years (Table 4.5).
Table 4.5: Change in availability of methamphetamine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Change in
availability of
methamphetamine
(%)
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=175)
Combined
modules
(n=174)
Easier [1]
20%
28%
Stable [2]
53%
51%
9%
6%
19%
16%
2.0
1.9
Stable
Stable
Fluctuates [2]
More difficult [3]
Average change in
availability score
(1=easier – 3=more
difficult)
Overall recent
change
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
70
There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the change in the availability of
methamphetamine by the frequent methamphetamine users in 2007 compared to 2006 and 2005 (p=0.1204)
indicating that the availability of methamphetamine has remained stable over the past three years (Table 4.6).
Table 4.6: Change in availability of methamphetamine by frequent methamphetamine users, 2005-2007
2005
2006
2007
Methamphetamine
users
(n=67)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=105)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=102)
Easier [1]
28%
15%
27%
Stable [2]
49%
57%
48%
9%
9%
7%
13%
19%
18%
1.9
2.0
1.9
Stable
Stable
Stable
Change in
availability of
methamphetamine
(%)
Fluctuates [2]
More difficult [3]
Average change in
availability score
(1=easier – 3=more
difficult)
Overall recent
change
4.4 Price of methamphetamine
4.4.1 Current price
In 2007, the frequent drug users reported the current median price of a point (0.1 grams) of
methamphetamine to be $100 (Table 4.7). The current median price of a gram of methamphetamine was
reported to be $600. There was no statistically significant difference between the three groups of frequent
drug users with respect to the mean price paid for a point of methamphetamine in 2007 (p=0.8027). The
mean price paid for a gram of methamphetamine was lower among the frequent methamphetamine users than
the frequent injecting drug users in 2007 ($583 vs. $861, p=0.0004). The KE spoken to reported the current
price of a point of methamphetamine to be $100.
Table 4.7: Current median (mean) price for methamphetamine (NZD) by frequent drug user group, 2007
Current price of
methamphetamine
Number with
knowledge
Median (mean) price
‘point’ (0.1 grams)
Number with
knowledge
Median (mean) price
gram
Methamphetamine
users
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
Combined
modules
n=71
n=21
n=38
n=130
$100 ($98)
$100 ($95)
$100 ($97)
$100 ($97)
n=43
n=7
n=18
n=68
$600 ($584)
$600 ($643)
$800 ($861)
$600 ($663)
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
71
There was no statistically significant difference in the mean price paid for a point (p=0.4443) or gram
(p=0.1763) of methamphetamine in 2007 compared to 2006 (Table 4.8).
Table 4.8: Current median (mean) price for methamphetamine (NZD) by combined frequent drug users,
2006-2007
Current price of
methamphetamine
2006
2007
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Number with
knowledge
Median (mean) price
‘point’ (0.1 grams)
Number with
knowledge
Median (mean) price
gram
n=144
n=130
$100 ($96)
$100 ($97)
n=75
n=68
$600 ($606)
$600 ($663)
There was no statistically significant difference in the mean price paid by the frequent methamphetamine
users for a point (p=0.2637) or gram (p=0.0872) of methamphetamine in 2007 compared to 2006 and 2005
(Table 4.9).
Table 4.9: Current median (mean) price for methamphetamine (NZD) by frequent methamphetamine users,
2005-2007
Current price of
methamphetamine
2005
2006
2007
Methamphetamine
users
Methamphetamine
users
Methamphetamine
users
n=48
n=78
n=71
$100 ($101)
$100 ($93)
$100 ($98)
n=34
n=53
n=43
$725 ($688)
$600 ($579)
$600 ($584)
Number with
knowledge
Median (mean) price
‘point’ (0.1 grams)
Number with
knowledge
Median (mean) price
gram
4.4.2 Change in price
In 2007, 60% of the frequent drug users reported that the price of methamphetamine had been ‘stable’ in the
previous six months (Table 4.10). The average score for the change in the price of methamphetamine for all
the frequent drug users was 2.0 which indicates that overall the price of methamphetamine was ‘stable’ over
the previous six months in 2007. There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
72
change in price of methamphetamine between the three groups of frequent drug users, with all three groups
indicating that the price of methamphetamine had been ‘stable’ over the previous six months in 2007
(p=0.7457). The KE described the price of methamphetamine as ‘stable’ over the past six months.
Table 4.10: Change in the price of methamphetamine in the past six months by frequent drug user group,
2007
Change in price of
methamphetamine
(%)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=96)
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n=17)
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=54)
Combined
modules
(n=167)
Decreasing [1]
19%
12%
13%
16%
Stable [2]
52%
76%
69%
60%
Fluctuating [2]
9%
6%
11%
10%
Increasing [3]
20%
6%
7%
14%
2.0
1.9
1.9
2.0
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Average change in
price score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
Overall recent
change
There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the change in the price of
methamphetamine in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.6113) indicating that the price of methamphetamine has
remained ‘stable’ over the past two years (Table 4.11).
Table 4.11: Change in the price of methamphetamine in the past six months by combined frequent drug
users, 2006-2007
Change in price of
methamphetamine
(%)
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=155)
Combined
modules
(n=167)
Decreasing [1]
23%
16%
Stable [2]
48%
60%
Fluctuating [2]
12%
10%
Increasing [3]
17%
14%
1.9
2.0
Stable
Stable
Average change in
price score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
Overall recent
change
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
73
There was no statistically significant difference in the average score by the frequent methamphetamine users
for the change in the price of methamphetamine in 2007 compared to 2006 and 2005 (p=0.3729) indicating
that the price of methamphetamine has remained ‘stable’ over the past three years (Table 4.12).
Table 4.12: Change in the price of methamphetamine in the past six months by frequent methamphetamine
users, 2005-2007
2005
2006
2007
Methamphetamine
users
(n=64)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=96)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=96)
Decreasing [1]
25%
23%
19%
Stable [2]
53%
46%
52%
Fluctuating [2]
9%
16%
9%
Increasing [3]
13%
16%
20%
2.0
1.9
2.0
Stable
Stable
Stable
Change in price of
methamphetamine
(%)
Average change in
price score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
Overall recent
change
4.5 Purity of methamphetamine
4.5.1 Current purity
In 2007, 36% of the frequent drug users described the current purity of methamphetamine as ‘high’, with a
further 36% describing the current purity of the drug as ‘fluctuating’ (Table 4.13). The average score for the
current purity of methamphetamine for all the frequent drug users was 2.3, which indicates that overall the
level of purity of methamphetamine was ‘medium/high’ in 2007. There was no statistically significant
difference in the average score for purity between the three groups of frequent drug users with all three
groups indicating the current purity of methamphetamine was ‘medium/high’ in 2007(p=0.3868).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
74
Table 4.13: Current purity of methamphetamine by frequent drug user group, 2007
Current purity
methamphetamine
(%)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=102)
Low [1]
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n=18)
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=46)
Combined
modules
(n=166)
9%
11%
7%
8%
Medium [2]
16%
28%
26%
20%
Fluctuates [2]
34%
22%
43%
36%
High [3]
41%
39%
24%
36%
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.3
Medium/
high
Medium/
high
Medium/
high
Medium/
high
Average purity score
(1=low – 3=high)
Overall current status
There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the current purity of
methamphetamine in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=1) indicating the current purity of methamphetamine has
remained ‘medium/high’ over the past two years (Table 4.14).
Table 4.14: Current purity of methamphetamine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Current purity
methamphetamine
(%)
Low [1]
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=166)
Combined
modules
(n=166)
6%
8%
Medium [2]
23%
20%
Fluctuates [2]
37%
36%
High [3]
34%
36%
2.3
2.3
Medium/
high
Medium/
high
Average purity score
(1=low – 3=high)
Overall current status
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
75
There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the current purity of
methamphetamine by the frequent methamphetamine users in 2007 compared to 2006 and 2005 (p=0.8848)
indicating the current purity of methamphetamine has remained ‘medium/high’ over the past three years
(Table 4.15).
Table 4.15: Current purity of methamphetamine by frequent methamphetamine users, 2005-2007
2005
2006
2007
Methamphetamine
users
(n=68)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=101)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=102)
3%
6%
9%
Medium [2]
25%
20%
16%
Fluctuates [2]
37%
40%
34%
High [3]
35%
35%
41%
2.3
2.3
2.3
Medium/
high
Medium/
high
Medium/
high
Current purity
methamphetamine
(%)
Low [1]
Average purity score
(1=low – 3=high)
Overall current status
4.5.2 Change in purity
In 2007, 33% of the frequent drug users reported that the purity of methamphetamine had been ‘stable’ in the
previous six months, with a further 30% saying that purity had ‘fluctuated’ over this time (Table 4.16). The
average score for the change in the purity of methamphetamine for all the frequent drug users was 1.9 which
indicates that overall the purity of methamphetamine was ‘stable/fluctuating’ over the past six months in
2007. There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the change in purity of
methamphetamine between the three groups of frequent drug users, with all three groups indicating that the
purity of methamphetamine had been ‘stable/fluctuating’ over the previous six months in 2007 (p=0.7638).
KE said the purity of methamphetamine had been ‘stable/fluctuating’ over the past six months.
Table 4.16: Change in purity of methamphetamine by frequent drug user group, 2007
Change in purity of
methamphetamine
(%)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=100)
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n=15)
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=45)
Combined
modules
(n=160)
Decreasing [1]
24%
27%
13%
21%
Stable [2]
37%
40%
22%
33%
Fluctuating [2]
23%
13%
51%
30%
Increasing [3]
16%
20%
13%
16%
1.9
1.9
2.0
1.9
Stable/
fluctuates
Stable/
fluctuates
Stable/
fluctuates
Stable/
fluctuates
Average change in
purity score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
Overall recent
change
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
76
There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the change in the purity of
methamphetamine in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.2523) indicating the purity of methamphetamine has
remained ‘stable/fluctuating’ over the past two years (Table 4.17).
Table 4.17: Change in purity of methamphetamine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Change in purity of
methamphetamine
(%)
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=156)
Combined
modules
(n=160)
Decreasing [1]
15%
21%
Stable [2]
41%
33%
Fluctuating [2]
28%
30%
Increasing [3]
17%
16%
2.0
1.9
Stable/
fluctuates
Stable/
fluctuates
Average change in
purity score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
Overall recent
change
There was no statistically significant difference in the average score by the frequent methamphetamine users
for the change in the purity of methamphetamine in 2007 compared to 2006 and 2005 (p=0.5943) indicating
the purity of methamphetamine has remained ‘stable/fluctuating’ over the past three years (Table 4.18).
Table 4.18: Change in purity of methamphetamine by frequent methamphetamine users, 2005-2007
2005
2006
2007
Methamphetamine
users
(n=68)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=96)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=100)
Decreasing [1]
21%
16%
24%
Stable [2]
35%
41%
37%
Fluctuating [2]
31%
28%
23%
Increasing [3]
13%
16%
16%
1.9
2.0
1.9
Stable/
fluctuates
Stable/
fluctuates
Stable/
fluctuates
Change in purity of
methamphetamine
(%)
Average change in
purity score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
Overall recent
change
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
77
4.6 Perceptions of the number of people using methamphetamine
In 2007, 48% of the frequent drug users thought ‘more’ people they know were using methamphetamine and
31% said ‘about the same’ number of people were using methamphetamine (Table 4.19). The average score
for all the frequent drug users for the question was 2.3 indicating that overall ‘more/the same’ number of
people were using methamphetamine compared to six months ago in 2007. There was no statistically
significant difference between the frequent drug users concerning perceptions of the number of people using
methamphetamine with all three groups saying the number of people using methamphetamine was ‘more/ the
same’ in the past six months in 2007 (p=0.7354). The KE believed the number of people using
methamphetamine had been ‘stable/increasing’ over the past six months.
Table 4.19: Perceptions of the number of people using methamphetamine by frequent drug user group, 2007
Number of people
using
methamphetamine
(%)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=101)
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n=27)
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=50)
Combined
modules
(n=178)
Less [1]
19%
22%
12%
17%
Same [2]
30%
26%
38%
31%
More [3]
51%
41%
46%
48%
2.3
2.2
2.4
2.3
More/
same
More/
same
More/
same
More/
same
Average number of
people using score
(1=less – 3=more)
Overall recent
change
There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the change in the number of people
using methamphetamine in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.1781) indicating that ‘more/the same’ number of
people have been using methamphetamine over the past two years (Table 4.20).
Table 4.20: Perceptions of the number of people using methamphetamine by combined frequent drug users,
2006-2007
Number of people
using
methamphetamine
(%)
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=175)
Combined
modules
(n=178)
Less [1]
23%
17%
Same [2]
34%
31%
More [3]
43%
48%
2.2
2.3
More/
same
More/
same
Average number of
people using score
(1=less – 3=more)
Overall recent
change
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
78
There was no statistically significant difference in the average score by the frequent methamphetamine users
for the change in the number of people using methamphetamine in 2007 compared to 2006 and 2005
(p=0.8923) indicating that ‘more/the same’ number of people have been using methamphetamine over the
past three years (Table 4.21).
Table 4.21: Perceptions of the number of people using methamphetamine by frequent methamphetamine
users, 2005-2007
2005
2006
2007
Methamphetamine
users
(n=71)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=102)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=101)
Less [1]
17%
19%
19%
Same [2]
38%
33%
30%
More [3]
44%
48%
51%
2.3
2.3
2.3
More/
same
More/
same
More/
same
Number of people
using
methamphetamine
(%)
Average number of
people using score
(1=less – 3=more)
Overall recent
change
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
79
4.7 Seizures of methamphetamine
Annual seizures of methamphetamine made by the New Zealand Police and New Zealand Customs Service
have fluctuated since 1999 (Figure 4.1). Particularly large seizures of methamphetamine were recorded in the
2002 and 2006 calendar years.
Figure 4.1: Grams of methamphetamine seized in New Zealand, 1999-2006
8,906
9,000
8,000
6,392
7,000
Weight (grams)
6,000
5,000
4,000
2,631
3,000
2,000
2,200
1,923
1,562
1,701
1,370
1,000
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Source : National Drug Intelligence Bureau (NDIB) (2005, 2006)
4.8 Clandestine methamphetamine laboratories dismantled
The number of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories dismantled each year by the New Zealand Police
increased dramatically from the year 2000 until 2003 (Figure 4.2). Since 2003 the number of
methamphetamine laboratories dismantled each year appears to have plateaued at around 200 per year (i.e.
the average number of methamphetamine laboratories detected for the years 2003-2006 is 200 laboratories).
However, there has been a consistent increase in the number of laboratories detected in the past three years
(i.e. the number of methamphetamine laboratories detected in 2006 is 16% higher than the number detected
in 2004).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
80
Figure 4.2: Number of methamphetamine laboratories dismantled in New Zealand, 2000-2006
250
204
202
200
211
Number (labs detected)
182
170
150
100
50
0
41
9
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Source : National Drug Intelligence Bureau (NDIB) (2005, 2006)
4.9 Pseudoephedrine and ephedrine seizures
Pseudoephedrine and ephedrine are precursor chemicals used to synthesise methamphetamine in New
Zealand. Seizures of pills and capsules of these precursor chemicals by the New Zealand Customs Service
have increased dramatically since 2001 (Figure 4.3). In 2002, ephedrine products were classified as Class C
controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, and there was a subsequent greater focus on these
substances by enforcement agencies. The number of pseudoephedrine pills seized in 2006 was 983% higher
than in 2002 (i.e. 2,763,494 in 2006 vs. 254,987 in 2002).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
81
Figure 4.3: Number of tablets/capsules of ephedrine precursors seized in New Zealand, 2000-2006
2,763,494
3,000,000
Number (pills/capsules)
2,500,000
1,857,692
2,046,312
2,000,000
1,500,000
830,320
1,000,000
254,987
500,000
10,308
32,653
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Source : National Drug Intelligence Bureau (NDIB) (2005, 2006)
4.10 Amphetamine use in the general population
The New Zealand national household drug survey asks about amphetamine use in general and this category
includes amphetamine sulphate and methamphetamine. There was no statistically significant change in the
proportion of the New Zealand population aged 15-45 years old who had ever tried amphetamines between
2006 and 2003 (9.0% vs. 9.3%, p=0.7290) (Wilkins and Sweetsur, 2008). A higher proportion of the
population had tried amphetamine in 2006 compared to 1998 (9.3% vs. 7.6%, p=0.0315) (Wilkins and
Sweetsur, 2008). There was also no statistically significant change in the proportion of the population who
had used amphetamine in the previous 12 months in 2006 compared to 2003 (3.4% vs. 4.0%; p=0.3377)
(Wilkins and Sweetsur, 2008). A lower proportion of the population had used amphetamines in the past year
in 2006 compared to 2001 (3.4% vs. 5.0%, p=0.0085) (Wilkins and Sweetsur, 2008).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
82
4.11 Summary of methamphetamine trends
• In 2007, the current availability of methamphetamine was reported to be ‘easy/very easy’
• The availability of methamphetamine has not changed in 2007 compared to 2006
• The frequent methamphetamine users reported that the availability of methamphetamine had not
changed in 2007 compared to 2006 and 2005
• In 2007, a point (0.1 grams) of methamphetamine cost a median price of $100 and a gram of
methamphetamine cost a median price of $600. The frequent methamphetamine users paid lower
prices for a gram of methamphetamine than the other frequent drug users
• The overall price of methamphetamine has not changed over the past three years
• In 2007, the current purity of methamphetamine was considered to be ‘medium/high’
• The frequent methamphetamine users reported the purity of methamphetamine to be ‘medium/high’
in 2005, 2006 and 2007
• The purity of methamphetamine has remained ‘stable/fluctuating’ over the past two years
• The number of people using methamphetamine was described as ‘more/the same’ in both 2006 and
2007
• The frequent methamphetamine users described the number of people using methamphetamine as
‘more/the same’ in 2005, 2006 and 2007
• The number of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories detected in 2006 was 16% higher than the
number detected in 2004
• The number of pills of methamphetamine precursors seized was 983% higher in 2006 compared to
2002
• National household survey data indicates that the population prevalence of use of amphetamine did
not change in 2006 compared to 2003
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
83
5. Crystal methamphetamine
5.1 Introduction
Crystal methamphetamine (‘ice’, ‘crystal’ or ‘shabu’) is the crystallised form of methamphetamine
(Matsumoto et al., 2002, McKetin and McLaren, 2004). It is currently thought to be largely manufactured in
Asia and smuggled into New Zealand across the border. Imported crystal methamphetamine is sometimes
perceived by users to be more professionally made and more potent than the locally manufactured
methamphetamine, known in New Zealand as ‘P’ or pure (Wilkins et al., 2004). However, recent ESR
analysis suggests that there is typically little difference in purity between locally made methamphetamine
and imported crystal methamphetamine in New Zealand. Among drug users there is sometimes no clear
distinction between methamphetamine and crystal methamphetamine, with some users describing all
methamphetamine as crystal methamphetamine including the locally made ‘P’. With respect to
pharmacological effects there may be little difference between the two substances, yet based on the
understanding that local users sometimes distinguish between a local methamphetamine and imported crystal
methamphetamine there is some justification for monitoring the two separately.
In 2006, we found that approximately 40% of the frequent drug users answering the crystal
methamphetamine section did not appear to make a ready distinction between crystal methamphetamine and
methamphetamine (i.e. they provided identical answers to the two sections). Consequently in 2007, in order
to ensure the participant did make a clear distinction between crystal methamphetamine and
methamphetamine the interviewer provided the participant with a short description of crystal
methamphetamine (i.e. ‘ice comes in large crystals and is usually imported’) and was directed to skip the
crystal methamphetamine section if the participant did not make a ready distinction between
methamphetamine and crystal methamphetamine. As a result, less people answered the crystal
methamphetamine section in 2007 than in 2006, but we contend that the 2007 respondents are likely to have
greater levels of knowledge of crystal methamphetamine.
In this chapter we draw on the knowledge of the frequent methamphetamine users to compare trends in
crystal methamphetamine in 2007 back to 2006 and 2005. However, low numbers in 2005 reduce our ability
to find statistically significant differences over these years.
5.2 Knowledge of crystal methamphetamine trends
In 2007, 23% of the frequent drug users interviewed (n=74) indicated they felt confident enough to comment
on the price, purity and availability of crystal methamphetamine in the previous six months. This included
51% of the frequent methamphetamine users (n=53), 3% of the frequent ecstasy users (n=2) and 17% of the
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
84
frequent injecting drug users (n=18). As there were only small numbers of frequent drug users in some
individual modules with knowledge of crystal methamphetamine we present the findings for the combined
group of all the frequent drug users.
5.3 Availability of crystal methamphetamine
5.3.1 Current availability
In 2007, 41% of the frequent drug users described the current availability of crystal methamphetamine as
‘easy’, while 31% described the current availability of crystal methamphetamine as ‘difficult’ (Table 5.1).
The average score for the current availability of crystal methamphetamine was 2.1, which indicates that
overall the current level of availability of crystal methamphetamine was ‘easy’ in 2007. There was no
statistically significant difference in the average score for the current availability of crystal
methamphetamine in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.8195), indicating that the availability of crystal
methamphetamine has remained ‘easy’ over the past two years.
Table 5.1: Current availability of crystal methamphetamine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Current availability
of crystal
methamphetamine
(%)
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=107)
Combined
modules
(n=71)
Very easy [1]
24%
25%
Easy [2]
48%
41%
Difficult [3]
23%
31%
Very difficult [4]
5%
3%
Average availability
score (1=very easy
– 4=very difficult)
2.1
2.1
Easy
Easy
Overall current
status
There was some evidence that the current availability of crystal methamphetamine had declined over the past
three years. The frequent methamphetamine users were more likely to say the current availability of crystal
methamphetamine was difficult in 2007 compared to 2005 (2.1 vs. 1.8), although this difference was not
statistically significant (p=0.1501) (Table 5.2).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
85
Table 5.2: Current availability of crystal methamphetamine by frequent methamphetamine users, 2005-2007
2005
2006
2007
Methamphetamine
users
(n=39)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=64)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=52)
Very easy [1]
38%
25%
29%
Easy [2]
46%
52%
37%
Difficult [3]
15%
19%
33%
Very difficult [4]
0%
5%
2%
Average availability
score (1=very easy
– 4=very difficult)
1.8
2.0
2.1
Easy
Easy
Easy
Current availability
of crystal
methamphetamine
(%)
Overall current
status
5.3.2 Change in availability
In 2007, 52% of the frequent drug users reported that the availability of crystal methamphetamine had been
‘stable’ in the previous six months, with a further 26% saying the availability of crystal methamphetamine
had become ‘more difficult’ in the past six months (Table 5.3). The average score for the change in
availability of crystal methamphetamine was 2.1, which indicates that overall the availability of crystal
methamphetamine was ‘stable/more difficult’ over the past six months in 2007. There was no statistically
significant difference in the average score for the change in the availability of crystal methamphetamine in
2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.3644), which indicates that the availability of crystal methamphetamine has
remained ‘stable/more difficult’ over the past two years. The recent decline in the availability of crystal
methamphetamine, as reported by the frequent drug users, may reflect the impact of the significant seizures
of imported crystal methamphetamine made in 2006 and more recently in 2007.
Table 5.3: Change in availability of crystal methamphetamine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Change in
availability
of crystal
methamphetamine
(%)
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=106)
Combined
modules
(n=69)
Easier [1]
10%
16%
Stable [2]
50%
52%
Fluctuates [2]
10%
6%
More difficult [3]
29%
26%
2.2
2.1
Stable/
more difficult
Stable/
more difficult
Average change in
availability score
(1=easier – 3=more
difficult)
Overall recent
change
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
86
The frequent methamphetamine users were statistically significantly more likely to say the availability of
crystal methamphetamine was more difficult in 2007 compared to 2005 (2.2 vs. 1.8, p=0.0178) (Table 5.4).
The frequent methamphetamine users were also more likely to say the availability of crystal
methamphetamine was more difficult in 2006 compared to 2005 (2.1 vs. 1.8), and this was close to being
statistically significant (p=0.0555).
Table 5.4: Change in availability of crystal methamphetamine by frequent methamphetamine users, 20052007
2005
2006
2007
Methamphetamine
users
(n=40)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=64)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=50)
Easier [1]
28%
13%
12%
Stable [2]
52%
50%
52%
Fluctuates [2]
10%
14%
6%
More difficult [3]
10%
23%
30%
1.8
2.1
2.2
Stable/
easier
Stable/
more difficult
Stable/
more difficult
Change in
availability
of crystal
methamphetamine
(%)
Average change in
availability score
(1=easier – 3=more
difficult)
Overall recent
change
5.4 Price of crystal methamphetamine
5.4.1 Current price
In 2007, the frequent drug users reported the current median price of a point (0.1 grams) of crystal
methamphetamine to be $100, and the current median price of a gram of crystal methamphetamine to be
$700 (Table 5.5). There was no statistically significant change in the mean price of a point of crystal
methamphetamine in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.1914). Participants were not asked about the price of a
gram of crystal methamphetamine in 2006.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
87
Table 5.5: Current median (mean) price for crystal methamphetamine (NZD) by combined frequent drug
users, 2006-2007
Current price of
crystal
methamphetamine
2006
2007
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Number with
knowledge
Median (mean) price
‘point’ (0.1 grams)
n=76
n=45
$100 ($100)
$100 ($106)
Number with
knowledge
-
n=36
Median (mean) price
gram
-
$700 ($685)
There was no statistically significant change in the mean price paid by the frequent methamphetamine users
for a point of crystal methamphetamine in 2007 compared to 2006 and 2005 (p=0.0786).
Table 5.6: Current median (mean) price for crystal methamphetamine (NZD) by frequent methamphetamine
users, 2005-2007
Current price of
crystal
methamphetamine
Number with
knowledge
Median (mean) price
‘point’ (0.1 grams)
2005
2006
2007
Methamphetamine
users
Methamphetamine
users
Methamphetamine
users
n=32
n=38
n=34
$100 ($113)
$100 ($95)
$100 ($107)
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
88
5.4.2 Change in price
In 2007, 59% of the frequent drug users reported that the price of crystal methamphetamine had been ‘stable’
in the previous six months and 20% reported that the price of crystal methamphetamine had ‘increased’ in
the past six months (Table 5.7). The average score for the change in the price of crystal methamphetamine
was 2.1, which indicates that overall the price was ‘stable’ over the past six months in 2007. There was no
statistically significant change in the average score for the change in the price of crystal methamphetamine in
2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.5137), indicating the price of crystal methamphetamine has remained ‘stable’
over the past two years.
Table 5.7: Change in the price of crystal methamphetamine in the past six months by combined frequent
drug users, 2006-2007
Change in price of
crystal
methamphetamine
(%)
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=98)
Combined
modules
(n=69)
Decreasing [1]
11%
9%
Stable [2]
61%
59%
Fluctuating [2]
10%
12%
Increasing [3]
17%
20%
2.1
2.1
Stable
Stable
Average change in
price score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
Overall recent
change
There was some evidence that the price of crystal methamphetamine has been increasing over the past three
years. The frequent methamphetamine users were more likely to say the price of crystal methamphetamine
was increasing in 2007 compared to 2005 (2.2 vs. 2.0), although this difference was not found to be
statistically significant (p=0.426) (Table 5.8).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
89
Table 5.8: Change in the price of crystal methamphetamine in the past six months by frequent
methamphetamine users, 2005-2007
2005
2006
2007
Methamphetamine
users
(n=37)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=61)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=49)
Decreasing [1]
16%
11%
8%
Stable [2]
62%
56%
55%
Fluctuating [2]
3%
13%
10%
Increasing [3]
19%
20%
27%
2.0
2.1
2.2
Stable
Stable
Stable
Change in price of
crystal
methamphetamine
(%)
Average change in
price score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
Overall recent
change
5.5 Purity of crystal methamphetamine
5.5.1 Current purity
In 2007, 52% of the frequent drug users described the current purity of crystal methamphetamine as ‘high’,
with a further 26% describing the current purity as ‘fluctuating’ (Table 5.9). The average score for the
current purity of crystal methamphetamine was 2.5, which indicates the purity of crystal methamphetamine
was ‘high/medium’ in 2007. There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the
current purity of crystal methamphetamine in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.3375), indicating that the purity
of crystal methamphetamine has remained ‘high/medium’ over the past two years.
Table 5.9: Current purity of crystal methamphetamine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Current purity
crystal
methamphetamine
(%)
Low [1]
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=103)
Combined
modules
(n=73)
9%
4%
Medium [2]
25%
18%
Fluctuates [2]
18%
26%
High [3]
48%
52%
2.4
2.5
High/
medium
High/
medium
Average purity score
(1=low – 3=high)
Overall current
status
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
90
There was no statistically significant difference in the average score by the frequent methamphetamine users
for the current purity of crystal methamphetamine in 2007 compared to 2006 and 2005 (p=0.3375),
indicating that the purity of crystal methamphetamine has remained ‘high/medium’ over the past three years
(Table 5.10).
Table 5.10: Current purity of crystal methamphetamine by frequent methamphetamine users, 2005-2007
2005
2006
2007
Methamphetamine
users
(n=40)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=63)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=53)
Low [1]
10%
10%
4%
Medium [2]
13%
19%
19%
Fluctuates [2]
20%
16%
21%
High [3]
58%
56%
57%
2.5
2.5
2.5
High/
medium
High/
medium
High/
medium
Current purity
crystal
methamphetamine
(%)
Average purity score
(1=low – 3=high)
Overall current
status
5.5.2 Change in purity
In 2007, 51% of the frequent drug users reported that the purity of crystal methamphetamine had been
‘stable’ in the previous six months, with a further 22% saying that purity had ‘fluctuated’ over this time
(Table 5.11). The average score for the change in the purity of crystal methamphetamine for all the frequent
drug users was 2.1, which indicates that overall the purity of crystal methamphetamine was
‘stable/fluctuating’ over the past six months in 2007. There was no statistically significant difference in the
average score for the change in purity of crystal methamphetamine in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.4755),
indicating the purity of crystal methamphetamine has remained ‘stable/fluctuating’ over the past two years.
Table 5.11: Change in purity of crystal methamphetamine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Change in purity of
crystal
methamphetamine
(%)
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=102)
Combined
modules
(n=68)
Decreasing [1]
13%
9%
Stable [2]
54%
51%
Fluctuating [2]
18%
22%
Increasing [3]
16%
18%
2.0
2.1
Stable/
fluctuates
Stable/
fluctuates
Average change in
purity score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
Overall recent
change
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
91
There was no statistically significant difference in the average score by the frequent methamphetamine users
for the change in purity of crystal methamphetamine in 2007 compared to 2006 and 2005 (p=0.3178),
indicating the purity of crystal methamphetamine has remained ‘stable/fluctuating’ over the past three years
(Table 5.12).
Table 5.12: Change in purity of crystal methamphetamine by the frequent methamphetamine users, 20052007
2005
2006
2007
Methamphetamine
users
(n=38)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=62)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=50)
5%
16%
8%
Stable [2]
55%
48%
56%
Fluctuating [2]
16%
18%
18%
Increasing [3]
24%
18%
18%
2.2
2.0
2.1
Stable/
increasing
Stable/
fluctuates
Stable/
increasing
Change in purity of
crystal
methamphetamine
(%)
Decreasing [1]
Average change in
purity score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
Overall recent
change
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
92
5.6 Perceptions of the number of people using crystal methamphetamine
In 2007, 36% of the frequent drug users thought ‘more’ people they know were using crystal
methamphetamine, while 35% said ‘about the same’ number were using crystal methamphetamine (Table
5.13). The average score for all the frequent drug users for the question was 2.1 indicating that overall ‘the
same/more’ people were using crystal methamphetamine compared to six months ago in 2007. There was no
statistically significant difference in the average score for the change in the number of people using crystal
methamphetamine in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.6417), indicating that the number of people using crystal
methamphetamine has remained the ‘same/more’ over the past two years.
Table 5.13: Perceptions of the number of people using crystal methamphetamine, 2006-2007
Number of people
using crystal
methamphetamine
(%)
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=108)
Combined
modules
(n=71)
Less [1]
25%
29%
Same [2]
37%
35%
More [3]
38%
36%
2.1
2.1
Same/
more
Same/
more
Average number of
people using score
(1=less – 3=more)
Overall recent
change
There was some evidence that the increase in the number of people using crystal methamphetamine has been
declining over the past three years. The frequent methamphetamine users were more likely to say that less
people they know were using crystal methamphetamine in 2007 compared to 2005 (2.1 vs. 2.3), although this
difference was not found to be statistically significant (p=0.4154) (Table 5.14).
Table 5.14: Perceptions of the number of people using crystal methamphetamine by frequent
methamphetamine users, 2006-2007
2005
2006
2007
Methamphetamine
users
(n=26)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=65)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=52)
Less [1]
12%
23%
31%
Same [2]
42%
32%
29%
More [3]
46%
45%
40%
2.3
2.2
2.1
Same/
more
Same/
more
Same/
more
Number of people
using crystal
methamphetamine
(%)
Average number of
people using score
(1=less – 3=more)
Overall recent
change
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
93
5.7 Seizures of crystal methamphetamine
Increased annual seizures of crystal methamphetamine have been recorded since 2004 (Figure 5.1). Seizures
of crystal methamphetamine increased dramatically in 2006 and this was largely accounted for by a single
very large interception at the border of 95 kilograms of crystal methamphetamine and 150 kilograms of
pseudoephedrine. This is the largest seizure of crystal methamphetamine made in New Zealand to date.
Figure 5.1: Grams of crystal methamphetamine seized in New Zealand, 2002-2006
96,795
100000
90000
80000
Weight (grams)
70000
60000
50000
40000
26,268
30000
16,019
20000
10000
908
862
0
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Source : National Drug Intelligence Bureau (NDIB) (2005, 2006)
5.8 Crystal methamphetamine use in the general population
The New Zealand national household drug survey asks specifically about ice (crystal methamphetamine).
There was no statistically significant change in the proportion of the New Zealand population aged 15-45
years old who had ever tried crystal methamphetamine between 2003 and 2006 (1.8% both years, p=0.8993)
(Wilkins and Sweetsur, 2008). A higher proportion of the population had tried crystal methamphetamine in
2006 compared to 1998 (1.8% vs. 0.2%, p<0.0001) (Wilkins and Sweetsur, 2008). There was also no
statistically significant change in the proportion of the population who had used crystal methamphetamine in
the previous 12 months in 2006 compared to 2003 (0.8% vs. 0.9%; p=0.7067) (Wilkins and Sweetsur, 2008).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
94
5.9 Summary of crystal methamphetamine trends
• In 2007, the current availability of crystal methamphetamine was reported to be ‘easy’
• The availability of crystal methamphetamine was reported to be ‘stable/more difficult’ in both 2006
and 2007. Large seizures of crystal methamphetamine at the border in 2006 and 2007 appear to have
impacted on the availability of this drug in New Zealand
• The frequent methamphetamine users were more likely to say the availability of crystal
methamphetamine was ‘more difficult’ in 2007 compared to 2005. Again this is consistent with the
impact of large seizures of crystal methamphetamine in 2006 and 2007
• In 2007, a point (0.1 grams) of crystal methamphetamine cost a median price of $100 and a gram
cost a median price of $700
• The price of crystal methamphetamine has not changed over the past three years
• In 2007, the current purity of crystal methamphetamine was described as ‘high/medium’
• The purity of crystal methamphetamine was described as ‘high/medium’ in 2007 and 2006
• The frequent methamphetamine users described the purity of crystal methamphetamine as
‘high/medium’ in 2005, 2006 and 2007
• The number of people using crystal methamphetamine was described as the ‘same/more’ in both
2006 and 2007
• Annual seizures of crystal methamphetamine have increased dramatically since 2004. A single very
large seizures was made in 2006
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
95
6. Ecstasy (MDMA)
6.1 Introduction
Ecstasy (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, MDMA or ‘E' or ‘X’) has both amphetamine and
hallucinogenic effects (Kuhn et al., 1998, Gowing et al., 2001, Gowing et al., 2002, Topp et al., 1998).
Ecstasy (MDMA) increases heart rate, blood pressure, and body temperature, and produces a sense of energy
and alertness (like standard amphetamines), but also a state of empathy for others (due to increased release of
serotonin) (Kuhn et al., 1998). High doses of ecstasy (MDMA) cause teeth clenching, paranoia, anxiety and
confusion (Kuhn et al., 1998). Ecstasy (MDMA) can cause hyperthermia (extreme heat stroke) resulting in
death when combined with sustained physical exercise and elevated temperatures, conditions commonly
found in dance clubs (these environments compound the natural pharmacological effect of ecstasy on the
body’s thermoregulatory mechanism) (Gowing et al., 2001, Gowing et al., 2002). Ecstasy (MDMA) can also
cause water intoxication and death when excessive amounts of water are consumed as the drug inhibits the
body’s ability to excrete fluid (Topp et al., 1998, Gowing et al., 2002). Although cases of serious adverse
effects from ecstasy (MDMA) use appear low relative to the extent of use, it is the unpredictability of
adverse events (dose is not predictive of adverse effects) and risk of mortality that makes the risks significant
(Gowing et al., 2002). Long term effects from ecstasy (MDMA) include insomnia, energy loss, depression,
irritability, muscle aches, and blurred vision (Topp et al., 1998). Ecstasy (MDMA) has also been
controversially linked to damage to serotonin terminals in the brain, with possible implications for short term
memory, cognitive function and mood regulation (Gowing et al., 2002).
6.2 Knowledge of ecstasy (MDMA) trends
In 2007, 50% of the frequent drug users interviewed (n=161) indicated they felt confident enough to
comment on the price, purity and availability of ecstasy (MDMA) in the previous six months. This included
39% of the frequent methamphetamine users (n=43), 97% of the frequent ecstasy users (n=102) and 15% of
the frequent injecting drug users (n=16).
6.3 Availability of ecstasy (MDMA)
6.3.1 Current availability of ecstasy (MDMA)
In 2007, 55% of the frequent drug users described the current availability of ecstasy (MDMA) as ‘easy’ with
25% describing the availability of the drug as ‘very easy’ (Table 6.1). The average score for the current
availability of ecstasy (MDMA) for all the frequent drug users was 2.0, which indicates that overall the
current level of availability of ecstasy (MDMA) was ‘easy’ in 2007. There was no statistically significant
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
96
difference in the average score for the current availability of ecstasy (MDMA) between the three groups of
frequent drug users in 2007 (p=0.7978).
Table 6.1: Current availability of ecstasy (MDMA) by frequent drug user group, 2007
Current
availability of
ecstasy (MDMA)
(%)
Methamphetamin
e users
(n=41)
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n=100)
Combined
modules
(n=157) (includes
frequent injecting
drug users)
Very easy [1]
29%
23%
25%
Easy [2]
44%
60%
55%
Difficult [3]
22%
17%
19%
Very difficult [4]
5%
0%
2%
Average availability
score (1=very easy
– 4=very difficult)
2.0
1.9
2.0
Easy
Easy
Easy
Overall
status
current
There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the current availability of ecstasy in
2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.1889), indicating that the availability of ecstasy has remained ‘easy’ over the
past two years (Table 6.2).
Table 6.2: Current availability of ecstasy (MDMA) by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Current
availability of
ecstasy (MDMA)
(%)
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=200)
Combined
modules
(n=157)
Very easy [1]
20%
25%
Easy [2]
54%
55%
Difficult [3]
27%
19%
Very difficult [4]
0%
2%
Average
availability score
(1=very easy –
4=very difficult)
2.1
2.0
Easy
Easy
Overall
status
current
6.3.2 Change in availability of ecstasy (MDMA)
In 2007, 47% of the frequent drug users reported that the availability of ecstasy (MDMA) had been ‘stable’
in the previous six months and 28% indicated that the availability of ecstasy (MDMA) had become ‘easier’
in the previous six months (Table 6.3). The average score for the change in the availability of ecstasy
(MDMA) for all the frequent drug users was 1.9, which indicates that overall the availability of ecstasy
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
97
(MDMA) was ‘stable’ over the last six months in 2007. There was no statistically significant difference in
the average score for the change in availability of ecstasy (MDMA) between the three groups of frequent
drug users, with all three groups indicating that the availability of ecstasy (MDMA) had been ‘stable’ over
the previous six months in 2007 (p=0.1057). Several KE reported the availability of ecstasy had become
easier in the past six months.
Table 6.3: Change in availability of ecstasy (MDMA) by frequent drug user group, 2007
Change in
availability
of
ecstasy
(MDMA) (%)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=59)
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n=106)
Combined modules
(n=154)(includes
frequent injecting
drug users)
Easier [1]
27%
32%
28%
Stable [2]
39%
46%
47%
2%
8%
6%
32%
13%
18%
2.0
1.8
1.9
Stable
Stable
Stable
Fluctuates [2]
More difficult [3]
Average change
in availability
score (1=easier –
3=more difficult)
Overall recent
change
There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the change in the availability of
ecstasy in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.6001), indicating that the availability of ecstasy was ‘stable’ in 2007
and 2006 (Table 6.4).
Table 6.4: Change in availability of ecstasy (MDMA) by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Change in
availability
of
ecstasy
(MDMA) (%)
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=194)
Combined
modules
(n=154)
Easier [1]
19%
28%
Stable [2]
45%
47%
Fluctuates [2]
23%
6%
More difficult [3]
13%
18%
1.9
1.9
Stable
Stable
Average change
in availability
score (1=easier –
3=more difficult)
Overall recent
change
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
98
6.4 Price of ecstasy (MDMA)
6.4.1 Current price of ecstasy (MDMA)
In 2007, the median price paid for a pill of ecstasy (MDMA) was reported to be $60 (Table 6.5). There was
no statistically significant difference between the three groups of frequent drug user with respect to the mean
price paid for a pill of ecstasy in 2007 (p=0.0724).
Table 6.5: Current median (mean) price for ecstasy (MDMA) (NZD) by frequent drug user group, 2007
Current price of
ecstasy (MDMA)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=36)
Median (mean) price
‘pill’
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n=73)
$50 ($52)
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=13)
$60 ($56)
$60 ($60)
Combined
modules
(n=122)
$60 ($55)
The mean price paid for a pill of ecstasy by the frequent drug users was lower in 2007 than in 2006 ($55 vs.
$59, p=0.0243) (Table 6.6).
Table 6.6: Current median (mean) price for ecstasy (MDMA) (NZD) by combined frequent drug users, 20062007
Current price of
ecstasy (MDMA)
Median
price ‘pill’
(mean)
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=190)
Combined
modules
(n=122)
$60 ($59)
$60 ($55)
6.4.2 Change in price of ecstasy (MDMA)
In 2007, 64% of the frequent drug users reported that the price of ecstasy (MDMA) had been ‘stable’ in the
previous six months with 15% saying the price had ‘fluctuated’ (Table 6.7). The average score for the change
in the price of ecstasy (MDMA) for all the frequent drug users was 1.9, which indicates that overall the price
of ecstasy was ‘stable’ over the previous six months in 2007. There was no statistically significant difference
in the average score for the change in price of ecstasy (MDMA) between the three groups of frequent drug
users, with all three groups indicating that the price of ecstasy (MDMA) had been ‘stable’ over the past six
months in 2007 (p=0.2375).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
99
Table 6.7: Change in the price of ecstasy (MDMA) in the past six months by frequent drug user group, 2007
Change in price
of ecstasy
(MDMA) (%)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=43)
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n=100)
Combined
modules
(n=158) (includes
frequent injecting
drug users)
Decreasing [1]
26%
10%
14%
Stable [2]
49%
69%
64%
Fluctuating [2]
16%
13%
15%
Increasing [3]
9%
8%
8%
Average change in
price score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
1.8
2.0
1.9
Stable
Stable
Stable
Overall recent
change
There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the change in the price of ecstasy in
2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.0867) indicating that the price of ecstasy has remained ‘stable/decreasing’ over
the past two years (Table 6.8).
Table 6.8: Change in the price of ecstasy (MDMA) in the past six months by combined frequent drug users,
2006-2007
Change in price
of ecstasy
(MDMA) (%)
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=187)
Combined
modules
(n=158)
Decreasing [1]
22%
14%
Stable [2]
58%
64%
Fluctuating [2]
12%
15%
Increasing [3]
7%
8%
Average change in
price score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
1.8
1.9
Stable/
decreasing
Stable/
decreasing
Overall recent
change
6.5 Purity of ecstasy (MDMA)
6.5.1 Current purity of ecstasy (MDMA)
In 2007, 33% of the frequent drug users described the current purity of ecstasy (MDMA) as ‘fluctuating’ and
30% described it as ‘high’ (Table 6.9). The average score for the current purity of ecstasy (MDMA) for all
the frequent drug users was 2.2 which indicates that overall the purity of ecstasy (MDMA) was
‘medium/high’ in 2007. There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the purity of
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
100
ecstasy (MDMA) between the three groups of frequent drug users with all three groups indicating the current
purity of ecstasy (MDMA) was ‘medium/high’ in 2007 (p=0.5128).
Table 6.9: Current purity of ecstasy (MDMA) by frequent drug user group, 2007
Current purity of
ecstasy (MDMA)
(%)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=42)
Low [1]
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n=98)
Combined modules
(n=156) (includes
frequent injecting
drug users)
7%
7%
8%
Medium [2]
43%
23%
29%
Fluctuates [2]
29%
38%
33%
High [3]
21%
32%
30%
2.1
2.2
2.2
Medium/
high
Medium/
high
Medium/
high
Average
purity
score (1=low –
3=high)
Overall
current
status
There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the current purity of ecstasy in 2007
compared to 2006 (p=0.8089) indicating that the purity of ecstasy has remained ‘medium/high’ over the past
two years (Table 6.10).
Table 6.10: Current purity of ecstasy (MDMA) by combined frequent drug user group, 2006-2007
Current purity of
ecstasy (MDMA)
(%)
Low [1]
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=191)
Combined
modules
(n=156)
8%
8%
Medium [2]
31%
29%
Fluctuates [2]
32%
33%
High [3]
29%
30%
2.2
2.2
Medium/
high
Medium/
high
Average purity
score (1=low –
3=high)
Overall
current
status
6.5.2 Change in purity of ecstasy (MDMA)
In 2007, 39% of the frequent drug users reported that the purity of ecstasy (MDMA) had been ‘stable’ in the
previous six months, with a further 36% saying that purity had ‘fluctuated’ over this time (Table 6.11). The
average score for the change in the purity of ecstasy (MDMA) for all the frequent drug users was 1.9, which
indicates that overall the purity of ecstasy (MDMA) was ‘stable/fluctuating’ over the last six months in 2007.
There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the change in purity of ecstasy
(MDMA) between the three groups of frequent drug users, with all three groups indicating that the purity of
ecstasy (MDMA) had been ‘stable/fluctuating’ over the previous six months in 2007 (p=0.9195).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
101
Table 6.11: Change in purity of ecstasy (MDMA) by frequent drug user group, 2007
Change in purity
of
ecstasy
(MDMA)
(%)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=40)
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n=95)
Combined modules
(n=151) (includes
frequent injecting
drug users)
Decreasing [1]
15%
15%
15%
Stable [2]
38%
38%
39%
Fluctuating [2]
35%
39%
36%
Increasing [3]
13%
8%
10%
2.0
1.9
1.9
Stable/
Fluctuates
Stable/
Fluctuates
Stable/
fluctuates
Average change in
purity score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
Overall recent
change
There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the change in purity of ecstasy in
2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.7855) indicating that the purity of ecstasy has remained ‘stable/fluctuating’
over the past two years (Table 6.12).
Table 6.12: Change in purity of ecstasy (MDMA) by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Change in purity
of ecstasy
(MDMA)
(%)
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=183)
Combined
modules
(n=151)
Decreasing [1]
14%
15%
Stable [2]
36%
39%
Fluctuating [2]
40%
36%
Increasing [3]
10%
10%
2.0
1.9
Stable/
fluctuates
Stable/
fluctuates
Average change in
purity score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
Overall recent
change
6.6 Perceptions of the number of people using ecstasy (MDMA)
In 2007, 52% of the frequent drug users thought ‘more’ of people they know were using ecstasy (MDMA)
and 42% said the ‘same’ number of people they know were using ecstasy (MDMA) in the previous six
months (Table 6.13). The average score for all the frequent drug users for the question was 2.5 indicating
that overall the ‘more/same’ people were using ecstasy (MDMA) compared to six months ago in 2007. The
frequent ecstasy users were statistically significantly more likely than the frequent methamphetamine users
to say that ‘more’ people were using ecstasy in 2007 (2.5 vs. 2.3, p=0.0459). Several KE reported that they
had observed increased use of ecstasy in the past six months.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
102
Table 6.13: Perceptions of the number of people using ecstasy (MDMA) by frequent drug user group, 2007
Number of
people using
ecstasy (MDMA)
(%)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=42)
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n=102)
Combined modules
(n=159) (includes
frequent injecting
drug users)
Less [1]
14%
3%
6%
Same [2]
43%
39%
42%
More [3]
43%
58%
52%
2.3
2.5
2.5
Same/
More
More/
same
More/
same
Average number
of people using
score (1=less –
3=more)
Overall recent
change
The average score for the number of people using ecstasy was statistically significantly higher in 2007
compared to 2006 (2.5 vs. 2.3, p=0.0111) indicating that more people were using ecstasy in 2007 compared
to 2006 (Table 6.14).
Table 6.14: Perceptions of the number of people using ecstasy (MDMA) by combined frequent drug users,
2006-2007
Number of
people using
ecstasy (MDMA)
(%)
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=196)
Combined
modules
(n=159)
Less [1]
11%
6%
Same [2]
51%
42%
More [3]
39%
52%
2.3
2.5
Same/
more
More/
same
Average number
of people using
score (1=less –
3=more)
Overall recent
change
6.7 Seizures of ecstasy (MDMA)
Annual seizures of ecstasy (MDMA) pills made by the New Zealand Police and New Zealand Customs
Service increased dramatically in 2001 and remained high until 2003 (Figure 6.1). Seizures of ecstasy
(MDMA) have declined steady since 2003 to fairly low levels. KE in drug enforcement attribute the recent
decline in seizures of ecstasy (MDMA) to more elaborate smuggling methods being used by international
drug trafficking groups rather than a decline in the use of the drug.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
103
Figure 6.1: Pills of ecstasy (MDMA) seized in New Zealand, 2000-2006
300,000
256,973
266,175
250,000
Number (pills)
200,000
150,000
83,448
100,000
45,387
25,401
50,000
4,995
9,352
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Source : National Drug Intelligence Bureau (NDIB) (2005, 2006)
6.8 Ecstasy (MDMA) use in the general population
The proportion of the New Zealand population aged 15-45 years old who had ever tried ecstasy (MDMA)
increased in 2006 compared to 2003 (8.0% vs. 5.5%, p=0.0019) (Wilkins and Sweetsur, 2008). There was
also an increase in the proportion of the population who had ever tried ecstasy in 2006 compared to 2001
(8.0% vs. 5.4%, p=0.0003) and in 2006 compared to 1998 (8.0% vs. 3.1%, p=0.0019) (Wilkins and
Sweetsur, 2008). There was no statistically significant change in the proportion of people who had used
ecstasy in the previous year in 2006 compared to 2003, although this was close to being statistically
significant (3.9% vs. 2.9%, p=0.0808) (Wilkins and Sweetsur, 2008). There was a statistically significant
increase in the last year use of ecstasy in 2006 compared to 1998 (3.9% vs. 1.5%, p<0.0001) (Wilkins and
Sweetsur, 2008).
6.9 Summary of ecstasy (MDMA) trends
•
In 2007, the current availability of ecstasy (MDMA) was reported to be ‘easy’
•
The availability of ecstasy (MDMA) remained the same in 2006 and 2007
•
In 2007, a pill of ecstasy (MDMA) cost a median price of $60
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
104
• The mean price of a pill of ecstasy was lower in 2007 than in 2006
• In 2007, the current purity of ecstasy (MDMA) was considered to be ‘medium/high’
• The purity of ecstasy (MDMA) has been ‘stable/fluctuating’ over the past two years
• In 2007, the frequent ecstasy users were more likely to say that ‘more’ people they know were using
ecstasy than the other frequent drug user groups
• Overall, the frequent drug users perceived that ‘more’ people were using ecstasy in 2007 than in
2006
• Annual seizures of ecstasy (MDMA) have declined dramatically in recent years and this is thought to
reflect the fact that drug smugglers are using more sophisticated smuggling techniques
• National household survey data indicates the population prevalence of use of ecstasy (MDMA) has
increased in recent years
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
105
7. Cannabis
7.1 Introduction
Cannabis is New Zealand’s most widely used illegal drug and the third most popular drug after alcohol and
tobacco. The supply of cannabis in New Zealand is met almost entirely through domestic cannabis
cultivation, either via clandestine outdoor cultivation or indoor hydroponics growing techniques (Yska, 1990,
Wilkins et al., 2002b, Wilkins and Casswell, 2003). The black market for cannabis in New Zealand has
recently been estimated to have an annual dollar turnover of $131-$190 million dollars (NZD) (Wilkins et
al., 2002a, Wilkins et al., 2005c). Cannabis is sold in New Zealand within private social networks and from
public drug houses, known as ‘tinny’ houses (Wilkins et al., 2005b). Recent analysis of cannabis purchasing
in New Zealand has found that adolescents aged 15-17 years old were more likely to purchase their cannabis
from ‘tinny’ houses than older cannabis buyers (Wilkins et al., 2005b). Exploration of the structure of the
illegal market for cannabis in New Zealand suggests 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 (Wilkins and Sweetsur, 2006a). High spending on cannabis has greatest
financial impact among low income groups, where approximately 8% of low income cannabis buyers are
spending 20% or more of their gross annual personal income on cannabis (Wilkins and Sweetsur, 2007).
7.2 Knowledge of cannabis trends
In 2007, 82% of the frequent drug users interviewed (n=262) indicated they felt confident enough to
comment on the price, purity and availability of cannabis in the previous six months. This included 84% of
the frequent methamphetamine users (n=92), 87% of the frequent ecstasy users (n=91) and 73% of the
frequent injecting drug users (n=79).
7.3 Availability of cannabis
7.3.1 Current availability of cannabis
In 2007, 64% of the frequent drug users described the current availability of cannabis as ‘very easy’, with a
further 30% describing the availability of the drug as ‘easy’ (Table 7.1). The average score for the current
availability of cannabis for all the frequent drug users was 1.4 which indicates that overall the current level
of availability of cannabis was ‘very easy/easy’ in 2007. There was no statistically significant difference in
the average score for the current availability of cannabis between the three groups of frequent drug users,
with all three groups reporting the current availability of cannabis as ‘very easy/easy’ in 2007 (p=0.6114).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
106
Table 7.1: Current availability of cannabis by frequent drug user group, 2007
Current
availability of
cannabis (%)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=99)
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n=93)
Intravenous
users (IDU)
(n=78)
drug
Combined
modules
(n=263)
Very easy [1]
70%
59%
64%
64%
Easy [2]
25%
32%
33%
30%
Difficult [3]
5%
6%
1%
5%
Very difficult [4]
0%
2%
1%
1%
Average availability
score (1=very easy
– 4=very difficult)
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.4
Very easy/
easy
Very easy/
easy
Very easy/
easy
Very easy
/ easy
Overall current
status
There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the current availability of cannabis in
2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.3027) indicating that the availability of cannabis has remained ‘very easy/easy’
over the past two years (Table 7.2).
Table 7.2: Current availability of cannabis by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Current
availability of
cannabis (%)
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=276)
Combined
modules
(n=263)
Very easy [1]
60%
64%
Easy [2]
36%
30%
Difficult [3]
4%
5%
Very difficult [4]
0%
1%
Average
availability score
(1=very easy –
4=very difficult)
1.5
1.4
Very easy
/ easy
Very easy
/ easy
Overall current
status
7.3.2 Change in availability of cannabis
In 2007, 71% of the frequent drug users reported that the availability of cannabis had been ‘stable’ in the
previous six months (Table 7.3). The average score for the change in the availability of cannabis for all the
frequent drug users was 2.0 which indicates that overall the availability of cannabis was ‘stable’ over the past
six months in 2007. There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the change in
availability of cannabis between the three groups of frequent drug users, with all three groups indicating that
the availability of cannabis had been ‘stable’ over the previous six months in 2007 (p=0.06).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
107
Table 7.3: Change in availability of cannabis by frequent drug user group, 2007
Change in
availability
of cannabis (%)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=91)
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n=92)
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=78)
Combined
modules
(n=261)
Easier [1]
9%
18%
5%
11%
Stable [2]
73%
63%
79%
71%
7%
11%
8%
8%
12%
8%
8%
9%
2.1
1.9
2.0
2.0
Stable
Stable
Stable
Stable
Fluctuates [2]
More difficult [3]
Average change in
availability score
(1=easier – 3=more
difficult)
Overall recent
change
There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the change in availability of cannabis
in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.3603) indicating that the availability of cannabis remained ‘stable’ over the
past two years (Table 7.4).
Table 7.4: Change in availability of cannabis by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Change in
availability
of cannabis (%)
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=274)
Combined
modules
(n=261)
Easier [1]
7%
11%
Stable [2]
69%
71%
Fluctuates [2]
15%
8%
More difficult [3]
9%
9%
Average change in
availability score
(1=easier –
3=more difficult)
2.0
2.0
Stable
Stable
Overall recent
change
7.4 Price of cannabis
7.4.1 Current price of cannabis
In 2007, the median price paid for a ‘tinny/foil’ (1.5 grams) of cannabis was $20 (Table 7.5). The median
price paid for an ounce (28 grams) of cannabis was $300. There was no statistically significant difference in
the mean price paid for a ‘tinny/ foil’ (p=0.2891) or an ounce (p=0.753) of cannabis between the three
groups of frequent drug users.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
108
Table 7.5: Current median (mean) price for cannabis (NZD) by frequent drug user group, 2007
Current price of
cannabis
Methamphetamine
users
Number with
knowledge
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
Combined
modules
n=69
n=74
n=64
n=207
$20 ($20)
$20 ($20)
$20 ($20)
$20 ($20)
n=45
n=24
n=62
n=101
$300 ($312)
$300 ($308)
$300 ($317)
$300 ($313)
Median (mean) price
for a ‘tinny/foil’ (1.5
grams)
Number with
knowledge
Median (mean) price
for an ounce (28
grams)
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
There was no statistically significant change in the mean price paid for a ‘tinny/foil’ of cannabis in 2007
compared to 2006 (p=0.4194) (Table 7.6). The mean price paid for an ounce of cannabis was statistically
significantly higher in 2007 compared to 2006 ($313 vs. $300, p=0.0168).
Table 7.6: Current median (mean) price for cannabis (NZD) by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Current price of
cannabis
Number with
knowledge
Median (mean)
price for a ‘tinny/foil’
(1.5 grams)
Number with
knowledge
Median (mean)
price for an ounce
(28 grams)
2006
2007
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
n=229
n=207
$20 ($20.37)
$20 ($20.22)
n=175
n=101
$300 ($300)
$300 ($313)
7.4.2 Change in price of cannabis
In 2007, 82% of the frequent drug users reported that the price of cannabis had been ‘stable’ in the previous
six months (Table 7.7). The average score for the change in the price of cannabis for all the frequent drug
users was 2.0 which indicates that overall the price of cannabis was ‘stable’ over the previous six months in
2007. There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the change in price of cannabis
between the three groups of frequent drug users with all three groups saying the price of cannabis had been
stable over the past six months in 2007 (p=0.5941).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
109
Table 7.7: Change in the price of cannabis in the last six months by frequent drug user group, 2007
Change in price of
cannabis (%)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=92)
Decreasing [1]
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n=83)
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=78)
Combined
modules
(n=253)
7%
5%
4%
4%
89%
80%
77%
82%
Fluctuating [2]
0%
7%
8%
5%
Increasing [3]
7%
8%
12%
9%
Average change in
price score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.0
Stable
Stable
Stable [2]
Overall
change
recent
Stable
Stable
There was no statistically significant change in the average score of the change in the price of cannabis in
2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.5466) indicating that the price of cannabis has remained ‘stable’ over the past
two years (Table 7.8).
Table 7.8: Change in the price of cannabis in the last six months by combined frequent drug users, 20062007
Change in price of
cannabis (%)
Combined
modules
(n=269)
Decreasing [1]
Combined
modules
(n=253)
4%
4%
Stable [2]
74%
82%
Fluctuating [2]
10%
5%
Increasing [3]
11%
9%
2.1
2.0
Stable
Stable
Average change in
price score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
Overall
change
recent
7.5 Purity of cannabis
7.5.1 Current purity of cannabis
In 2007, 51% of the frequent drug users described the current strength of cannabis as ‘high’ with 34%
reporting the purity as ‘fluctuating’ (Table 7.9). The average score for the current strength of cannabis for all
the frequent drug users was 2.5 which indicates that overall the current strength of cannabis is
‘high/medium’. The frequent methamphetamine users were more likely than the frequent ecstasy users to
report the current purity of cannabis as high (2.6 vs. 2.3, p=0.0046). The frequent injecting drug users were
also more likely than the frequent ecstasy users to report the current strength of cannabis to be high and this
was close to being statistically significant (2.5 vs. 2.3, p=0.0536).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
110
Table 7.9: Current purity of cannabis by frequent drug user group, 2007
Current purity of
cannabis
(%)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=91)
Low [1]
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n=88)
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=79)
Combined
modules
(n=258)
0%
5%
0%
2%
Medium [2]
11%
15%
15%
14%
Fluctuates [2]
27%
42%
32%
34%
High [3]
60%
39%
53%
51%
2.6
2.3
2.5
2.5
High/
medium
Fluctuates/
high
High/
medium
High/
medium
Average purity score
(1=low – 3=high)
Overall
status
current
There was no statistically significant change in the average score for the current strength of cannabis in 2007
compared to 2006 (p=0.2066) indicating that the strength of cannabis has remained ‘high/medium’ over the
past two years (Table 7.10). However, the frequent methamphetamine users thought the strength of cannabis
was higher in 2007 than in 2006 (2.6 vs. 2.4, p=0.0284). A number of law enforcement KE reported
increasing incidence of hydroponic cannabis cultivation and this type of cultivation can produce particularly
potent forms of cannabis for sale. This trend in cannabis cultivation may explain the reports of more potent
cannabis by the frequent methamphetamine users in 2007 compared to 2006.
Table 7.10: Current purity of cannabis by combined frequent drug users and by frequent methamphetamine
users, 2006-2007
Current purity of
cannabis
(%)
Low [1]
2006
2007
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=267)
Combined
modules
(n=258)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=96)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=91)
4%
2%
4%
0%
Medium [2]
16%
14%
25%
11%
Fluctuates [2]
33%
34%
25%
27%
High [3]
47%
51%
46%
60%
2.4
2.5
2.4
2.6
High/
medium
High/
medium
High/
medium
High
Average purity
score (1=low –
3=high)
Overall
status
current
7.5.2 Change in purity of cannabis
In 2007, 50% of the frequent drug users reported that the strength of cannabis had been ‘stable’ in the
previous six months, with a further 30% saying that the strength of cannabis had ‘fluctuated’ over this time
(Table 7.11). The average score for the change in the strength of cannabis for all the frequent drug users was
2.1 which indicates that overall the strength of cannabis was ‘stable/fluctuating’ over the past six months in
2007. There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the change in strength of
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
111
cannabis between the three groups of frequent drug users, with all three groups indicating that the strength of
cannabis had been ‘stable/fluctuating’ over the previous six months in 2007 (p=0.3969).
Table 7.11: Change in purity of cannabis by frequent drug user group, 2007
Change in purity of
cannabis
(%)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=90)
Decreasing [1]
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n=85)
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=79)
Combined
modules
(n=254)
3%
6%
1%
4%
Stable [2]
59%
39%
52%
50%
Fluctuating [2]
18%
41%
30%
30%
Increasing [3]
20%
14%
16%
17%
2.2
2.1
2.2
2.1
Stable/
Fluctuates
Stable/
Fluctuates
Stable/
fluctuates
Stable/
fluctuates
Average change in
purity score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
Overall recent
change
There was no statistically significant change in the average score for the change in strength of cannabis in
2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.9175) indicating that the strength of cannabis has remained ‘stable/increasing’
over the past two years (Table 7.12).
Table 7.12: Change in purity of cannabis by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Change in purity
of cannabis
(%)
Decreasing [1]
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=262)
Combined
modules
(n=254)
5%
4%
Stable [2]
46%
50%
Fluctuating [2]
31%
30%
Increasing [3]
18%
17%
2.1
2.1
Stable/
increasing
Stable/
increasing
Average change in
purity score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
Overall recent
change
7.6 Perceptions of the number of people using cannabis
In 2007, 66% of the frequent drugs thought ‘about the same’ number of people they know were using
cannabis compared to six months ago and 22% said ‘more’ people were using cannabis (Table 7.13). The
average score for all the frequent drug users for the question was 2.1 indicating that overall the ‘same/more’
people were using cannabis compared to six months ago. There was no statistically significant difference in
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
112
perceptions of the number of people using cannabis between the three groups of frequent drug users, with all
three saying the ‘same/more’ people they know were using cannabis compared to six months ago
(p=0.8413).
Table 7.13: Perceptions of the number of people using cannabis by frequent drug user group, 2007
Number of people
using cannabis (%)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=91)
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n=93)
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=78)
Combined
modules
(n=262)
Less [1]
12%
15%
8%
12%
Same [2]
64%
62%
72%
66%
More [3]
24%
23%
19%
22%
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
Same/
More
Same/
more
Same/
more
Same/
more
Average number of
people using score
(1=less – 3=more)
Overall recent
change
There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the change in the number of people
using cannabis in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.583), indicating that the number of people using cannabis has
remained the ‘same/more’ over the past two years (Table 7.14).
Table 7.14: Perceptions of the number of people using cannabis by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Number of
people using
cannabis (%)
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=279)
Combined
modules
(n=262)
Less [1]
10%
12%
Same [2]
73%
66%
More [3]
17%
22%
2.1
2.1
Same/
more
Same/
more
Average number
of people using
score (1=less –
3=more)
Overall recent
change
7.7 Seizures of cannabis plants
Annual seizures of cannabis plants by the New Zealand Police have been on average higher in the last three
years than the preceding three years. Between 2003-2005 an average of 164,600 cannabis plants were seized
and destroyed each year by police (Figure 7.1). This compares to an average of 89,920 plants seized each
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
113
year from 2000-2002. Figures on the number of cannabis plants seized in 2006 were not available at the time
of writing this report.
Figure 7.1 Annual seizures of cannabis plants, 2000-2005
193,740
200,000
162,263
180,000
160,000
137,863
Number (plants)
140,000
120,000
105,131
90,857
100,000
73,772
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Source : National Drug Intelligence Bureau (NDIB) (2005, 2006)
7.8 Cannabis use in the general population
The proportion of the New Zealand population aged 15-45 years old who had ever tried cannabis decreased
in 2006 compared to 2003 (44.1% vs. 53.8%, p<0.0001) (Wilkins and Sweetsur, 2008). The proportion of
people who had used cannabis in the previous 12 months decreased in 2006 compared to 2001 (17.9% vs.
20.3%, p=0.0448) (Wilkins and Sweetsur, 2008). Note, the last year result only just comes under the 0.05%
cut off point for statistical significance and so should be treated with some caution.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
114
7.9 Summary of cannabis trends
• In 2007, the current availability of cannabis was reported to be ‘very easy/easy’
• The availability of cannabis was the same in 2007 as in 2006
• In 2007, a ‘tinny’ (i.e. 1.5 grams) of cannabis cost a median price of $20, while an ounce of cannabis
currently cost a median price of $300
• The mean price of an ounce of cannabis was higher in 2007 than in 2006
• In 2007, the current strength of cannabis was described as ‘high/medium’
• The frequent methamphetamine users and frequent injecting drug users thought the current strength
of cannabis was higher than the frequent ecstasy users
• The frequent methamphetamine users considered the strength of cannabis to be higher in 2007 than
in 2006
• Overall, the strength of cannabis was considered to be ‘stable/increasing’ in 2007 and 2006
• The number of people using cannabis was described as the ‘same/more’ in both 2006 and 2007
• National household survey data suggests that the population prevalence of use of cannabis may have
decreased in recent years
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
115
8. LSD
8.1 Introduction
Lysergic acid diethylamide or LSD (‘trips’ or ‘acid’) is a hallucinogen which gained notoriety in many
Western countries during the 1960s. While the use of LSD waned in many other countries in subsequent
decades, LSD remained relatively popular among drug users in New Zealand. Comparison of national
household drug surveys conducted in 1990 and 1998 found increased use of LSD in the population (Field
and Casswell, 1999). Between 1990-1994, New Zealand had the seventh highest number of LSD seizures of
24 countries surveyed (New Zealand Customs Service, 2002). In more recent years, the use of LSD in New
Zealand has been eclipsed to some extent by the emergence of ecstasy and methamphetamine (Wilkins et
al., 2002c, Wilkins et al., 2002d, Wilkins et al., 2003).
8.2 Knowledge of LSD trends
In 2007, 32% of the frequent drug users interviewed (n=103) indicated they felt confident enough to
comment on the price, purity and availability of LSD in the previous six months. This included 37% of the
frequent methamphetamine users (n=40), 43% of the frequent ecstasy users (n=40) and 17% of the frequent
injecting drug users (n=18). As there were only very small numbers of frequent injecting drug users with
knowledge of LSD, we included these users in the combined group of frequent drug users and not as a
separate frequent drug user group.
8.3 Availability of LSD
8.3.1 Current availability of LSD
In 2007, 42% of the frequent drug users described the current availability of LSD as ‘difficult’ and 33% said
the availability of LSD was ‘easy’ (Table 8.1). The average score for the current availability of LSD for all
the frequent drug users was 2.4 which indicates that overall the current level of availability of LSD is
‘difficult/easy’ in 2007. There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the current
availability for LSD between the three groups of frequent drug users, with all three groups reporting the
current availability of LSD as ‘difficult/easy’ in 2007 (p=0.2289).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
116
Table 8.1: Current availability of LSD by frequent drug user group, 2007
Current
availability of
LSD (%)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=39)
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n=45)
Combined modules
(n=102) (includes
frequent injecting
drug users)
Very easy [1]
15%
20%
17%
Easy [2]
23%
38%
33%
Difficult [3]
49%
38%
42%
Very difficult [4]
13%
4%
8%
2.6
2.3
2.4
Difficult/
easy
Difficult/
easy
Difficult/
easy
Average
availability score
(1=very easy –
4=very difficult)
Overall current
status
There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the current availability of LSD in
2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.7665) indicating that the availability of LSD has remained ‘difficult/easy’ over
the past two years (Table 8.2).
Table 8.2: Current availability of LSD by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Current
availability of
LSD (%)
Very easy [1]
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=124)
Combined
modules
(n=102)
8%
17%
Easy [2]
47%
33%
Difficult [3]
38%
42%
Very difficult [4]
7%
8%
Average
availability score
(1=very easy –
4=very difficult)
2.4
2.4
Easy/
difficult
Difficult/
easy
Overall current
status
8.3.2 Change in availability of LSD
In 2007, 40% of the frequent drug users reported that the availability of LSD had been ‘stable’ in the
previous six months, with a further 21% saying availability had been ‘more difficult’ over the past six
months (Table 8.3). The average score for the change in availability of LSD for all the frequent drug users
was 2.0 which indicates that overall the availability of LSD was ‘stable/fluctuating’ over the past six months
in 2007. The frequent methamphetamine users were more likely than the frequent ecstasy users to say that
the availability of LSD had become ‘more difficult’ in the past six months in 2007 (2.2 vs. 1.9, p=0.0327).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
117
Table 8.3: Change in availability of LSD by frequent drug user group, 2007
Change in
availability
of LSD (%)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=39)
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n=39)
Combined modules
(n=96) (includes
frequent injecting
drug users)
Easier [1]
15%
18%
20%
Stable [2]
38%
44%
40%
8%
33%
20%
38%
5%
21%
2.2
1.9
2.0
Stable/
Stable/
more difficult
fluctuates
Fluctuates [2]
More difficult [3]
Average change
in availability
score (1=easier –
3=more difficult)
Overall recent
change
Stable
There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the change in availability of LSD in
2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.8604) indicating that the availability of LSD has remained ‘stable’ over the past
two years (Table 8.4).
Table 8.4: Change in availability of LSD by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Change in
availability
of LSD (%)
Combined
modules
(n=119)
Combined
modules
(n=96)
Easier [1]
16%
20%
Stable [2]
34%
40%
Fluctuates [2]
31%
20%
More difficult [3]
18%
21%
2.0
2.0
Stable/
Stable/
fluctuates
fluctuates
Average change
in availability
score (1=easier –
3=more difficult)
Overall recent
change
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
118
8.4 Price of LSD
8.4.1 Current price of LSD
In 2007, the median price paid for a ‘tab’ of LSD was $40 (Table 8.5). There was no statistically significant
difference in the mean price paid for a ‘tab’ of LSD between the three groups of frequent drug users.
Table 8.5: Current median (mean) price for LSD (NZD) by frequent drug user group, 2007
Current
LSD
price
of
Methamphetamine
users
(n=32)
Median (mean) price
for a ‘tab’
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n=31)
$33 ($36)
Intravenous
users (IDU)
(n=12)
$40 ($39)
drug
Combined
modules
(n=75)
$30 ($31)
$40 ($36)
There was no statistically significant difference in the mean price paid for a tab of LSD in 2007 compared to
2006 (p=0.486) (Table 8.6).
Table 8.6: Current median (mean) price for LSD (NZD) by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Current price of
LSD
Median
(mean)
price for a ‘tab’
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=117)
Combined
modules
(n=75)
$35 ($35)
$40 ($36)
8.4.2 Change in price of LSD
In 2007, 70% of the frequent drug users reported that the price of LSD had been ‘stable’ in the previous six
months (Table 8.4). The average score for the change in the price of LSD for all the frequent drug users was
2.1 which indicates that overall the price of LSD was ‘stable’ over the past six months in 2007. There was no
statistically significant difference in the average score for the change in price of LSD between the three
groups of frequent drug users, with all three describing the price as ‘stable’ in 2007 (p=0.584).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
119
Table 8.7: Change in the price of LSD in the past six months by frequent drug user group, 2007
Change in price
of LSD (%)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=39)
Decreasing [1]
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n=40)
Combined modules
(n=96) (includes
frequent injecting drug
users)
5%
5%
5%
Stable [2]
67%
70%
70%
Fluctuating [2]
10%
13%
11%
Increasing [3]
18%
13%
14%
2.1
2.1
2.1
Stable
Stable
Stable
Average change in
price score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
Overall
change
recent
There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the change in the price of LSD in
2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.173), indicating that the price of LSD has remained ‘stable’ over the past two
years (Table 8.8).
Table 8.8: Change in the price of LSD in the past six months by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Change in price
of LSD (%)
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=117)
Combined
modules
(n=96)
Decreasing [1]
10%
5%
Stable [2]
70%
70%
Fluctuating [2]
9%
11%
Increasing [3]
10%
14%
2.0
2.1
Stable
Stable
Average change in
price score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
Overall
change
recent
8.5 Purity of LSD
8.5.1 Current purity of LSD
In 2007, 35% of the frequent drug users described the current strength of LSD as ‘high’ with 26% reporting
its current strength to be ‘fluctuating’ (Table 8.9). The average score for the current strength of LSD for all
the frequent drug users was 2.2 which indicates that overall the strength of LSD was ‘medium/high’ in 2007.
There was no statistically significant difference between the three groups of frequent drug users with respect
to the current strength of LSD with all three groups reporting the strength of LSD as ‘medium/high’ in 2007
(p=0.1897).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
120
Table 8.9: Current purity of LSD by frequent drug user group, 2007
Current purity of
LSD
(%)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=37)
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n=38)
Combined modules
(n=92) (includes
frequent injecting drug
users)
Low [1]
22%
8%
16%
Medium [2]
27%
18%
23%
Fluctuates [2]
22%
32%
26%
High [3]
30%
42%
35%
2.1
2.3
2.2
Medium/
high
Medium/
high
Medium/
high
Average
purity
score (1=low –
3=high)
Overall
status
current
There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the current purity of LSD in 2007
compared to 2006 (p=0.8991) indicating that the strength of LSD has remained ‘medium/high’ over the past
two years (Table 8.10).
Table 8.10: Current purity of LSD by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Current purity of
LSD
(%)
Low [1]
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=121)
Combined
modules
(n=92)
8%
16%
Medium [2]
41%
23%
Fluctuates [2]
26%
26%
High [3]
26%
35%
2.2
2.2
Medium/
high
Medium/
high
Average
purity
score (1=low –
3=high)
Overall
status
current
8.5.2 Change in purity of LSD
In 2007, 39% of the frequent drug users reported that the strength of LSD had been ‘stable’ in the previous
six months while 28% said it had ‘fluctuated’ in the past six months (Table 8.11). The average score for the
change in the strength of LSD for all the frequent drug users was 2.0 which indicates that overall the strength
of LSD had been ‘stable/fluctuating’ over the past six months in 2007. The frequent methamphetamine users
were statistically significantly more likely than the frequent ecstasy users to say the strength of LSD had
declined in 2007 (1.8 vs. 2.2, p=0.0089).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
121
Table 8.11: Change in purity of LSD by frequent drug user group, 2007
Change in purity
of cannabis
(%)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=37)
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n=31)
Combined modules
(n=85) (includes
frequent injecting
drug users)
Decreasing [1]
27%
3%
18%
Stable [2]
38%
48%
39%
Fluctuating [2]
30%
26%
28%
Increasing [3]
5%
23%
15%
1.8
2.2
2.0
Stable/
decreasing
Stable/
increasing
Stable/
fluctuating
Average change in
purity score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
Overall
change
recent
There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the change in the purity of LSD in
2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.5988), indicating that the strength of LSD has remained ‘stable/fluctuating’
over the past two years (Table 8.12).
Table 8.12: Change in purity of LSD by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Change in purity
of cannabis
(%)
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=109)
Combined
modules
(n=85)
Decreasing [1]
13%
18%
Stable [2]
44%
39%
Fluctuating [2]
28%
28%
Increasing [3]
15%
15%
2.0
2.0
Stable/
fluctuating
Stable/
fluctuating
Average change in
purity score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
Overall
change
recent
8.6 Perceptions of the number of people using LSD
In 2007, 50% of frequent drugs thought ‘about the same’ number of people they know were using LSD with
24% saying ‘less’ people were using the drug (Table 8.13). The average score for all the frequent drug users
for the question was 2.0 indicating that overall ‘about the same’ number of people were using LSD compared
to six months ago in 2007. The frequent ecstasy users were statistically significantly more likely than the
frequent methamphetamine users to say that ‘more’ people they know were using LSD compared to six
months ago in 2007 (2.3 vs. 1.8, p=0.0036). Several KE indicated there may have been some revival of the
popularity of LSD, although other KE considered its use to be on the decline.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
122
Table 8.13: Perceptions of the number of people using LSD by frequent drug user group, 2007
Number of
people using
LSD (%)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=39)
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n=45)
Combined modules
(n=101) (includes
frequent injecting
drug users)
Less [1]
36%
13%
24%
Same [2]
51%
47%
50%
More [3]
13%
40%
22%
1.8
2.3
2.0
Same/
Less
Same/
more
Same
Average number
of people using
score (1=less –
3=more)
Overall
change
recent
There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the change in the number of people
using LSD in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.3649) indicating that the number of people using LSD has
remained ‘the same’ over the past two years (Table 8.13).
Table 8.13: Perceptions of the number of people using LSD by frequent drug user group, 2007
Number of
people using
LSD (%)
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=125)
Combined
modules
(n=101)
Less [1]
27%
24%
Same [2]
51%
50%
More [3]
22%
22%
1.9
2.0
Same
Same
Average number
of people using
score (1=less –
3=more)
Overall
change
recent
8.7 Seizures of LSD
Annual seizures of LSD by New Zealand Police and the New Zealand Customs Service fell dramatically
after 2000 and returned only briefly to previous levels in 2003 (Figure 8.1). Since 2004 there have been
increasing seizures of LSD, but these are yet to approach the levels achieved in 1999 and 2000. LSD is an
odourless, colourless, concentrated liquid and is consequently extremely difficult to detect.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
123
Figure 8.1: Tabs of LSD seized in New Zealand, 1999-2006
19,331
20,000
18,000
16,000
13,687
Number (tabs)
14,000
12,000
10,000
7,033
8,000
6,000
3,471
4,000
1,057
2,000
479
434
1,328
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Source : National Drug Intelligence Bureau (NDIB) (2005, 2006)
8.8 LSD use in the general population
The proportion of the New Zealand population aged 15-45 years old who had ever tried LSD remained the
same in 2006 compared to 2003 (8.5% versus 8.1%, p=0.6789) (Wilkins and Sweetsur, 2008). The
proportion of the population who had used LSD in the previous 12 months also remained the same in 2006
compared to 2003 (1.8% vs. 1.9%, p=0.9388) (Wilkins and Sweetsur, 2008). The proportion of the
population who had used LSD was statistically significantly lower in 2006 compared to 2001 (1.8% vs.
3.2%, p=0.0071) and lower in 2006 compared to 1998 (1.8% vs. 3.9%, p=0.0002 (Wilkins and Sweetsur,
2008).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
124
8.9 Summary of LSD trends
• In 2007, the current availability of LSD was reported to be ‘difficult/easy’
• In 2007, the frequent methamphetamine users were more likely to say the availability of LSD had
become ‘more difficult’ in the past six months
• The availability of LSD was considered to have been ‘stable/fluctuating’ over the past two years
• In 2007, the median price paid for a ‘tab’ of LSD was $40
• The price of LSD is reported to have been ‘stable’ over the past two years
• In 2007, the current strength of LSD was described as ‘medium/high’
• In 2007, the frequent methamphetamine users were more likely to say the strength of LSD had
declined in the past six months
• The strength of LSD was considered to be ‘stable/fluctuating’ in 2007 and 2006
• In 2007, the frequent ecstasy users were more likely to say that ‘more’ people they know were using
LSD in the past six months
• The number of people using LSD was described as the ‘same’ in 2006 and 2007
• The number of tabs of LSD seized each year declined dramatically after 2000 and has remained
relatively low since that time. There has been some increase in seizures of LSD since 2004
• National household survey data suggests that the population prevalence of LSD remained the same
in 2006 compared to 2003. The population use of LSD had previous decreased in 2003 compared to
2001
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
125
9. Opiates
9.1 Introduction
The international supply of heroin into New Zealand was substantially disrupted in the late 1970s by
successful drug enforcement operations (Newbold, 2000, New Zealand Customs Service, 2002). Three
domestic sources of opiates subsequently emerged in New Zealand to replace the regular supply of imported
heroin: (1) morphine sulphate tablets (MST or misties); (2) ‘homebake heroin’ (made from codeine-based
tablets); and (3) opium (extracted from opium poppies) (New Zealand Customs Service, 2002). Interceptions
of heroin intended for the New Zealand domestic market remain spasmodic despite the presence of a fairly
large market for heroin in nearby Sydney (New Zealand Customs Service, 2002).
9.2 Knowledge of opiate trends
In 2007, 41% of the frequent drug users interviewed (n=132) indicated they felt confident enough to
comment on the price, purity and availability of opiates in the previous six months. This included 32% of the
frequent methamphetamine users (n=35), 6% of the frequent ecstasy users (n=6) and 83% of the frequent
injecting drug users (n=91). As there were only small numbers of frequent ecstasy users with knowledge of
opiates, we only included these users in the combined group of frequent drug users and not as a separate
frequent drug user group.
9.2.1 Types of opiates
In 2007, the frequent drug users were asked to specify the type of opiate for which they had the best
knowledge of its price, purity and availability. Three-quarters of the frequent drug users nominated morphine
derivatives (MST, M-Eslon, Kapanol) and a further 13% said ‘homebake heroin’ (Table 9.1). Internationally
sourced heroin was nominated by only 4% of the frequent drug users.
Table 9.1: Type of opiate which the frequent drug users had most knowledge of, 2007
Type of opiate
Morphine (MST, misties, MEslon, Kapanol)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=33)
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=74)
Combined modules
(n=113) (includes
frequent ecstasy
users)
67%
82%
75%
6%
15%
13%
Poppies (opium)
15%
1%
7%
Heroin
12%
1%
4%
Homebake heroin
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
126
9.3 Availability of opiates
9.3.1 Current availability of opiates
In 2007, 43% of the frequent drug users described the current availability of opiates as ‘easy’, with a further
35% of frequent drug users describing availability of opiates as ‘very easy’ (Table 9.2). The average score
for the current availability of opiates for all the frequent drug users was 1.9, which indicates that overall the
current availability of opiates was ‘easy/very easy’ in 2007. There was no statistically significant difference
in the average score for the current availability of opiates between the frequent methamphetamine users and
the frequent injecting drug users, with both groups reporting the current availability of opiates as ‘easy/very
easy’ in 2007 (p=0.2708).
Table 9.2: Current availability of opiates by frequent drug user group, 2007
Current availability
of opiates (%)
40%
Combined modules
(n=132) (includes
frequent ecstasy users)
35%
Easy [2]
51%
42%
43%
Difficult [3]
Very easy [1]
Methamphetamine
users
(n=35)
26%
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=91)
20%
15%
18%
Very difficult [4]
3%
3%
4%
Average availability
score (1=very easy –
4=very difficult)
2.0
1.8
1.9
Easy/
Very easy
Easy/
Very easy
Easy/
Very easy
Overall current
status
There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the current availability of opiates in
2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.1878), indicating that the availability of opiates has remained ‘easy/very easy’
over the past two years (Table 9.3).
Table 9.3: Current availability of opiates by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Current availability
of opiates (%)
2006
Combined
modules
(n=114)
2007
Combined
modules
(n=132)
Very easy [1]
41%
35%
Easy [2]
45%
43%
Difficult [3]
10%
18%
Very difficult [4]
4%
4%
Average availability
score (1=very easy –
4=very difficult)
1.8
1.9
Easy/
Very easy
Easy/
Very easy
Overall current
status
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
127
9.3.2 Change in availability of opiates
In 2007, 61% of the frequent drug users reported that the availability of opiates had been ‘stable’ in the past
six months (Table 9.4). The average score for the change in availability of opiates for all the frequent drug
users was 2.0, which indicates that overall the availability of opiates had been ‘stable’ over the past six
months in 2007. There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the change in the
availability of opiates between the frequent methamphetamine users and the frequent injecting drug users,
with both groups reporting that the availability of opiates had been ‘stable’ over the previous six months in
2007 (p=0.4184).
Table 9.4: Change in availability of opiates by frequent drug user group, 2007
Change in
availability
Methamphetamine
users
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
of opiates (%)
(n=34)
(n=90)
Combined modules
(n=128) (includes
frequent ecstasy
users)
Easier [1]
24%
12%
15%
Stable [2]
53%
64%
61%
6%
8%
8%
18%
16%
16%
1.9
2.0
2.0
Stable
Stable
Stable
Fluctuates [2]
More difficult [3]
Average change in
availability score
(1=easier – 3=more
difficult)
Overall recent
change
There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the change in availability of opiates
in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.8089) indicating that the availability of opiates has remained ‘stable’ over
the past two years (Table 9.5).
Table 9.5: Change in availability of opiates by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
2006
2007
Change in
availability
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
of opiates (%)
(n=114)
(n=128)
Easier [1]
10%
15%
Stable [2]
73%
61%
8%
8%
10%
16%
Fluctuates [2]
More difficult [3]
Average change in
availability score
(1=easier – 3=more
difficult)
Overall recent
change
2.0
Stable
2.0
Stable
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
128
9.4 Price of opiates
9.4.1 Current price of opiates
In 2007, the frequent drug users reported paying a median price of $1 per milligram for opiates (Table 9.6).
There was no statistically significant difference in the mean price paid for opiates between the frequent
methamphetamine users and the frequent injecting drug users (p=0.0695).
Table 9.6: Current median (mean) price for opiates (NZD) by frequent drug user group, 2007
Current price of
opiates
Methamphetamine
users
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=19)
(n=76)
Median (mean) price
per milligram
$1.00 ($0.96)
Combined modules
(n=96) (includes
frequent ecstasy
users)
$1.00 ($1.03)
$1.00 ($1.01)
The mean price paid for a milligram of opiates was slightly higher in 2007 compared to 2006 ($1.01 vs.
$0.95, p=0.0433) (Table 9.7).
Table 9.7: Current median (mean) price for opiates (NZD) by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Current price of
opiates
Median (mean) price
per milligram
2006
2007
Combined modules
Combined modules
(n=87)
(n=96)
$1.00 ($0.95)
$1.00 ($1.01)
9.4.2 Change in price of opiates
In 2007, 75% of the frequent drug users reported that the price of opiates had been ‘stable’ in the previous
six months (Table 9.8). The average score for the change in the price of opiates for all the frequent drug
users was 2.1 which indicates that overall the price of opiates was ‘stable’ over the previous six months in
2007. There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the change in price of opiates
between the frequent methamphetamine users and the frequent injecting drug users, with both groups
reporting the price had been ‘stable’ over the previous six months in 2007 (p=0.2109).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
129
Table 9.8: Change in the price of opiates in the past six months by frequent drug user group, 2007
Change in price of
opiates (%)
Methamphetamine
users
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=28)
(n=89)
Combined modules
(n=121) (includes
frequent ecstasy
users)
Decreasing [1]
11%
4%
6%
Stable [2]
79%
73%
75%
Fluctuating [2]
0%
6%
4%
Increasing [3]
11%
17%
15%
2.0
2.1
2.1
Stable
Stable
Stable
Average change in
price score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
Overall recent
change
The average score for the change in the price of opiates was statistically significantly higher in 2007
compared to 2006 (2.1 vs. 1.9, p=0.0137) indicating that the price of opiates has increased over the past two
years (Table 9.9).
Table 9.9: Change in the price of opiates in the past six months by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Change in price of
opiates (%)
2006
2007
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
(n=106)
(n=121)
Decreasing [1]
19%
6%
Stable [2]
65%
75%
Fluctuating [2]
5%
4%
Increasing [3]
11%
15%
1.9
2.1
Average change in
price score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
Overall recent
change
Stable
Stable/
increasing
9.5 Purity of opiates
9.5.1 Current purity of opiates
In 2007, 59% of the frequent drug users described the current purity of opiates as ‘high’ and a further 21%
said the purity of opiates was ‘medium’ (Table 9.10). The average score for the current purity of opiates for
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
130
all the frequent drug users was 2.6 which indicates that overall the purity of opiates was ‘high’ in 2007.
There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the purity of opiates between the
frequent methamphetamine users and the frequent injecting drug users, with both groups reporting the
current purity of opiates as ‘high’ in 2007 (p=0.1304).
Table 9.10: Current purity of opiates by frequent drug user group, 2007
Current purity of
opiates
(%)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=28)
Low [1]
Medium [2]
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=84)
Combined
modules
(n=125) (includes
frequent ecstasy
users)
3%
0%
2%
9%
27%
21%
Fluctuates [2]
14%
17%
18%
High [3]
74%
56%
59%
Average purity score
(1=low – 3=high)
2.7
2.6
2.6
Overall current status
High
High
High
The purity of opiates was statistically significantly higher in 2007 compared to 2006 (2.6 vs. 2.3, p=0.0006)
(Table 9.11).
Table 9.11: Current purity of opiates by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
2006
2007
Current purity of
opiates
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
(%)
(n=98)
(n=125)
Low [1]
10%
2%
Medium [2]
32%
21%
Fluctuates [2]
18%
18%
High [3]
40%
59%
Average purity score
(1=low – 3=high)
2.3
2.6
Overall current status
Medium/
high
High
]
9.5.2 Change in purity of opiates
In 2007, 80% of the frequent drug users reported that the purity of opiates had been ‘stable’ in the previous
six months with 15% saying the purity of opiates had fluctuated over the past six months (Table 9.12). The
average score for the change in the purity of opiates for all the frequent drug users was 2.0, which indicates
that overall the purity of opiates had been ‘stable/fluctuating’ over the past six months in 2007. There was no
statistically significant difference in the average score for the change in the purity of opiates between the
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
131
frequent methamphetamine users and the frequent injecting drug users, with both groups reporting that the
purity of opiates had been ‘stable/fluctuating’ over the previous six months in 2007 (p=0.1867).
Table 9.12: Change in purity of opiates by frequent drug user group, 2007
Change in purity of
opiates
(%)
Decreasing [1]
Combined modules
(n=125) (includes
frequent ecstasy
users)
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=87)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=33)
6%
2%
3%
85%
80%
80%
Fluctuating [2]
9%
15%
15%
Increasing [3]
0%
2%
2%
Average change in
purity score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
1.9
2.0
2.0
Stable/
fluctuating
Stable/
fluctuating
Stable/
fluctuating
Stable [2]
Overall recent
change
There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the change in the purity of opiates in
2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.8812) indicating that the purity of opiates has remained ‘stable’ over the past
two years (Table 9.13).
Table 9.13: Change in purity of opiates by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
2006
2007
Change in purity of
opiates
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
(%)
(n=108)
(n=125)
Decreasing [1]
9%
3%
Stable [2]
69%
80%
Fluctuating [2]
14%
15%
Increasing [3]
8%
2%
Average change in
purity score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
2.0
2.0
Stable
Stable
Overall recent
change
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
132
9.6 Perceptions of the number of people using opiates
In 2007, 38% of the frequent drugs thought ‘about the same’ number of people they know were using
opiates, 35% said ‘more’ people were using opiates and 28% said that ‘less’ people they know were using
opiates (Table 9.14). The average score for all the frequent drug users for the question was 2.1 indicating that
overall ‘about the same’ number of people were using opiates compared to six months ago in 2007. The
frequent injecting drug users were statistically significantly more likely than the frequent methamphetamine
users to say that ‘more’ people they know were using opiates over the past six months in 2007 (2.2 vs. 1.8,
p=0.0256).
Table 9.14: Perceptions of the number of people using opiates by frequent drug user group, 2007
Number of people
using opiates (%)
Methamphetamine
users
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=33)
(n=90)
Combined modules
(n=127) (includes
frequent ecstasy
users)
Less [1]
45%
19%
28%
Same [2]
27%
44%
38%
More [3]
27%
36%
35%
1.8
2.2
2.1
Same/
Less
Same/
more
Same/
more
Average number of
people using score
(1=less – 3=more)
Overall recent
change
There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the change in the number of people
using opiates in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.4236), indicating that the number of people using opiates has
remained ‘same/more’ over the past two years (Table 9.15).
Table 9.15: Perceptions of the number of people using opiates by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Number of people
using opiates (%)
2006
2007
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
(n=114)
(n=127)
Less [1]
19%
28%
Same [2]
46%
38%
More [3]
34%
35%
2.1
2.1
Same/
Same/
more
more
Average number of
people using score
(1=less – 3=more)
Overall recent
change
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
133
9.7 Seizures of Heroin
There has been considerable variation in the quantity of heroin seized by the New Zealand Police and the
New Zealand Customs Service over the previous five years, and this reflects some of the issues discussed in
the introduction to this chapter (Figure 9.1). In 2006, 12 millilitres of heroin was seized in syringes during
the course of investigations. The previous seizures of heroin were recorded in grams, and consequently the
2006 seizures could not be included in the existing statistical series.
Figure 9.1: Grams of heroin seized in New Zealand, 2000-2005
5,536
6,000
5,000
Weight (grams)
4,000
3,000
1,466
2,000
1,000
211
10
1
84
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Source : National Drug Intelligence Bureau (NDIB) (2005, 2006)
9.8 Opiate use in the general population
The proportion of the New Zealand population aged 13-45 years old who had ever tried opiates remained the
same in 2006 compared to 2003 (0.6% vs. 0.5%, p=0.7885). The proportion of respondents aged 13-45 who
had used opiates in the previous 12 months also remained the same in 2006 compared to 2003 (0.13% vs.
0.15%, p=0.8188). Low numbers involved in these survey results indicate they should be viewed with
caution. In 2003 only 19 respondents surveyed had ever tried opiates and in the 2006 survey only 10
respondents had ever tried opiates. With respect to more recent use, only four respondents had used opiates
in the previous 12 months in 2003 and in 2006 it was only three respondents. These results illustrate the
difficulties of measuring the less common forms of drug use using a population based sampling approach.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
134
9.9 Summary of opiate trends
• In 2007, the opiates most commonly used in New Zealand continue to be locally sourced morphine
and locally manufactured homebake heroin
• In 2007, the current availability of opiates was reported to be ‘easy/very easy’
• The availability of opiates has not changed over the past two years
• In 2007, a milligram of opiates currently costs a median price of $1.00
• The mean price paid for a milligram of opiates increased slightly from $0.95 in 2006 to $1.01 in
2007
• The price of opiates was considered to have increased in 2007 compared to 2006
• In 2007, the current purity of opiates was reported to be ‘high’
• The purity of opiates was considered to be higher in 2007 than in 2006
• The number of people using opiates was described as the ‘same/more’ in both 2007 and 2006
• Seizures of internationally sourced heroin have remained low level over the past three years
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
135
10. Cocaine
10.1 Introduction
Cocaine is derived from the coca plant which is clandestinely cultivated in only three South American
countries: Columbia, Peru and Bolivia (National Drug Intelligence Bureau, 2005). The high price of cocaine
and its short duration of action (i.e. around 20 minutes) have traditionally contributed to a weak demand for
cocaine in New Zealand. On the supply side, geographical isolation, a small population and tight border
controls have played a part in restricting the supply of cocaine to the domestic New Zealand market (New
Zealand Customs Service, 2002). However, New Zealand is sometimes used as a transit point to smuggle
cocaine into the much larger Australian market (New Zealand Customs Service, 2002).
10.2 Knowledge of cocaine trends
In 2007, 9% of the frequent drug users interviewed (n=30) indicated they felt confident enough to comment
on the price, purity and availability of cocaine in the previous six months. This included 14% of the frequent
methamphetamine users (n=15), 8% of the frequent ecstasy users (n=8) and 6% of the frequent injecting drug
users (n=7). As there were only small numbers of frequent drug users with knowledge of cocaine, we have
not compared the results by frequent drug user group.
10.3 Availability of cocaine
10.3.1 Current availability of cocaine
In 2007, 52% of the frequent drug users described the current availability of cocaine as ‘difficult’, with a
further 28% of frequent drug users describing the availability of cocaine as ‘very difficult’ (Table 10.1). The
average score for the current availability of cocaine for all the frequent drug users was 3.0, which indicates
that overall the current level of availability of cocaine is ‘difficult’ in 2007. There was no statistically
significant difference in the average score for the current availability of cocaine in 2007 compared to 2006
(p=0.4429) indicating the availability of cocaine has remained ‘difficult’ over the past two years.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
136
Table 10.1: Current availability of cocaine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Current availability
of cocaine (%)
2006
2007
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
(n=29)
(n=29)
Very easy [1]
10%
3%
Easy [2]
17%
17%
Difficult [3]
48%
52%
Very difficult [4]
24%
28%
2.9
3.0
Difficult
Difficult
Average availability
score (1=very easy –
4=very difficult)
Overall current
status
10.3.2 Change in availability of cocaine
In 2007, 64% of the frequent drug users reported that the availability of cocaine had been ‘stable’ in the
previous six months and 21% said the availability of cocaine had become ‘more difficult’ over this time
(Table 10.2). The average score for the change in the availability of cocaine for all the frequent drug users
was 2.2, which indicates that overall the availability of cocaine was ‘stable/more difficult’ over the past six
months in 2007. There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the change in
availability of cocaine in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.707) indicating the availability of cocaine has
continued to be ‘stable/more difficult’ over the past two years.
Table 10.2: Change in availability of cocaine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
2006
2007
Change in
availability
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
of cocaine (%)
(n=30)
(n=28)
Easier [1]
7%
0%
Stable [2]
57%
64%
Fluctuates [2]
13%
14%
More difficult [3]
23%
21%
2.2
2.2
Stable/
Stable/
more difficult
more difficult
Average change in
availability score
(1=easier – 3=more
difficult)
Overall recent
change
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
137
10.4 Price of cocaine
10.4.1 Current price of cocaine
In 2007, the median price paid for a ‘gram’ of cocaine was $350 (Table 10.3). There was no statistically
significant change in the mean price paid for a gram of cocaine in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.4132).
Table 10.3: Current median (mean) price for cocaine (NZD) by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Current price of
cocaine
2006
2007
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
(n=25)
(n=20)
Median (mean) price
for a gram
$300 ($353)
$350 ($431)
10.4.2 Change in price of cocaine
In 2007, 68% of the frequent drug users reported that the price of cocaine had been ‘stable’ in the past six
months (Table 10.4). The average score for the change in the price of cocaine for all the frequent drug users
was 2.1, which indicates that overall the price of cocaine was ‘stable/increasing’ over the past six months in
2007. There was no statistically significant difference in the average score of the change in the price of
cocaine in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.3015) indicating the price of cocaine remained ‘stable’ over the past
two years.
Table 10.4: Change in the price of cocaine in the past six months by combined frequent drug users, 20062007
Change in price of
cocaine (%)
2006
2007
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
(n=24)
(n=22)
Decreasing [1]
19%
5%
Stable [2]
63%
68%
Fluctuating [2]
21%
9%
Increasing [3]
8%
18%
Average change in
price score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
2.0
2.1
Stable/
Stable/
decreasing
increasing
Overall recent
change
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
138
10.5 Purity of cocaine
10.5.1 Current purity of cocaine
In 2007, 31% of the frequent drug users described the current purity of cocaine as ‘low’ and a further 27%
described it as ‘medium’ (Table 10.5). The average score for the current purity of cocaine for all the frequent
drug users was 2.0, which indicates that overall the strength of cocaine was ‘medium’ in 2007. There was no
statistically significant difference in the average score for the purity of cocaine in 2007 compared to 2006
(p=0.1167) indicating the purity of cocaine has remained ‘low/medium’ over the past two years.
Table 10.5: Current purity of cocaine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
2006
2007
Current purity of
cocaine
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
(%)
(n=24)
(n=26)
Low [1]
50%
31%
Medium [2]
21%
27%
Fluctuates [2]
17%
15%
High [3]
13%
27%
Average purity score
(1=low – 3=high)
1.6
2.0
Overall current status
Low/
medium
medium
Low/
10.5.2 Change in purity of cocaine
In 2007, 48% of the frequent drug users reported that the purity of cocaine had been ‘stable’ in the past six
months, and a further 32% said the purity of cocaine had ‘fluctuated’ over this time (Table 10.6). The
average score for the change in the purity of cocaine for all the frequent drug users was 1.9, which indicates
that overall the purity of cocaine was ‘stable/decreasing’ over the past six months in 2007. There was no
statistically significant difference in the average score for the change in purity of cocaine in 2007 compared
to 2006 (p=0.2386) indicating the purity of cocaine remained ‘stable’ over the past two years.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
139
Table 10.6: Change in purity of cocaine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
2006
2007
Change in purity of
cocaine
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
(%)
(n=20)
(n=25)
Decreasing [1]
35%
16%
Stable [2]
35%
48%
Fluctuating [2]
25%
32%
Increasing [3]
5%
4%
Average change in
purity score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
1.7
1.9
Stable/
decreasing
Stable/
fluctuating
Overall recent
change
10.6 Perceptions of the number of people using cocaine
In 2007, 56% of the frequent drugs thought ‘about the same’ number of people they know were using
cocaine and 28% said ‘less’ people they know were using the drug (Table 10.7). The average score for all the
frequent drug users for the question was 1.9 indicating that overall about the ‘same/less’ people were using
cocaine compared to six months ago in 2007. There was no statistically significant difference in the average
score for the change in the number of people using cocaine in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.8141) indicating
the number of people using cocaine remained the ‘same/less’ over the past two years.
Table 10.7: Perceptions of the number of people using cocaine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Number of people
using cocaine (%)
2006
2007
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
(n=27)
(n=26)
Less [1]
30%
28%
Same [2]
48%
56%
More [3]
22%
16%
1.9
1.9
Same/
Same/
less
less
Average number of
people using score
(1=less – 3=more)
Overall recent
change
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
140
10.7 Seizures of cocaine
Annual seizures of cocaine made by the New Zealand Police and New Zealand Customs Service increased
sharply in 2003 and have remained at relatively high levels since then (Figure 10.1). A particularly large
amount of cocaine was seized in 2006. Much of the cocaine seized in New Zealand is done so at the border
(during international transit) and is believed to be destined for the larger Australian market (New Zealand
Customs, 2002).
Figure 10.1: Grams of cocaine seized in New Zealand, 1999-2006
32,954
35000
30000
Weight (grams)
25000
18,020
20000
15000
7,859
10000
7,554
5000
415
895
8
267
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Source : National Drug Intelligence Bureau (NDIB) (2005, 2006)
10.8 Cocaine use in the general population
The proportion of the New Zealand population aged 15-45 years old who had ever tried cocaine increased in
2006 compared to 2003 (4.5% vs. 3.1%, p=0.0225) (Wilkins and Sweetsur, 2008). The proportion of the
population who had ever tried cocaine was also higher in 2006 compared to 2001 (4.5% vs. 3.3%, p=0.0289)
(Wilkins and Sweetsur, 2008). There was also a statistically significant increase in the proportion of people
who had used cocaine in the previous year in 2006 compared to 2003 (1.1% vs. 0.5%, p=0.0147) (Wilkins
and Sweetsur, 2008). Low numbers involved in these survey results indicate they should be treated with
some caution. Sixteen survey respondents reported using cocaine in the previous 12 months in 2003 and 22
respondents reported using cocaine in the previous 12 months in 2006.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
141
10.9 Summary of cocaine trends
• In 2007, the current availability of cocaine was reported to be ‘difficult’
• The availability of cocaine has been ‘stable/more difficult’ over the past two years
• In 2007, a gram of cocaine currently cost a median price of $350
• The price of cocaine was reported to have been ‘stable’ over the previous two years
• In 2007, the purity of cocaine was considered to be ‘low/medium’
• The purity of cocaine has remained ‘stable/fluctuating’ over the past two years
• The number of people using cocaine was described as the ‘same/less’ in 2007 and 2006
• Annual seizures of cocaine increased sharply in 2003 with particularly large seizures achieved in
2006. However, most of these seizures are made at the border and are considered to be destined for
the larger Australian market
• National household survey data indicates that the population prevalence of use of cocaine has
increased in recent years
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
142
11. Ketamine
11.1 Introduction
Ketamine (‘special K’ or ‘vitamin K’) is a rapidly acting anaesthetic that is used in veterinary surgery and
less commonly in human surgery (Copeland and Dillon, 2005, White et al., 2004). Ketamine produces
dissociate and hallucinogenic effects, including an ‘out-of-body’ like experience, analgesia and amnesia
(Copeland and Dillon, 2005, Community Alcohol and Drug Services (CADS), 2005). Too much ketamine
can result in the user having bizarre experiences including ‘near death experiences’ known as ‘falling into a
k-hole’. The use of ketamine has been linked with a range of unpleasant psychological effects including
anxiety, panic attacks, flashbacks, persistent perceptual changes, depression, suicide, paranoid delusions,
fragmentation of personality and aggression (Copeland and Dillon, 2005). Ketamine is also thought to have a
strong potential to give rise to dependence after repeated use (Copeland and Dillon, 2005). A selling point of
ketamine is said to be the short duration of its halluncingenic effects (ie. 1-2 hours) compared to LSD and
ecstasy (National Drug Intelligence Bureau, 2005). Supplies of ketamine for recreational use are generally
illegally diverted from veterinary sources (Copeland and Dillon, 2005, National Drug Intelligence Bureau,
2005). Ketamine is supplied in tablet form and is sometimes fraudulently sold as ecstasy (Community
Alcohol and Drug Services (CADS), 2005). Ketamine is currently listed as a prescription medicine and is
consequently not classified under the Misuse of Drug Act 1975.
11.2 Knowledge of ketamine trends
In 2007, 6% of the frequent drug users interviewed (n=19) indicated they felt confident enough to comment
on the price, purity and availability of ketamine in the previous six months. This included 9% of the frequent
methamphetamine users (n=10), 5% of the frequent ecstasy users (n=5) and 4% of the frequent injecting drug
users (n=4). As there were only very small numbers of frequent drug users with knowledge of ketamine, we
have not compared the results by frequent drug user group. The small sample size with knowledge of
ketamine indicates that results should be interpreted with caution.
11.3 Availability of ketamine
11.3.1 Current availability of ketamine
In 2007, 39% of the frequent drug users described the current availability of ketamine as ‘easy’, and 33%
described the current availability of ketamine as ‘difficult’ (Table 11.1). The average score for the current
availability of ketamine for all the frequent drug users was 2.7, which indicates that overall the current level
of availability of ketamine was ‘difficult’ in 2007. There was no statistically significant difference in the
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
143
average score for the current availability of ketamine in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.9805) indicating the
availability of ketamine has remained ‘difficult’ over the past two years.
Table 11.1: Current availability of ketamine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Current availability
of ketamine (%)
2006
2007
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
(n=14)
(n=18)
Very easy [1]
14%
6%
Easy [2]
14%
39%
Difficult [3]
57%
33%
Very difficult [4]
14%
22%
2.7
2.7
Difficult
Difficult
Average availability
score (1=very easy –
4=very difficult)
Overall current
status
11.3.2 Change in availability of ketamine
In 2007, 41% of the frequent drug users reported that the availability of ketamine had been ‘stable’ in the
previous six months (Table 11.2). The average score for the change in the availability of ketamine for all the
frequent drug users was 2.0, which indicates that overall the availability of ketamine was ‘stable’ over the
past six months in 2007. There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the change
in availability of ketamine in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=1) indicating the availability of ketamine has
remained ‘stable’ over the past two years.
Table 11.2: Change in availability of ketamine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
2006
2007
Change in
availability
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
of ketamine (%)
(n=12)
(n=17)
Easier [1]
17%
29%
Stable [2]
50%
41%
Fluctuates [2]
17%
0%
More difficult [3]
17%
29%
2.0
2.0
Stable
Stable
Average change in
availability score
(1=easier – 3=more
difficult)
Overall recent
change
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
144
11.4 Price of ketamine
11.4.1 Current price of ketamine
In 2007, the frequent drug users provided the price of ketamine in ‘bumps’ and ‘grams’. The numbers of
frequent drug users reporting prices was low for both quantities. The median price paid for a ‘bump’ of
ketamine was $60, and the median price paid for a ‘gram’ of ketamine was $115 (Table 11.3). Table 11.3
also presents the prices reported paid for a gram of ketamine in 2006. The small number of participants
reporting prices for ketamine in 2007 and 2006 prevents any reliable statistical comparison between the
years.
Table 11.3: Current median (mean) price for ketamine (NZD) by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Current price of
ketamine
2006
2007
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
Number with
knowledge
-
Median (mean) price
for a bump
-
Number with
knowledge
Median (mean) price
for a gram
n=2
$60 ($60)
(n=6)
$200 ($193)
n=8
$115 ($135)
11.4.2 Change in price of ketamine
In 2007, 40% of the frequent drug users reported that the price of ketamine had been ‘stable’ in the previous
six months and 40% said it had been ‘increasing’ over the past six months (Table 11.4). The average score
for the change in the price of ketamine for all the frequent drug users was 2.2, which indicates that overall
the price of ketamine had been ‘stable/increasing’ over the previous six months in 2007. Low numbers
prevent any reliable statistical comparison between 2007 and 2006.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
145
Table 11.4: Change in the price of ketamine in the last six months by combined frequent drug users, 20062007
Change in price of
ketamine (%)
2006
2007
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
(n=7)
(n=10)
Decreasing [1]
14%
20%
Stable [2]
29%
40%
Fluctuating [2]
29%
0%
Increasing [3]
29%
40%
2.1
2.2
Average change in
price score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
Overall recent
change
Stable/
Stable/
fluctuating
increasing
11.5 Purity of ketamine
11.5.1 Current purity of ketamine
In 2007, 93% of the frequent drug users described the current purity of ketamine as ‘high’ (Table 11.5). The
average score for the current purity of ketamine for all the frequent drug users was 2.9, which indicates that
overall the strength of ketamine was ‘high’ in 2007. There was no statistically significant difference in the
average score of the current purity of ketamine in 2007 compared to 2006, although the difference was close
to being statistically significant (p=0.0607).
Table 11.5: Current purity of ketamine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
2006
2007
Current purity of
ketamine
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
(%)
(n=13)
Low [1]
(n=15)
8%
0%
Medium [2]
15%
0%
Fluctuates [2]
15%
7%
High [3]
62%
93%
2.5
2.9
High/
medium
High
Average purity score
(1=low – 3=high)
Overall current status
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
146
11.5.2 Change in purity of ketamine
In 2007, 77% of the frequent drug users reported that the purity of ketamine had been ‘stable’ in the previous
six months (Table 11.6). The average score for the change in the purity of ketamine for all the frequent drug
users was 2.2, which indicates that overall the purity of ketamine was ‘stable’ over the past six months in
2007. There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the change in purity of
ketamine in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.6976) indicating the purity of ketamine has remained ‘stable’ over
the past two years.
Table 11.6: Change in purity of ketamine by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
2006
2007
Change in purity of
ketamine
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
(%)
(n=12)
(n=13)
Decreasing [1]
Stable [2]
8%
0%
67%
77%
Fluctuating [2]
8%
8%
Increasing [3]
17%
15%
2.1
2.2
Stable
Stable
Average change in
purity score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
Overall recent
change
11.6 Perceptions of the number of people using ketamine
In 2007, 40% of the frequent drugs thought ‘about the same’ number of people they know were using
ketamine, 33% said ‘less’ people they know were using ketamine and 20% said that ‘more’ people they
know were using the ketamine (Table 11.7). The average score for all the frequent drug users for the
question was 1.9, indicating that overall the ‘same/less’ people were using ketamine compared to six months
ago in 2007. There was no statistically significant difference in the average score of the number of people
using ketamine in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.8151), indicating that the number of people using ketamine
has remained the ‘same/less’ over the past two years.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
147
Table 11.7: Perceptions of the number of people using ketamine by combined frequent drug users, 20062007
Number of people
using ketamine (%)
2006
2007
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
(n=15)
(n=15)
Less [1]
36%
33%
Same [2]
36%
40%
More [3]
29%
20%
1.9
1.9
Same/
Same/
less
less
Average number of
people using score
(1=less – 3=more)
Overall recent
change
11.7 Ketamine use in the general population
The proportion of the New Zealand population aged 13-45 years old who had ever tried ketamine did not
change in 2006 compared to 2003 (0.8% vs. 0.8%, p=0.9479). There was also no statistically significantly
change in the proportion of people who had used ketamine in the past year in 2006 compared to 2003 (0.15%
vs. 0.19%, p=0.7474). Low numbers involved in these survey results indicate they should be treated with
caution. Only six survey respondents reported using ketamine in the previous 12 months in 2003 and only
three respondents reported using ketamine in the previous 12 months in 2006.
11.8 Summary of ketamine trends
• Only a small number of the frequent drug users indicated that they had knowledge of ketamine
trends in 2006 and 2007. As a result the findings in this chapter should be treated with some caution
• In 2007, the current availability of ketamine was reported to be ‘difficult’
• The availability of ketamine is thought to have been ‘stable’ over the past two years
• In 2007, a gram of ketamine cost a median price of $115
• In 2007, the current purity of ketamine was considered to be ‘high’
• The purity of ketamine has been ‘stable’ over the past two years
• The number of people using ketamine was described as the ‘same/less’ over the past two years
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
148
12. GHB
12.1 Introduction
Gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB, GBL, Fantasy, liquid ecstasy, or One4B) was originally used as a
medical anaesthetic (Kuhn et al., 1998). It was withdrawn from the market in the United States in the late
1980s due to serious adverse side-effects (Kuhn et al., 1998). It is an odourless, colourless liquid with a
slightly salty taste (Kuhn et al., 1998). GHB has a very steep dose response curve, which means there is only
a very small difference in dose between the ‘the desired recreational effect’ and overdose, coma and death
(Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs, 2001). When GHB is mixed with other depressants, such as alcohol,
the depressant effects are increased which further increases the risk of a life threatening result (Community
Alcohol and Drug Services (CADS), 2005, White et al., 2004). There have been a number of hospitalisations
related to GHB use in New Zealand including several deaths (Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs, 2001).
12.2 Knowledge of GHB trends
In 2007, 10% of the frequent drug users interviewed (n=31) indicated they felt confident enough to comment
on the price, purity and availability of GHB in the previous six months. This included 17% of the frequent
methamphetamine users (n=19), 7% of the frequent ecstasy users (n=7) and 5% of the frequent injecting drug
users (n=5). As there were only small numbers of frequent drug users with knowledge of GHB, we have not
compared the results by frequent drug user group.
12.3 Availability of GHB
12.3.1 Current availability of GHB
In 2007, 38% of the frequent drug users described the current availability of GHB as ‘very easy’ with a
further 31% saying its availability was ‘easy’ (Table 12.1). The average score for the current availability of
GHB for all the frequent drug users was 2.0, which indicates that overall the current level of availability of
GHB was ‘easy’ in 2007. There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the current
availability of GHB in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.6352) indicating the availability of GHB has remained
‘easy’ over the past two years.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
149
Table 12.1: Current availability of GHB by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Current availability
of GHB (%)
2006
2007
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
(n=24)
(n=29)
Very easy [1]
29%
38%
Easy [2]
40%
31%
Difficult [3]
29%
28%
Very difficult [4]
4%
3%
Average availability
score (1=very easy –
4=very difficult)
2.1
2.0
Easy
Easy
Overall current
status
12.3.2 Change in availability of GHB
In 2007, 43% of the frequent drug users reported that the availability of GHB had been ‘stable’ in the
previous six months (Table 12.2). The average score for the change in the availability of GHB for all the
frequent drug users was 2.0, which indicates that overall the availability of GHB was ‘stable’ over the past
six months in 2007. There was no statistically significant difference in the average score for the change in
availability of GHB in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.2933) indicating the availability of GHB has remained
‘stable’ over the past two years.
Table 12.2: Change in availability of GHB by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
2006
2007
Change in
availability
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
of GHB (%)
(n=23)
(n=28)
Easier [1]
43%
21%
Stable [2]
30%
43%
4%
14%
22%
21%
1.8
2.0
Fluctuates [2]
More difficult [3]
Average change in
availability score
(1=easier – 3=more
difficult)
Overall recent
change
Easier/
stable
Stable
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
150
12.4 Price of GHB
12.4.1 Current price of GHB
In 2007, the median price paid for a millilitre of GHB was $5 (Table 12.3). There was no statistically
significant difference in the average price paid for a millilitre of GHB in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.3284).
Table 12.3: Current median (mean) price for GHB (NZD) by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Current price of
GHB
2006
2007
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
(n=20)
(n=17)
Median (mean) price
for a millilitre
$5.50 ($6.10)
$5.00 ($5.05)
12.4.2 Change in price of GHB
In 2007, 60% of the frequent drug users reported that the price of GHB had been ‘stable’ in the previous six
months and 32% reported the price was ‘increasing’ (Table 12.4). The average score for the change in the
price of GHB for all the frequent drug users was 2.3, which indicates that the price of GHB was
‘stable/increasing’ over the previous six months in 2007. There was no statistically significant difference in
the average score for the change in price of GHB in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.9912) indicating the price
of GHB has remained ‘stable/increasing’ over the past two years.
Table 12.4: Change in the price of GHB in the last six months by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Change in price of
GHB (%)
Decreasing [1]
2006
2007
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
(n=22)
(n=25)
9%
0%
Stable [2]
36%
60%
Fluctuating [2]
14%
8%
Increasing [3]
41%
32%
2.3
2.3
Stable/
increasing
Stable/
increasing
Average change in
price score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
Overall recent
change
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
151
12.5 Purity of GHB
12.5.1 Current purity of GHB
In 2007, 67% of the frequent drug users described the current purity of GHB as ‘high’ (Table 12.5). The
average score for the current purity of GHB for all the frequent drug users was 2.6, which indicates that
overall the purity of GHB was ‘high’ in 2007. The average score for the current purity of GHB was higher in
2007 than in 2006 (2.6 vs. 2.1, p=0.0043) indicating the current purity of GHB was higher in 2007 than in
2006.
Table 12.5: Current purity of GHB by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
2006
2007
Current purity of
GHB
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
(%)
(n=20)
(n=27)
Low [1]
25%
4%
Medium [2]
30%
15%
Fluctuates [2]
15%
15%
High [3]
30%
67%
Average purity score
(1=low – 3=high)
2.1
2.6
Overall current status
Medium/
High
high
12.5.2 Change in purity of GHB
In 2007, 50% of the frequent drug users reported that the purity of GHB had been ‘stable’ in the previous six
months and 21% said the purity of GHB had ‘fluctuated’ over this time (Table 12.6). The average score for
the change in the purity of GHB for all the frequent drug users was 2.0, which indicates that overall the
purity of GHB had been ‘stable/fluctuating’ over the past six months in 2007. There was no statistically
significant difference in the average score for the change in purity of GHB in 2007 compared to 2006
(p=0.8142) indicating the purity of GHB has remained ‘stable’ over the past two years.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
152
Table 12.6: Change in purity of GHB by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
2006
2007
Change in purity of
GHB
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
(%)
(n=21)
(n=24)
Decreasing [1]
19%
17%
Stable [2]
52%
50%
Fluctuating [2]
10%
21%
Increasing [3]
19%
13%
2.0
2.0
Stable
Stable
Average change in
purity score
(1=decreasing –
3=increasing)
Overall recent
change
12.6 Perceptions of the number of people using GHB
In 2007, 47% of the frequent drugs thought ‘more’ people they know were using GHB, and 37% said ‘about
the same’ number of people were using GHB (Table 12.7). The average score for all the frequent drug users
for the question was 2.3 indicating that overall the ‘same/more’ people were using GHB compared to six
months ago in 2007. There was no statistically significant difference in the average score of the number of
people using GHB in 2007 compared to 2006 (p=0.8984) indicating the number of people using GHB has
remained the ‘same/more’ over the past two years.
Table 12.7: Perceptions of the number of people using GHB by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Number of people
using GHB (%)
2006
2007
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
(n=22)
(n=31)
Less [1]
18%
17%
Same [2]
36%
37%
More [3]
45%
47%
2.3
2.3
Same/
more
Same/
more
Average number of
people using score
(1=less – 3=more)
Overall
change
recent
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
153
12.7 Seizures of GHB
Drug enforcement agencies advise that GHB was not seized in large quantities before 2004 and consequently
seizures were not routinely recorded. A joint New Zealand Police and New Zealand Customs Service
operation in 2004 led to a particularly large seizure of 45.7 litres of GHB (Figure 12.1). In 2005, 22.7 litres
of GHB was seized and this declined to 2.3 litres in 2006.
Figure 12.1: Millilitres of GHB seized in New Zealand, 2004-2006
45,739
50,000
45,000
Volume (millilitres)
40,000
35,000
30,000
22,739
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
2,314
5,000
0
2004
2005
2006
Source : National Drug Intelligence Bureau (NDIB) (2005, 2006)
12.8 GHB use in the general population
The proportion of the New Zealand population aged 13-45 years old who had ever tried GHB did not change
in 2006 compared to 2003 (1.6% vs. 1.3%, p=0.34). There was also no statistically significant change in the
proportion of people who had used GHB in the previous year in 2006 compared to 2003 (0.3% vs. 0.5%,
p=0.1547). Low numbers involved in these survey results indicate they should be treated with some caution.
Fourteen survey respondents reported using GHB in the previous 12 months in 2003 and only six
respondents reported using GHB in the previous 12 months in 2006.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
154
12.9 Summary of GHB trends
• Only a small number of the frequent drug users indicated that they had knowledge of GHB trends in
2006 and in 2007. As a consequence, the findings in this chapter should be treated with some caution
• In 2007, the current availability of GHB was reported to be ‘easy’
• The availability of GHB is thought to have been ‘stable’ over the past two years
• In 2007, a millilitre of GHB cost a median price of $5.00
• The price of GHB was reported to have been ‘stable/increasing’ in 2006 and 2007
• In 2007, the current purity of GHB was considered to be ‘high’
• The purity of GHB appears to be higher in 2007 than in 2006
• The number of people using GHB was described as the ‘same/more’ in 2006 and 2007
• Annual seizures of GHB have declined since 2004
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
155
13. Drug related harm
13.1 Introduction
The frequent drug users were asked about a number of different aspects of harm related to their drug use
including specific physical and psychological problems they may have suffered and harmful incidents they
may have experienced. The frequent drug users were also asked about the health services they may have
accessed in relation to their drug use and the extent to which they had driven under the influence of drugs.
13.2 Drug related physical problems
The frequent drug users were asked if they had experienced any of a list of 22 physical problems from their
drug use in the past six months. The frequent methamphetamine users were asked about physical problems
related to methamphetamine use, the frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users were asked about physical problems
related to ecstasy use and the frequent injecting drug users were asked about physical problems related to
opiate use.
In 2007, the physical problems most often reported in relation to methamphetamine use were insomnia
(91%), poor appetite (82%), hot and cold flushes (76%), profuse sweating (69%), headaches (67%), weight
loss (63%), muscular aches (63%) and heart palpitations (57%) (Table 13.1). The physical problems most
often reported in relation to ecstasy (MDMA) use were poor appetite (68%), insomnia (68%), hot and cold
flushes (47%), tremors and shakes (42%) and heart palpitations (40%). The physical problems most often
reported in relation to opiate use were poor appetite (81%), hot and cold flushes (73%), profuse sweating
(72%), insomnia (71%), muscular aches (62%), joint pains (62%) and weight loss (61%).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
156
Table 13.1: Drug related physical problems by drug type, 2007
Drug type
Methamphetamine
Ecstasy (MDMA)
Opiates
Physical problem
Methamphetamine
users
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=110)
(n=105)
(n=109)
Insomnia
91%
68%
71%
Poor appetite
82%
68%
81%
Hot/cold flushes
76%
47%
73%
Profuse sweating
69%
42%
72%
Headaches
67%
35%
57%
Weight loss
63%
30%
61%
Muscular aches
63%
22%
62%
Heart palpitations
57%
40%
49%
Teeth
57%
30%
56%
Joint pains
56%
22%
62%
Blurred vision
55%
37%
41%
Shortness of breath
54%
29%
49%
Dizziness
54%
35%
46%
Skin problems
51%
13%
31%
Tremors/ shakes
50%
42%
50%
Numbness/ tingling
48%
37%
45%
Stomach pains
45%
14%
58%
Chest pains
43%
11%
22%
Vomiting
29%
15%
49%
Inability to urinate
26%
31%
30%
Fainting/ passing out
17%
7%
14%
7%
2%
6%
Fits/ seizures
In 2007, the frequent methamphetamine users who reported physical problems from their methamphetamine
use reported a mean of 12 physical problems in the past six months (median 12, range 1-21). The frequent
ecstasy (MDMA) users who reported physical problems from their ecstasy use reported a mean of 7 physical
problems in the past six months (median 7, range 1-17). The frequent injecting drug users who reported
physical problems from their injecting drug use reported a mean of 11 physical problems in the past six
months (median 12, range 1-22). The frequent ecstasy users reported a statistically significantly lower mean
number of physical problems from their drug use than the frequent methamphetamine users (7 vs. 12
problems, p<0.0001) and the frequent injecting drug users (7 vs. 11 problems, p<0.0001).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
157
13.2 Drug related psychological problems
The frequent drug users were also asked if they had experienced any of a list of 19 psychological problems
from their drug use in the previous six months. The frequent methamphetamine users were asked about
psychological problems related to methamphetamine, the frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users were asked about
psychological problems related to ecstasy (MDMA) use and the frequent injecting drug users were asked
about psychological problems related to opiates. In 2007, the psychological problems most often reported in
relation to methamphetamine use were irritability (82%), mood swings (81%), poor concentration (80%),
short temper (75%), confusion (72%), anxiety (69%), loss of energy (68%) and strange thoughts (67%)
(Table 13.2). Twenty-five percent of the frequent methamphetamine users reported experiencing suicidal
thoughts in relation to their methamphetamine use. The psychological problems most often reported in
relation to ecstasy (MDMA) use were strange thoughts (64%), mood swings (60%), confusion (60%),
memory lapses (59%) and poor concentration (57%). Five percent of the frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users
reported experiencing suicidal thoughts in relation to their ecstasy (MDMA) use. The psychological
problems most often reported in relation to opiate use were poor concentration (74%), loss of energy (72%),
mood swings (73%), memory lapses (72%), irritability (71%), anxiety (63%), short temper (61%), loss of
sex urge (60%) and depression (60%). Twenty percent of the frequent injecting drug users reported
experiencing suicidal thoughts in relation to their opiate use.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
158
Table 13.2: Drug related psychological problems by drug type, 2007
Drug type
Methamphetamine
Ecstasy (MDMA)
Opiates
Psychological
problem
Methamphetamine
users
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=110)
(n=105)
(n=109)
Irritability
82%
46%
71%
Mood swings
81%
60%
70%
Poor concentration
80%
57%
74%
Short temper
75%
38%
61%
Confusion
72%
60%
54%
Memory lapse
70%
59%
65%
Anxiety
69%
31%
63%
Loss of energy
68%
47%
72%
Strange thoughts
67%
64%
41%
Paranoia
67%
27%
44%
Depression
58%
31%
60%
Sound hallucinations
48%
30%
22%
Visual hallucinations
45%
28%
18%
Flashbacks
45%
21%
22%
Panic attacks
44%
11%
35%
Loss of sex urge
41%
22%
60%
Violent behaviour
37%
4%
13%
Suicide thoughts
25%
5%
20%
Suicide attempts
8%
2%
7%
In 2007, the frequent methamphetamine users who reported psychological problems from their
methamphetamine use reported a mean of 11 psychological problems in the past six months (median 12,
range 1-19). The frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users who reported psychological problems from their ecstasy
use reported a mean of seven psychological problems in the past six months (median 6, range 1-17). The
frequent injecting drug users who reported psychological problems from their injecting drug use reported a
mean of nine psychological problems in the past six months (median 9, range 1-18). The frequent ecstasy
users reported a statistically significantly lower mean number of psychological problems from their drug use
than the frequent methamphetamine users (7 vs. 11 problems, p<0.0001) and the frequent injecting drug
users (7 vs. 9 problems, p=0.0004).
13.3 Life impacts
The frequent drug users were asked whether their drug use had impacted on eight general areas of their lives
in the previous six months. In 2007, the frequent ecstasy users were statistically significantly less likely to
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
159
report financial problems related to their drug use than either the frequent methamphetamine users (57% vs.
75%, p=0.012) or the frequent injecting drug users (57% vs. 82%, p=0.0003) (Table 13.3). The frequent
ecstasy users were statistically significantly less likely to report harm to their energy and vitality from their
drug use than either the frequent methamphetamine users (51% vs. 77%, p<0.0001) or the frequent injecting
drug users (51% vs. 80%, p<0.0001). The frequent ecstasy users were also less likely to report harm to their
health from their drug use than either the frequent methamphetamine users (43% vs. 77%, p<0.0001) or the
frequent injecting drug users (43% vs. 71%, p<0.0001). The frequent ecstasy users were statistically
significantly less likely to report harm to their relationships from their drug use than either the frequent
methamphetamine users (38% vs. 71%, p<0.0001) or the frequent injecting drug users (38% vs. 72%,
p<0.0001). The frequent ecstasy users were less likely to report harm to their life opportunities from their
drug use than either the frequent methamphetamine users (18% vs. 63%, p<0.0001) or the frequent injecting
drug users (18% vs. 71%, p<0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference between the three
groups of frequent drug users with respect to the level of work/study problems (p=0.4064). The frequent
ecstasy users were less likely to report harm to their home life from their drug use than either the frequent
methamphetamine users (21% vs. 67%, p<0.0001) or the frequent injecting drug users (21% vs. 60%,
p<0.0001). The frequent ecstasy users were less likely to report legal/police problems related to their drug
use than either the frequent methamphetamine users (12% vs. 54%, p<0.0001) or the frequent injecting drug
users (12% vs. 45%, p<0.0001).
Table 13.3: Drug related harms by frequent drug user group, 2007
Different areas of
life
Methamphetamine
users
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
Intravenous
drug users (IDU)
Combined
modules
(n=110)
(n=105)
(n=109)
(n=324)
Financial problems
75%
57%
82%
72%
Energy and vitality
77%
51%
80%
70%
Health
76%
43%
71%
64%
Relationship/social
problems
71%
38%
72%
61%
Life opportunities
63%
18%
71%
51%
Work/study
problems
55%
49%
47%
50%
Home life
67%
21%
60%
50%
Legal/police
problems
54%
12%
45%
37%
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
160
The frequent drug users were statistically significantly more likely to report ‘financial problems’ (72% vs.
49%, p<0.0001) and ‘legal and police problems’ (37% vs. 23%, p<0.0001) related to their drug use in 2007
than in 2006 (Table 13.4).
Table 13.4: Drug related harms by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Different areas of
life
2006
2007
Combined
modules
Combined
modules
(n=317)
(n=324)
Financial problems
49%
72%
Relationship/social
problems
55%
61%
Work/study
problems
47%
50%
Legal/police
problems
23%
37%
The frequent methamphetamine users were statistically significantly more likely to report ‘financial
problems’ related to their drug use in 2007 compared to 2006 (75% vs. 54%, p=0.0039) and compared to
2005 (75% vs. 57%, p=0.0222) (Table 13.5). The frequent methamphetamine users were more likely to
report ‘legal/police’ problems in relation to their drug use in 2007 compared to 2006 (54% vs. 33%,
p=0.0058) and compared to 2005 (54% vs. 22%, p<0.0001). The frequent injecting drug users (45% vs. 28%,
p=0.019) were also more likely to report ‘legal/police problems’ in 2007 than in 2006.
Table 13.5: Drug related harms by frequent methamphetamine users, 2005-2007
Different areas of
life
2005
2006
2007
Methamphetamine
users
Methamphetamine
users
Methamphetamine
users
(n=77)
(n=114)
(n=110)
Financial problems
57%
54%
75%
Relationship/social
problems
63%
72%
71%
Work/study
problems
43%
54%
55%
Legal/police
problems
22%
33%
54%
13.3.2 Specific drug related harmful incidents
The frequent drug users were asked if they had experienced any of a list of specific harmful incidents in
relation to their drug use in the past six months. In 2007, the drug related incidents most commonly reported
by the frequent methamphetamine users were ‘argued with others’ (77%), ‘lost temper’ (73%) and ‘had
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
161
reduced work/study performance’ (67%) (Table 13.6). The drug related incidents most commonly reported
by the frequent ecstasy users were ‘couldn’t remember what happened the night before’ (75%), ‘did
something under the influence of drugs and later regretted it’ (63%) and ‘had reduced work/study
performance’ (59%). The drug related incidents most commonly reported by the frequent injecting drug
users were ‘no money for luxuries’ (71%), ‘got into debt/owing money’ (69%) and ‘argued with others’
(68%).
Table 13.6: Drug related incidents by frequent drug user group, 2007
Methamphetamine
users
(n=110)
Drug related incident
Ecstasy
users
(MDMA)
(n=105)
Intravenous
drug users
(IDU)
(n=109)
Combined
modules
(n=324)
Argued with others
77%
38%
68%
61%
Lost your temper
73%
41%
61%
59%
Had reduced work/study
67%
59%
42%
56%
No money for luxuries
66%
41%
71%
59%
Damaged a friendship
66%
25%
50%
47%
Damaged a friendship
66%
25%
50%
47%
Did something under the influence of
65%
63%
48%
59%
63%
36%
69%
56%
61%
51%
32%
48%
Upset a family relationship
60%
14%
48%
41%
Ended a personal relationship
58%
10%
37%
35%
Couldn’t remember what happened
55%
75%
42%
57%
Damaged property (you)
55%
33%
27%
38%
No money for food or rent
53%
21%
50%
42%
Got arrested
46%
12%
31%
30%
Had unprotected sex
45%
39%
39%
41%
Passed out
44%
39%
38%
40%
Stole property (you)
44%
21%
31%
32%
Physically hurt someone else
40%
9%
24%
24%
Spent some nights sleeping rough
39%
10%
27%
26%
Got a traffic ticket
37%
7%
28%
24%
Had sex and later regretted it
32%
29%
23%
28%
Was kicked out of where I was living
31%
7%
27%
22%
Sacked/lose
31%
3%
15%
16%
Physically hurt yourself
29%
32%
29%
30%
Charged with a driving offence (eg.
23%
4%
12%
14%
Overdosed on drugs
20%
10%
17%
16%
Had a car crash
17%
5%
13%
12%
Were sexually harassed
11%
10%
11%
11%
Were sexually assaulted
8%
3%
5%
5%
performance
drugs and later regretted it
Got into debt/owing money
Took
sick
leave/did
not
attend
classes
the night before
(i.e living on the streets)
business/quit
study
course
DIC)
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
162
Those frequent drug users who had experienced a drug related incident were asked what drug type they
mainly considered to be responsible these problems. In 2007, the drug types which the frequent
methamphetamine users most commonly considered to be responsible for their drug related problems were
methamphetamine (67%) and alcohol (16%) (Table 13.7). The drug types which the frequent ecstasy users
most commonly considered to be responsible for their drug related problems were alcohol (55%), ecstasy
(22%) and cannabis (11%). The drug types which the frequent injecting drug users most commonly
considered to be responsible for their drug related problems were ‘other opiates’ (39%), Ritalin (12%) and
methadone (10%).
Table 13.7: Drug type responsible for drug related incident by frequent drug user group, 2007
Drug type most
responsible for
drug related
incident
Methamphetamine
users
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
Intravenous
drug users (IDU)
Combined
modules
(n=106)
(n=97)
(n=104)
(n=307)
Methamphetamine
67%
8%
5%
27%
Alcohol
16%
55%
8%
25%
Other opiates
2%
0%
39%
14%
Cannabis
7%
11%
8%
8%
Ecstasy (MDMA)
1%
22%
2%
8%
Ritalin
2%
1%
12%
5%
Methadone
0%
0%
10%
3%
Amphetamine
3%
0%
2%
2%
Benzodiazepines
0%
0%
7%
2%
Heroin
0%
0%
3%
1%
Crystal
methamphetamine
3%
0%
0%
1%
BZP party pills
0%
0%
4%
1%
LSD
0%
1%
1%
1%
Solvents
0%
1%
0%
<1%
Tobacco
0%
1%
0%
<1%
Codeine
0%
0%
1%
<1%
13.4 Perceptions of the health risk of different drugs
The frequent drug users were asked to evaluate the health risk of ‘regularly’ using different drug types on a
scale of 1=no risk to 5=extreme risk. In 2007, the drug types which the frequent drug users most often rated
as an extreme health risk with regular use were crystal methamphetamine (52%), methamphetamine (51%),
opiates (39%) and GHB (37%) (Table 13.8). Twenty percent of frequent drug users thought BZP party pills
were an extreme health risk with regular use. Methamphetamine (4.3) and crystal methamphetamine (4.3)
received the highest average scores for perceived health risk. GHB (4.0) and opiates (3.9) were also
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
163
considered by the frequent drug users to be high health risks. There was no statistically significant change in
the average score of the health risk of any of the drug types in 2007 compared to 2006.
Table 13.8: Perceptions of the health risk of regularly using different drug types, 2007 (2006)
Drug type
No risk
=1
Slight risk
=2
Moderate
risk = 3
Great risk
=4
Extreme
risk = 5
Average
score of
perceived
health risk
2007 (2006)
Methamphetamine
(n=314)
1%
4%
14%
30%
51%
4.3 (4.4)
Crystal meth-
1%
3%
13%
31%
52%
4.3 (4.4)
GHB (n=225)
4%
7%
17%
36%
37%
4.0 (4.1)
Opiates (n=300)
3%
11%
21%
26%
39%
3.9 (3.9)
Ketamine (n=215)
3%
10%
20%
34%
33%
3.8 3.9)
Amphetamine
(n=312)
3%
7%
30%
33%
26%
3.7 (3.8)
LSD (n=315)
6%
17%
30%
24%
23%
3.4 (3.4)
12%
26%
26%
16%
20%
3.1 (3.0)
Ecstasy (MDMA)
(n=308)
7%
24%
35%
21%
13%
3.1 (3.1)
Cannabis (n=321)
23%
42%
25%
5%
5%
2.3 (2.4)
Amphetamine
(n=303)
BZP party pills
(n=298)
13.5 Accessing health services
The frequent drug users were asked what health services, if any, they had accessed in relation to their drug
use in the past six months. In 2007, the frequent methamphetamine users were statistically significantly more
likely than the frequent ecstasy users to have accessed an ambulance in relation to their drug use in the
previous six months (15% vs. 3%, p=0.0096) (Table 13.9). The frequent methamphetamine users were also
statistically significantly more likely than the frequent ecstasy users to access a hospital Accident and
Emergency Department in relation to their drug use in the past six months (17% vs. 5%, p=0.0129). The
frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users were statistically significantly less likely to have been admitted to a hospital
in relation to their drug use than either the frequent methamphetamine users (1% vs. 12%, p=0.0042) or the
frequent injecting drug users (1% vs. 10%, p=0.0102). The frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users were less likely
to have visited a General Practitioner (i.e. Doctor) than either the frequent methamphetamine users (5% vs.
38%, p<0.0001) or the frequent injecting drug users (5% vs. 37%, p<0.0001) in relation to their drug use in
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
164
the past six months. The frequent methamphetamine users were more likely to have visited a counsellor in
relation to their drug use than either the frequent ecstasy users (42% vs. 9%, p<0.0001) or the frequent
injecting drug users (42% vs. 23%, p=0.0076). The frequent injecting drug users were more likely to have
visited a drug and alcohol worker than either the frequent ecstasy users (56% vs. 6%, p<0.0001) or the
frequent methamphetamine users (56% vs. 37%, p=0.0097).
Table 13.9: Health services accessed in relation to drug use in the past six months by frequent drug user
group, 2007
Health service
Methamphetamine
users
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
Intravenous
drug users (IDU)
Combined
modules
(n=110)
(n=105)
(n=108)
(n=323)
Counsellor
42%
9%
23%
25%
General Practitioner
38%
5%
37%
27%
Drug and Alcohol
worker
37%
6%
56%
33%
Needle exchange
35%
6%
93%
45%
After hours electronic
needle dispenser
18%
6%
47%
24%
Accident and
Emergency
17%
5%
11%
11%
Ambulance
15%
3%
9%
9%
Social worker
14%
2%
12%
9%
Psychologist
15%
2%
10%
9%
Psychiatrist
10%
2%
12%
8%
Hospital (admitted)
12%
1%
10%
8%
6%
8%
7%
7%
First Aid
The frequent drug users were statistically significantly more likely to have accessed a counsellor (25% vs.
17%, p=0.0195), drug and alcohol worker (33% vs. 26%, p=0.0466) and social worker (9% vs. 4%,
p=0.0061) in relation to their drug use in 2007 than in 2006.
The frequent methamphetamine users were statistically significantly more likely to have accessed an
ambulance (15% vs. 3%, p=0.0014) and accident and emergency (17% vs. 6%, p=0.0351) in relation to their
drug use in 2007 compared to 2006 (Table 13.10). The frequent methamphetamine users were also
statistically significantly more likely to have accessed a drug and alcohol worker (37% vs. 18%, p=0.015),
counsellor (42% vs. 18%, p=0.0021) and General Practitioner (38% vs. 18%, p=0.0096) in relation to their
drug use in 2007 compared to 2005.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
165
Table 13.10: Health services accessed in relation to drug use in the past six months by frequent
methamphetamine users, 2005-2007
Health service
2005
2006
2007
Methamphetamine
users
Methamphetamine
users
Methamphetamine
users
(n=73)
(n=114)
(n=110)
Counsellor
18%
33%
42%
General Practitioner
18%
27%
38%
Drug and Alcohol
worker
18%
38%
37%
Accident and
Emergency
14%
6%
17%
Ambulance
10%
3%
15%
Psychologist
7%
10%
15%
Social worker
10%
7%
14%
Psychiatrist
11%
10%
10%
Hospital (admitted)
8%
4%
12%
First Aid
3%
2%
6%
13.6 Help seeking for drug problems
The frequent drug users were asked if they had ‘ever wanted help to reduce their level of drug use but had
not got it’. In 2007, 26% of the frequent drug users had not been able to find help to reduce their drug use
when they wanted it. The frequent ecstasy users were statistically significantly less likely to have sought help
and not got it than the frequent methamphetamine users (10% vs. 32%, p=0.0004) or the frequent injecting
drug users (10% vs. 34%, p<0.0001).
In 2007, the drug type which the frequent methamphetamine users were most commonly seeking help for
when they were unable to find help was methamphetamine (57%) (Table 13.11). The drug types which the
frequent ecstasy users were most commonly seeking help for when they were unable to find help were
cannabis (40%) and alcohol (20%). The drug types which the frequent injecting drug users were most
commonly seeking help for when they were unable to find help were ‘other opiates’ (57%) and methadone
(11%).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
166
Table 13.11: Drug type unable to find help for when seeking help for drug problems, 2007
Drug type
Methamphetamine
users
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
Intravenous
drug users (IDU)
Combined
modules
(n=35)
(n=10)
(n=37)
(n=82)
Methamphetamine
57%
0%
5%
27%
Crystal
methamphetamine
9%
0%
0%
4%
Cannabis
9%
40%
5%
11%
Alcohol
9%
20%
5%
9%
Amphetamine
3%
0%
0%
1%
Cant specify
3%
0%
8%
5%
Other opiates
3%
0%
57%
27%
Benzodiazepines
3%
0%
3%
2%
Needle
1%
0%
0%
<1%
Ecstasy (MDMA)
0%
2%
0%
2%
Heroin
0%
0%
3%
1%
BZP party pills
0%
0%
3%
1%
Methadone
0%
0%
11%
5%
Solvents
0%
1%
0%
<1%
Tobacco
0%
10%
0%
<1%
Finally, those who reported been unable to find help for their drug use were asked what barriers, if any, they
had come across in trying to find help. In 2007, the barriers most commonly experienced by the frequent
methamphetamine users were ‘fear of what might happen once contact made with service’ (55%), ‘social
pressure to keep using’ (52%) and ‘fear of police’ (45%) (Table 13.12). The barriers most commonly
experienced by the frequent ecstasy users were ‘service not appropriate for my type of drug use/problems’
(56%), ‘social pressure to keep using’ (44%) and ‘fear of police’ (44%). The barriers most commonly
experienced by the frequent injecting drug users were ‘long waiting lists’ (53%), ‘fear of what might happen
once contact made with service’ (53%) and ‘could not get an appointment soon enough/at suitable time’
(42%).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
167
Table 13.12: Barriers experienced when trying to find help to reduce drug use, 2007
Barriers to finding help for drug use
Methamphetamine
users
(n=33)
Ecstasy
users
(MDMA)
Intravenous
drug users
(IDU)
(n=9)
(n=36)
Combined
modules
(n=78)
Fear of what might happen once
contact made with service
55%
33%
53%
51%
Social pressure to keep using
52%
44%
31%
41%
Fear of the police
45%
44%
14%
31%
Fear of losing friends
39%
33%
17%
28%
Long waiting lists
39%
22%
53%
44%
Didn’t know where to go
39%
11%
8%
22%
Could not get an appointment soon
enough/at suitable time
36%
33%
42%
38%
Concern about impact may have on my
job/career prospects
36%
33%
22%
29%
Service not appropriate for my type of
drug use/problems
27%
56%
33%
33%
Costs too much
27%
33%
22%
26%
Had no transport to get there
27%
11%
25%
24%
No local service available
27%
11%
19%
22%
Fear of social welfare agencies (e.g.
CYF’s)
24%
11%
17%
19%
No after hours service
21%
11%
22%
21%
9%
0%
0%
4%
Lack of childcare
13.7 Alcohol and driving
In 2007, 29% of the frequent drug users reported that they had driven under the influence of alcohol in the
past six months. This included 35% of the frequent methamphetamine users, 32% of the frequent ecstasy
users and 19% of the frequent injecting drug users. The frequent methamphetamine users were statistically
significantly more likely than the frequent injecting drug users to have driven under the influence of alcohol
in the previous six months (35% vs. 19%, p=0.0435). The frequent ecstasy users were also more likely than
the frequent injecting drug users to have driven under the influence of alcohol (32% vs. 19%) in the past six
months, and this was close to being statistically significant (p=0.0596). The extent of driving under the
influence of alcohol for each of the frequent drug user groups is presented in Table 13.13.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
168
Table 13.13: Extent of driving under the influence of alcohol by frequent drug user group, 2006-2007
Driving
under
influence
of
alcohol
2006
2007
2006
2007
2006
2007
2006
2007
Meth-
Methamphetamine
users
Ecstasy
users
Ecstasy users
amphetamine
users
Combined
modules
(n=105)
Intravenous
drug users
(IDU)
Combined
modules
(MDMA)
Intravenous
drug users
(IDU)
(n=318)
(n=324)
(n=114)
(n=110)
(n=93)
(n=109)
(MDMA)
(n=111)
None
68%
65%
76%
68%
78%
81%
74%
71%
Hardly any
17%
21%
22%
25%
14%
10%
18%
19%
Some
10%
6%
3%
7%
5%
7%
6%
7%
Most
4%
3%
0%
0%
0%
1%
2%
1%
All
2%
4%
0%
1%
2%
1%
1%
2%
Table 13.14: Extent of driving under the influence of a drug (other than alcohol) by frequent drug user group, 2006-2007
Driving
under
influence
of drug
2006
2007
2006
2007
2006
2007
2006
2007
Meth-
Methamphetamine
users
Ecstasy
users
Ecstasy users
amphetamine
users
Combined
modules
(n=105)
Intravenous
drug users
(IDU)
Combined
modules
(MDMA)
Intravenous
drug users
(IDU)
(n=318)
(n=324)
(n=114)
(n=110)
(n=93)
(n=109)
(MDMA)
(n=111)
None
28%
25%
43%
49%
35%
37%
36%
37%
Hardly any
15%
18%
36%
35%
11%
13%
21%
22%
Some
23%
25%
15%
11%
26%
19%
21%
19%
Most
20%
21%
4%
4%
14%
13%
13%
13%
All
13%
11%
2%
1%
14%
18%
9%
10%
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
169
13.8 Drug use and driving
In 2007, 64% of the frequent drug users had driven under the influence of a drug other than alcohol in the
past six months. This included 72% of the frequent methamphetamine users, 57% of the frequent ecstasy
(MDMA) users and 65% of the frequent injecting drug users. The extent of driving under the influence of a
drug other than alcohol is presented for each of the frequent drug user groups in Table 13.14. The frequent
ecstasy (MDMA) users were statistically significantly less likely to have completed ‘most’ or ‘all’ of their
driving under the influence of a drug than either the frequent methamphetamine users (5% vs. 32%,
p<0.0001) or the frequent injecting drug users (5% vs. 31%, p<0.0001).
In 2007, the two drug types which the frequent methamphetamine users most commonly reported driving
under the influence of were methamphetamine (70%) and cannabis (66%) (Table 13.15). The two drug types
which the frequent ecstasy users most commonly drove under the influence of were cannabis (72%) and
ecstasy (MDMA) (43%). Seventeen percent of the frequent ecstasy users had driven under the influence of
BZP party pills. For the frequent injecting drug users, the two drug types which they most commonly drove
under the influence of were methadone (58%), cannabis (51%) and other opiates (49%).
Table 13.15: Drug types driven under the influence of by frequent drug user group, 2007
Drug type under
influence of when
driving
Methamphetamine
users
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
Intravenous
drug users (IDU)
Combined
modules
(n=82)
(n=54)
(n=69)
(n=205)
Methamphetamine
70%
6%
20%
36%
Cannabis
66%
72%
51%
62%
Crystal
methamphetamine
28%
4%
0%
12%
Ecstasy (MDMA)
16%
43%
4%
19%
Opiates
15%
0%
49%
22%
Methadone
11%
0%
58%
24%
BZP party pills
9%
17%
7%
10%
Benzodiazepines
9%
2%
19%
10%
LSD
9%
13%
1%
7%
Amphetamine
7%
2%
4%
5%
GHB
5%
4%
0%
3%
Heroin
4%
0%
0%
1%
Cocaine
2%
7%
0%
3%
MDA
2%
0%
0%
1%
Ketamine
2%
0%
0%
1%
Nitrous oxide
2%
0%
0%
1%
Anti-depressants
1%
1%
3%
1%
Ritalin
1%
0%
14%
5%
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
170
13.9 Summary of drug related harm
• In 2007, the frequent methamphetamine users reported a mean of 12 physical problems and 11
psychological problems from their drug use in the past six months
• In 2007, the frequent injecting drug users reported a mean of 11 physical problems and nine
psychological problems from their drug use in the past six months
• In 2007, the frequent ecstasy users reported fewer physical and psychological problems from their
drug use than the frequent injecting drug users
• In 2007, half of the frequent methamphetamine users and frequent injecting drug users reported
having no money for food or rent due to their drug use in the past six months
• In 2007, approximately three out of ten of the frequent methamphetamine users and frequent
injecting drug users reported been ‘kicked out of where they were living’ as a result of their drug use
in the past six months
• In 2007, 20% of the frequent methamphetamine users and 17% of the frequent injecting drug users
reported overdosing on drugs in the past six months
• The frequent drug users were more likely to report ‘financial problems’ and ‘legal and police
problems’ related to their drug use in 2007 compared to 2006
• The frequent methamphetamine users were more likely to report ‘financial problems’ related to their
drug use in 2007 compared to 2006 and 2005
• The frequent methamphetamine users were more likely to report ‘legal/police problems’ related to
their drug use in 2007 compared to 2006 and 2005
• The frequent injecting drug users were more likely to report ‘legal/police problems’ related to their
drug use in 2007 compared to 2006
• In 2007, the drug types which the frequent drug users most often assessed as an ‘extreme health risk’
were crystal methamphetamine, methamphetamine, opiates and GHB
• The frequent methamphetamine users were more likely to have accessed an ambulance and accident
emergency in relation to their drug use in 2007 than in 2006
• The frequent methamphetamine users were also more likely to have accessed a drug and alcohol
worker, counsellor and General Practitioner in relation to their drug use in 2007 compared to 2005
• In 2007, one third of the frequent methamphetamine users and frequent injecting drug users had
wanted help to reduce their drug use but had not got it
• In 2007, 29% of the frequent drug users reported that they had driven under the influence of alcohol
in the previous six months
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
171
• In 2007, 64% of the frequent drug users reported they had driven under the influence of a drug other
than alcohol in the past six months
• In 2007, 70% of the frequent methamphetamine users had driven under the influence of
methamphetamine in the past six months
• In 2007, the drug types which the frequent drug users had most commonly drove under the influence
of were cannabis, methamphetamine, methadone, ‘other opiates’ and ecstasy
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
172
14. Drug dependency
14.1 Introduction
The frequent drug users were administered a short dependency scale (SDS) to provide a measure of their
level of dependency on a drug (see Gossop et al., 1995). The SDS has previously been validated as an
instrument to detect dependency among various types of drug users including amphetamine users, alcohol
drinkers, cocaine users and cannabis users (Gossop et al., 1995, Martin et al., 2006, Topp and Mattick,
1997). Those scoring four or more on the combined five questions of the SDS are categorised as drug
dependent. The final assessment of the SDS for each of the frequent drug user groups is presented at the end
the chapter. The frequent methamphetamine users answered the SDS in relation to their methamphetamine
use, the frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users answered the SDS in relation to their ecstasy (MDMA) use, and the
frequent injecting drug users answered the SDS in relation to their opiate use.
14.2 Extent drug use out of control
In 2007, 19% of the frequent methamphetamine users reported that their methamphetamine use was ‘always’
out of control (Table 14.1). Nine percent of the frequent injecting drug users reported that their opiate use
was ‘always’ out of control. The frequent injecting drug users were statistically significantly more likely to
say their opiate use was out of control than the frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users were to say their ecstasy
(MDMA) use was out of control (1.0 vs. 0.2, p<0.0001). The frequent methamphetamine users were also
more likely to say their methamphetamine use was out of control than the frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users
were to say their ecstasy (MDMA) use was out of control (1.0 vs. 0.2, p<0.0001).
Table 14.1: Extent that frequent drug users considered their drug use to be out of control by frequent drug
user group, 2007
Drug Type
Methamphetamine
Ecstasy (MDMA)
Opiates
Extent drug use out
of control
Methamphetamine
users
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=108)
(n=104)
(n=108)
Never [0]
40%
80%
31%
Sometimes [1]
34%
16%
45%
7%
4%
14%
19%
0%
9%
1.0
0.2
1.0
Often [2]
Always [3]
Average
score
(0=never – 3=always)
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
173
14.3 Anxious about missing a dose
In 2007, 35% of the frequent injecting drug users said they were ‘always’ anxious about missing a dose of
opiates (Table 14.2). Fifteen percent of the frequent methamphetamine users said they were ‘always’ anxious
about missing a dose of methamphetamine. The frequent injecting drug users were statistically significantly
more likely to say they were anxious about missing a dose of opiates than the frequent ecstasy (MDMA)
users were to say they were anxious about missing a dose of ecstasy (MDMA) (1.6 vs. 0.3, p<0.0001). The
frequent injecting drug users were also more likely to say they were anxious about missing a dose of opiates
than the frequent methamphetamine users were to say they were anxious about missing a dose of
methamphetamine (1.6 vs. 0.9, p<0.0001).
Table 14.2: Extent that frequent drug users were anxious about missing a dose by frequent drug user group,
2007
Drug Type
Methamphetamine
Ecstasy (MDMA)
Opiates
Anxious about
missing a dose of
drugs
Methamphetamine
users
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=110)
(n=104)
(n=108)
Never [0]
45%
78%
24%
Sometimes [1]
30%
16%
24%
9%
5%
17%
15%
1%
35%
0.9
0.3
1.6
Often [2]
Always [3]
Average
score
(0=never – 3=always)
14.4 Worry about your drug use
In 2007, 18% of the frequent methamphetamine users said they ‘always’ worried about their
methamphetamine use (Table 14.3). Fifteen percent of the frequent injecting drug users said they ‘always’
worried about their opiate use. The frequent injecting drug users were statistically significantly more likely
to say they worry about their opiate use than the frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users were to say they worry
about their ecstasy (MDMA) use (1.3 vs. 0.5, p<0.0001). The frequent methamphetamine users were also
more likely to say they worry about their methamphetamine use than the frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users
were to say they worry about their ecstasy (MDMA) use (1.2 vs. 0.5, p<0.0001).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
174
Table 14.3: Extent that frequent drug users worried about their drug use by frequent drug user group, 2007
Drug Type
Methamphetamine
Ecstasy (MDMA)
Opiates
Worry about your
drug use
Methamphetamine
users
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=110)
(n=105)
(n=109)
Never [0]
32%
63%
24%
Sometimes [1]
37%
28%
40%
Often [2]
13%
8%
21%
Always [3]
18%
2%
15%
1.2
0.5
1.3
Average
score
(0=never – 3=always)
14.5 Wish you could stop
In 2007, 28% of the frequent injecting drug users reported that they ‘always’ wished they could stop their
opiate use (Table 14.4). Twenty-two percent of the frequent methamphetamine users reported that they
‘always’ wished they could stop their methamphetamine use. The frequent injecting drug users were
statistically significantly more likely to say they wished they could stop their opiate use than the frequent
ecstasy (MDMA) users were to say they wished they could stop their ecstasy (MDMA) use (1.5 vs. 0.2,
p<0.0001). The frequent methamphetamine users were also more likely to say they wished they could stop
their methamphetamine use than the frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users were to say they wished they could
stop their ecstasy (MDMA) use (1.2 vs. 0.2, p<0.0001).
Table 14.4: Extent that frequent drug users wished they could stop using drugs by frequent drug user group,
2007
Drug Type
Methamphetamine
Ecstasy (MDMA)
Opiates
Wish you could
Methamphetamine
users
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=109)
(n=102)
(n=107)
stop
Never [0]
39%
89%
22%
Sometimes [1]
28%
6%
31%
Often [2]
11%
1%
20%
Always [3]
22%
4%
28%
1.2
0.2
1.5
Average
score
(0=never – 3=always)
14.6 How difficult find it to stop
In 2007, 10% of the frequent injecting drug users believed it would be ‘impossible’ for them to stop using
opiates (Table 14.5). Nine percent of the frequent methamphetamine users believed it would be ‘impossible’
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
175
for them to stop using methamphetamine. The frequent injecting drug users were statistically significantly
more likely to say it would be difficult for them to stop using opiates than the frequent ecstasy (MDMA)
users were to say it would be difficult for them to stop using ecstasy (MDMA) (1.4 vs. 0.2, p<0.0001). The
frequent injecting drug users were also more likely to say it would be difficult for them to stop using opiates
than the frequent methamphetamine users were to say it would be difficult for them to stop using
methamphetamine (1.4 vs. 0.9, p<0.0001).
Table 14.5: Extent that frequent drug users considered it would be difficult to stop their drug use by frequent
drug user group, 2007
Drug Type
Methamphetamine
Ecstasy (MDMA)
Opiates
How difficult to
Methamphetamine
users
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=106)
(n=104)
(n=105)
stop
Not difficult [0]
48%
89%
22%
Quite difficult [1]
24%
6%
26%
Very difficult [2]
19%
4%
42%
Impossible [3]
9%
1%
10%
Average
score
(0=never – 3=always)
0.9
0.2
1.4
14.7 Short Dependency Scale (SDS) scores
In 2007, 83% of the frequent injecting drug users were classified as dependent on opiates according to the
SDS (Table 14.6). Fifty-five percent of the frequent methamphetamine users were classified as dependent on
methamphetamine according to the SDS. Ten percent of the frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users were classified
as dependent on ecstasy (MDMA) according to the SDS. The frequent injecting drug users were statistically
significantly more likely to be classified as drug dependent than the frequent methamphetamine users (83%
vs. 55%, p<0.0001). The frequent methamphetamine users were more likely to be classified as drug
dependent than the frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users (55% vs. 10%, p<0.0001). Levels of drug dependency in
the 2007 sample were similar to the levels found in 2006 sample. In 2006, 80% of the frequent injecting drug
users, 59% of the frequent methamphetamine users and 9% of the frequent ecstasy users were classified as
dependent using the SDS.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
176
Table 14.6: SDS classification of dependency by frequent drug user group, 2007
Drug Type
Methamphetamine
Ecstasy (MDMA)
Opiates
Total dependency
score
Methamphetamine
users
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(score 4 or more =
dependent)
(n=103)
(n=100)
(n=101)
0
14%
45%
6%
1
20%
73%
10%
2
32%
84%
13%
3
45%
90%
17%
54%
94%
23%
5
61%
94%
34%
6
66%
94%
45%
7
74%
95%
57%
8
80%
97%
72%
9
86%
99%
77%
10
90%
99%
89%
11
92%
100%
93%
12
92%
100%
97%
13
96%
100%
100%
14
99%
100%
100%
4
Non-dependent
Dependent
14.8 Summary of drug dependency
• In 2007, 83% of the frequent injecting drug users were classified as dependent on opiates
• In 2007, 55% of the frequent methamphetamine users were classified as dependent on
methamphetamine
• In 2007, 10% of the frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users were classified as dependent on ecstasy
• Levels of drug dependency were similar in 2007 compared to 2006
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
177
15. Injecting behaviour
15.1 Introduction
Those frequent drug users who had injected any drug in the past six months were asked additional questions
about their injecting behaviour, including where they obtained their needles, the places where they injected,
whether they had used a needle or injection equipment after another user and how often they had used a new
sterile needle on each injecting occasion. All the frequent injecting drug users had injected a drug in the
previous six months. Forty percent of the frequent methamphetamine users had used a needle to inject a drug
in the past six months. Only six frequent ecstasy users (6%) had injected a drug in the past six months so
they are included in the combined sample only.
15.2 Location where needles were obtained
The frequent drug users were asked to name all the different places where they had obtained needles in the
past six months and were read a list of possible locations. In 2007, needle exchanges proper (89%),
pharmacies (36%), after-hours electronic needle dispensers located at needle exchanges (35%) and ‘friends’
(29%) were the most common places where the frequent drug users had obtained needles (Table 15.1). Seven
percent of the frequent drug users obtained their needles from their drug dealer.
Table 15.1: Location used to obtain a needle by frequent drug user group, 2007
Location where
needle obtained
Methamphetamine
users
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=49)
(n=108)
Combined modules
(n=163) (includes
frequent ecstasy
users)
Needle exchange
80%
94%
89%
Pharmacy
35%
37%
36%
Needle exchange
electronic dispenser
31%
37%
35%
Friend
18%
32%
29%
Partner
12%
3%
7%
4%
7%
7%
Drug dealer
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
178
15.3 Places where drugs were injected
The frequent drug users were asked about all the different locations where they had injected drugs in the past
six months and were read a list of possible locations. In 2007, private homes (i.e. own home [90%] or a
friends’ home [64%]) were the most common places where frequent drug users injected drugs. However,
injection also took place in public or semi public locations such as a ‘car’ (33%), ‘public toilets’ (31%), the
‘street, park or beach’ (21%) and ‘venue toilets’ (20%) (Table 15.2)
Table 15.2: Places where drug injected by frequent drug user group, 2007
Places where
injected
Methamphetamine
users
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=49)
(n=108)
Combined modules
(n=163) ) (includes
frequent ecstasy
users)
Own home
90%
90%
90%
Friends’ home
67%
61%
64%
Car
41%
29%
33%
Public toilet
24%
33%
31%
Dealers’ home
31%
26%
26%
Street, park or beach
22%
19%
21%
Venue toilet (e.g.
pubs/ clubs)
22%
19%
20%
Sex venue
8%
5%
6%
Communal ‘shooting’
room
8%
3%
4%
Squat
4%
5%
4%
Other
4%
4%
4%
15.4 Times used a needle after someone else
The frequent drug users were asked how many times they had used a needle to inject themselves after
someone else had already used it in the past six months. In 2007, 91% of the frequent drug users said they
had never used a needle after someone else in the previous six months. However, 9% of the frequent drug
users said they had done so to varying degrees over this time (Table 15.3). There was no statistically
significant difference between the frequent methamphetamine users and the frequent injecting drug users
with respect to the proportion who had never used a needle after someone else (94% vs. 91%, p=0.4713).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
179
Table 15.3: Number of times needle was used after someone else by frequent drug user group, 2007
Times used needle
after someone else
Methamphetamine
users
Intravenous
users (IDU)
(n=49)
(n=108)
drug
Combined modules
(n=163)
frequent
users)
(includes
ecstasy
None
94%
91%
91%
1 time
2%
3%
2%
2 times
2%
1%
1%
3-5 times
0%
3%
2%
6-10 times
2%
3%
2%
>10 times
0%
0%
0%
There was no statistically significant change in the proportion of the frequent drug users who had never used
a needle after someone else in 2007 compared 2006 (91% vs. 90%, p=0.6907) (Table 15.4).
Table 15.4: Number of times needle was used after someone else by combined frequent drug users, 20062007
Times used needle
after someone else
2006
2007
Combined modules
Combined modules
(n=134) (includes
frequent ecstasy
users)
(n=163) (includes
frequent ecstasy
users)
None
90%
91%
1 time
6%
2%
2 times
1%
1%
3-5 times
1%
2%
6-10 times
0%
2%
>10 times
1%
0%
15.5 Injecting equipment used after someone else
The frequent drug users were also asked what injecting equipment, if any, they had used after someone in the
past six months. In 2007, 63% of the frequent drug users had never used injection equipment after someone
else in the past six months (Table 15.5). There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of
frequent methamphetamine users and frequent injecting drug users who had never used injection equipment
after someone else (p=0.792).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
180
Table 15.5: Injecting equipment used after someone else by frequent drug user group, 2007
Injecting equipment
used after
Methamphetamine
users
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
someone
(n=49)
(n=108)
Combined modules
(n=163) (includes
frequent ecstasy
users)
None
61%
64%
63%
Spoons/ mixing
container
27%
28%
28%
Tourniquet
22%
22%
23%
Water
6%
8%
8%
Wheel filter
8%
7%
7%
Dregs
2%
6%
5%
Drug (taste)
2%
5%
4%
There was no statistically significant change in the proportion of the frequent drug users who had never used
injecting equipment after someone else in 2007 compared to 2006 (63% vs. 55%, p=0.1918) (Table 15.6).
Table 15.6: Injecting equipment used after someone else by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Injecting equipment
used after
someone
2006
2007
Combined modules
Combined modules
(n=134) (includes
frequent ecstasy
users)
(n=163) (includes
frequent ecstasy
users)
None
54%
Spoons/ mixing
container
37%
Tourniquet
28%
23%
Water
13%
8%
Wheel filter
13%
7%
Dregs
15%
5%
6%
4%
Drug (taste)
63%
28%
15.6 Frequency used a new sterile needle
The frequent drug users were asked how often over the past six months did they use a ‘new’ sterile needle
and syringe when injecting a drug. In 2007, 70% of the frequent drug users had always used a new sterile
needle and syringe when injecting over the previous six months (Table 15.7).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
181
Table 15.7: Number of times a new sterile needle was used by frequent drug user group, 2007
Frequency used a
new sterile needle
and syringe
Methamphetamine
users
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=49)
(n=107)
Combined modules
(n=162) (includes
frequent ecstasy
users)
All injections
80%
64%
70%
Most of the time
18%
27%
24%
Half of the time
2%
7%
5%
Some of the time
0%
1%
1%
Hardly ever
0%
0%
0%
Never
0%
0%
0%
There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of frequent drug users who had used a new
sterile needle on ‘all’ occasions in 2007 compared to 2006 (70% vs. 65%, p=0.454) (15.8).
Table 15.8: Number of times a new sterile needle was used by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Frequency used a
new sterile needle
and syringe
Combined modules
Combined modules
(n=133) (includes
frequent ecstasy
users)
(n=162) (includes
frequent ecstasy
users)
All injections
65%
70%
Most of the time
31%
24%
Half of the time
3%
5%
Some of the time
1%
1%
Hardly ever
0%
0%
Never
0%
0%
15.7 Summary of injecting behaviour
• In 2007, ‘private homes’ (90%) and a ‘friends home’ (64%) were the most common places were
drugs were injected. Injection also took place in semi public locations such as ‘cars’ (33%), ‘public
toilets’ (31%), the ‘street, park or beach’ (21%) and ‘venue toilets’ (20%)
• In 2007, 91% of frequent drug users had never used a needle after someone else. However, 9% had
done so to varying degrees in the past six months
• There was no statistically significant change in the proportion of frequent drug users who had never
used a needle after someone else in 2007 compared to 2006
• In 2007, 63% of the frequent drug users had never used injection equipment after someone else in
the previous six months
• There was no statistically significant change in the proportion of frequent drug users who had never
used injection equipment after someone else in 2007 compared to 2006
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
182
• In 2007, 70% of the frequent drug users had always used a new sterile needle and syringe when
injecting drugs in the previous six months
• There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of frequent drug users who had
always used a new sterile needle and syringe in 2007 compared to 2006
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
183
16. Sexual health
16.1 Introduction
All the frequent drug users interviewed were asked a number of questions about their sexual health including
their number of sexual partners and the extent to which they used safe sex practices in the past six months.
16.2 Number of sexual partners
The frequent drug users were asked how many different people have they had penetrative sex with in the
previous six months. In 2007, only 14% of the frequent drug users had had no sexual partners in the past six
months (Table 16.1). Thirty-two percent of the frequent drug users had had three or more sexual partners in
the past six months, and 8% had had more than 10 sexual partners in the past six months. A higher
proportion of the frequent methamphetamine users than the frequent ecstasy and frequent injecting drug
users had had sex with six or more sexual partners in the past six months, and this was close to being
statistically significant (p=0.054).
Table 16.1: Number of sexual partners in the past six months by frequent drug user group, 2007
Number different
sexual partners
None
Methamphetamine
users
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=106)
(n=102)
(n=103)
Combined
modules
(n=311)
8%
7%
26%
14%
1 person
42%
33%
39%
38%
2 people
11%
21%
14%
15%
3-5 people
16%
25%
11%
17%
6-10 people
10%
7%
5%
7%
>10 people
12%
7%
6%
8%
16.3 Safe sexual practices with regular partners
In 2007, 78% of the frequent drug users who had sex in the previous six months had done so with a ‘regular
partner’. This included 81% of the frequent methamphetamine users, 71% of the frequent ecstasy users and
83% of the frequent injecting drug users. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups
of frequent drug users with respect to the proportion who had had sex with a regular partner in the past six
months (p=0.1278). Those frequent drug users who had a regular sexual partner in the previous six months
were asked how often they used ‘condoms/dams or gloves’ when having sex with their ‘regular partner’. In
2007, 56% of the frequent drug users had ‘never’ used ‘condoms/dams or gloves’ when having sex with their
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
184
regular partner over this time (Table 16.2). The frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users were statistically
significantly less likely to have ‘rarely’ or ‘never’ used ‘condoms/dams or gloves’ when having sex with
their ‘regular partner’ than the frequent methamphetamine users (45% vs. 65%, p=0.0422) or the frequent
injecting drug users (45% vs. 70%, p=0.0102).
Table 16.2: Number of times used ‘condoms/dams or gloves’ when having sex with a ‘regular partner’ by
frequent drug user group, 2007
Times used
protection with
regular partner
Methamphetamine
users
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=82)
(n=69)
(n=67)
Every time
Combined
modules (n=218)
21%
25%
21%
22%
5%
16%
4%
8%
10%
14%
4%
10%
Rarely
4%
6%
4%
5%
Never
61%
39%
66%
56%
Often
Sometimes
There was a statistically significant increase in the proportion of the frequent drug users who ‘never’ used
‘condoms/dams or gloves’ with a regular partner in 2007 compared to 2006 (56% vs. 45%, p=0.0354) (Table
16.3).
Table 16.3: Number of times used ‘condoms/dams or gloves’ when having sex with a ‘regular partner’ by
combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Times used
protection with
regular partner
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=219)
Combined
modules
(n=218)
Every time
20%
22%
Often
16%
8%
Sometimes
11%
10%
Rarely
8%
5%
Never
45%
56%
16.4 Safe sexual practices with casual partners
In 2007, 54% of the frequent drug users who had sex in the previous six months had done so with a ‘casual
partner’. This included 52% of the frequent methamphetamine users, 62% of the frequent ecstasy users and
48% of the frequent injecting drug users. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups
of frequent drug users with respect to the proportion who had sex with a casual partner in the past six months
(p=0.14). Those frequent drug users who had a casual sexual partner in the previous six months were asked
how often over the previous six months they used ‘condoms/dams or gloves’ when having sex with their
‘casual partner(s)’. In 2007, 12% of the frequent drug users had ‘never’ used ‘condoms/dams or gloves’
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
185
when having sex with casual partners over this time (Table 16.4). There was no statistically significant
difference in the proportion of frequent drug users who ‘rarely’ or ‘never’ used ‘condoms/dams or gloves’
when having sex with a ‘casual partner’ between the three groups of frequent drug users (p=0.2738).
Table 16.4: Number of times used ‘condoms/dams or gloves’ when having sex with a ‘casual partner’ by
frequent drug user group, 2007
Times used
protection with
casual partner
Methamphetamine
users
(n=52)
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n=60)
Combined
modules
(n=150)
Intravenous
drug users
(IDU)
(n=38)
Every time
52%
50%
53%
51%
Often
10%
28%
13%
18%
Sometimes
27%
12%
13%
17%
Rarely
2%
2%
0%
1%
Never
10%
8%
21%
12%
There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of frequent drug users who ‘always’ used
‘condoms/dams or gloves’ when having sex with a ‘casual partner’ in 2007 compared to 2006 (55% vs. 51%,
p=0.2738) (Table 16.5).
Table 16.5: Number of times used ‘condoms/dams or gloves’ when having sex with a ‘casual partner’ by
combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Times used
protection with
casual partner
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=149)
Combined
modules
(n=150)
Every time
55%
51%
Often
15%
18%
Sometimes
10%
17%
Rarely
5%
1%
Never
15%
12%
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
186
16.5 Summary of sexual health
• In 2007, 8% of the frequent drug users had more then 10 sexual partners in the past six months
• In 2007, 56% of the frequent drug users had ‘never’ used ‘condoms/dams or gloves’ when having
sex with a regular partner in the past six months
• There was a statistically significant increase in the proportion of the frequent drug users who ‘never’
used ‘condoms/dams or gloves’ when having sex with a regular partner in 2007 compared to 2006
• In 2007, 12% of the frequent drug users had ‘never’ used ‘condoms/dams or gloves’ when having
sex with a casual partner in the past six months
• There was no statistically significant change in the proportion of the frequent drug users who always
used ‘condoms/dams or gloves’ when having sex with a casual partner in 2007 compared to 2006
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
187
17. Blood borne virus vaccination and testing
17.1 Introduction
All the frequent drug users were asked a number of questions about vaccination and testing for the blood
borne viruses Hepatitis B and C, and HIV.
17.2 Vaccination for Hepatitis B
The frequent drug users were first asked if they had ever been vaccinated against hepatitis B. In 2007, 52%
of the frequent drug users had not, and a further 11% did not know if they had been vaccinated against the
virus (Table 17.1).
Table 17.1: Vaccination against Hepatitis B by frequent drug user group, 2007
Vaccinated against
hepatitis B
Methamphetamine
users
Ecstasy users
(n=110)
(n=105)
(MDMA)
Intravenous
drug users
(IDU)
Combined
modules
(n=322)
(n=107)
No
53%
57%
48%
52%
Yes, didn’t finish
schedule
11%
3%
11%
8%
Yes, completed
schedule
30%
28%
27%
28%
6%
12%
13%
11%
Don’t know
There was no statistically significant change in the proportion of the frequent drug users who had never been
vaccinated for Hepatitis B in 2007 compared to 2006 (52% vs. 54%, p=0.8123) (Table 17.2).
Table 17.2: Vaccination against Hepatitis B by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Vaccinated
against hepatitis
B
No
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=317)
Combined
modules
(n=322)
54%
52%
Yes, didn’t finish
schedule
5%
8%
Yes, completed
schedule
31%
28%
Don’t know
11%
11%
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
188
17.3 Tested for Hepatitis B
The frequent drug users were also asked whether they had ever, or recently, been tested for Hepatitis B. In
2007, the frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users were statistically significantly less likely to have been ever tested
for Hepatitis B than either the frequent methamphetamine users (30% vs. 73%, p<0.0001) or the frequent
injecting drug users (30% vs. 83%, p<0.0001) (nb. the ‘Don’t know’ responses were removed for the
purposes of the statistical test) (Table 17.3). The frequent ecstasy (MDMA) users were also statistically
significantly less likely to have been tested for Hepatitis B in the past year than either the frequent
methamphetamine users (17% vs. 51%, p<0.0001) or the frequent injecting drug users (17% vs. 54%,
p<0.0001).
Table 17.3: Ever tested for Hepatitis B by frequent drug user group, 2007
Tested for
hepatitis B
Methamphetamine
users
Ecstasy users
(n=110)
(n=105)
(MDMA)
Intravenous
drug users
(IDU)
Combined
modules (n=323)
(n=108)
No
26%
69%
16%
37%
Yes, in the last year
50%
17%
51%
36%
Yes, more than 1
year ago
21%
12%
27%
20%
3%
2%
6%
4%
Don’t know
There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of the frequent drug users who had never
been tested for Hepatitis B in 2007 compared to 2006 (37% vs. 38%, p=0.8064) (Table 17.4).
Table 17.4: Ever tested for Hepatitis B by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Tested for
hepatitis B
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=317)
Combined
modules
(n=323)
No
38%
Yes, in the last
year
36%
Yes, more than 1
year ago
22%
Don’t know
4%
37%
36%
20%
4%
Those who had been tested for Hepatitis B were asked what the outcome of their test was. In 2007, 75% of
those frequent drug users who had been tested for Hepatitis B said they received a negative result (i.e. they
did not have Hepatitis B).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
189
Table 17.5: Outcome of test for Hepatitis B by frequent drug user group, 2007
Result of
hepatitis B test
Methamphetamine
users
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=78)
(n=31)
(n=84)
Combined
modules
(n=193)
Negative
72%
84%
74%
75%
I am immune to
hep B
14%
10%
13%
13%
Don’t know/ didn’t
get result/ not
sure
12%
6%
4%
7%
I have had hep B
in the past
3%
0%
5%
3%
I am a hep B
carrier
0%
0%
5%
2%
(I don’t have hep
B)
There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of the frequent drug users who were
Hepatitis B carriers in 2007 compared to 2006 (2% vs. 2%, p=1) (Table 17.6).
Table 17.6: Outcome of test for Hepatitis B by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Result of
hepatitis B test
Negative
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=193)
Combined
modules
(n=193)
84%
75%
(I don’t have hep
B)
I am immune to
hep B
9%
Don’t know/ didn’t
get result/ not
sure
3%
I have had hep B
in the past
1%
I am a hep B
carrier
2%
13%
7%
3%
2%
17.4 Tested for Hepatitis C
The frequent drug users were asked whether they had ever been tested for Hepatitis C. In 2007, the frequent
ecstasy (MDMA) users were statistically significantly less likely to have been ever been tested for Hepatitis
C than either the frequent methamphetamine users (24% vs. 70%, p<0.0001) or the frequent injecting drug
users (24% vs. 93%, p<0.0001) (nb. the ‘Don’t know’ responses were removed for the purposes of the
statistical test) (Table 17.7). The frequent methamphetamine users were statistically significantly less likely
to have been tested for Hepatitis C than the frequent injecting drug users (70% vs. 93%, p<0.0001). The
frequent ecstasy users were also less likely to have been tested for Hepatitis C in the past year than either the
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
190
frequent methamphetamine users (15% vs. 49%, p<0.0001) or the frequent injecting drug users (15% vs.
55%, p<0.0001).
Table 17.7: Ever tested for Hepatitis C by frequent drug user group, 2007
Tested for
hepatitis C
Methamphetamine
users
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=110)
(n=105)
(n=108)
Combined
modules
(n=323)
No
29%
73%
6%
36%
Yes, in the last year
46%
14%
55%
39%
Yes, more than 1
year ago
20%
9%
38%
22%
5%
4%
1%
3%
Don’t know
There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of the frequent drug users who had never
been tested for Hepatitis C in 2007 compared to 2006 (36% vs. 37%, p=0.8697) (Table 17.8).
Table 17.8: Ever tested for Hepatitis C by combined frequent drug user group, 2006-2007
Tested for
hepatitis C
Combined
modules
(n=317)
Combined
modules
(n=323)
No
37%
36%
Yes, in the last
year
39%
39%
Yes, more than 1
year ago
21%
22%
4%
3%
Don’t know
Those frequent drug users who had been tested for Hepatitis C were asked what the outcome of their test
was. In 2007, 54% of the frequent injecting drug users and 21% of the frequent methamphetamine users who
had taken the test for Hepatitis C reported that they had tested positive for the virus (Table 17.9).
Table 17.9: Outcome of test for Hepatitis C by frequent drug user group, 2007
Result of
hepatitis C test
Methamphetamine
users
(n=73)
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n=24)
Intravenous
drug users
(IDU)
(n=100)
Combined
modules
(n=197)
Negative
(I don’t have hep C)
74%
88%
38%
57%
Positive
(I have hep C)
21%
0%
54%
35%
4%
12%
8%
7%
Don’t know/ didn’t
get result/ not sure
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
191
There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of the frequent drug users who tested
positive for Hepatitis C in 2007 compared to 2006 (35% vs. 28%, p=0.1242) (Table 17.10).
Table 17.10: Outcome of test for Hepatitis C by combined frequent drug user group, 2006-2007
Result of
hepatitis C test
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=189)
Combined
modules
(n=197)
Negative
(I don’t have hep
C)
69%
57%
Positive
(I have hep C)
28%
35%
3%
7%
Don’t know/ didn’t
get result/ not
sure
17.5 HIV
The frequent drug users were then asked whether they had ever been tested for HIV. In 2007, the frequent
ecstasy users were statistically significantly less likely to have been ever tested for HIV than either the
frequent methamphetamine users (30% vs. 72%, p<0.0001) or the frequent injecting drug users (30% vs.
90%, p=0.0003) (nb. the ‘Don’t know’ responses were removed for the purposes of the statistical test) (Table
17.11). The frequent injecting drug users were statistically significantly more likely to have ever been tested
for HIV than the frequent methamphetamine users (90% vs. 72%, p=0.0016). The frequent ecstasy users
were also less likely to have been tested for HIV in the past year than either the frequent methamphetamine
users (20% vs. 46%, p=0.00024) or the frequent injecting drug users (20% vs. 44%, p=0.0004).
Table 17.11: Ever tested for HIV by frequent drug user group, 2007
Tested for
HIV
Methamphetamine
users
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
Intravenous drug
users (IDU)
(n=110)
(n=105)
(n=108)
Combined
modules
(n=323)
No
27%
70%
10%
35%
Yes, in the last year
45%
20%
44%
37%
Yes, more than 1 year
ago
26%
10%
44%
27%
1%
1%
2%
1%
Don’t know
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
192
There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of the frequent drug users who had never
been tested for HIV in 2007 compared to 2006 (35% vs. 37%, p=0.6226) (Table 17.12).
Table 17.12: Ever tested for HIV by combined frequent drug users, 2006-2007
Tested for
HIV
2006
2007
Combined
modules
(n=317)
Combined
modules
(n=323)
No
37%
35%
Yes, in the last
year
39%
37%
Yes, more than 1
year ago
22%
27%
2%
1%
Don’t know
Those who had been tested for HIV were asked what the outcome of their test was. In 2007, less than 1% of
the frequent drug users reported they had tested positive for HIV. However, 4% of the frequent drug users
had been tested for HIV but said they did not know or were unsure of the results of their test (Table 17.13).
Table 17.13: Outcome of test for HIV by frequent drug user group, 2007
Result of
HIV test
Negative
(I don’t have HIV)
Methamphetamine
users
(n=79)
Ecstasy users
(MDMA)
(n=31)
Intravenous
users (IDU)
(n=95)
drug
Combined
modules (n=205)
92%
90%
99%
95%
Positive
(I have HIV)
1%
0%
0%
<1%
Don’t know/ didn’t get
result/ not sure
6%
10%
1%
4%
There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of the frequent drug users who tested
negative for HIV in 2007 compared to 2006 (95% vs. 97%, p=0.448) (Table 17.13).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
193
17.6 Summary of blood borne virus vaccination and testing
• In 2007, 37% of the frequent drug users had never been tested for hepatitis B
• There was no statistically significant change in the proportion of the frequent drug users who had
never been tested for Hepatitis B in 2007 compared to 2006
• In 2007, 36% of frequent drug users had never been tested for Hepatitis C
• There was no statistically significant change in the proportion of the frequent drug users who had
never been tested for Hepatitis C in 2007 compared to 2006
• In 2007, 54% of the frequent injecting drug users who had been tested for Hepatitis C had tested
positive for the virus
• In 2007, 21% of the frequent methamphetamine users who had been tested for Hepatitis C had tested
positive for the virus
• There was no statistically significant change in the proportion of the frequent drug users who tested
positive for Hepatitis C in 2007 compared to 2006
• In 2007, 35% of frequent drug users had never been tested for HIV
• There was no statistically significant change in the proportion of the frequent drug users who had
never been tested for HIV in 2007 compared to 2006
• In 2007, approximately 70% of the frequent ecstasy users had never been tested for Hepatitis B,
Hepatitis C or HIV
• In 2007, of those frequent drug users who had been tested for HIV, less than 1% had tested positive
for the virus and 4% did not know the results of their test
• There was no statistically significant change in the proportion of the frequent drug users who tested
negative for HIV in 2007 compared to 2006
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
194
18. Secondary data sources on drug use
18.1 Introduction
This chapter reviews a number of secondary data sources on drug use in New Zealand to further place the
findings of the interviews of the frequent drug users and KE in greater context. In previous chapters we
reviewed trends in drug seizure statistics and findings from recent national household drug surveys. The
secondary data sources presented here include calls to the Alcohol and Drug Help-line, hospital admissions
for drug related illness and admissions to drug treatment services.
18.2 Alcohol and Drug Help-line
The Alcohol and Drug Help-line is a free 0800 telephone information service run by the Alcohol Drug
Association of New Zealand (ADANZ) (ADANZ, 2006; 2007). It provides confidential information, service
referral and support concerning drug related problems, both for drug users and concerned third parties, such
as family members and friends of drug users. The call statistics from the help-line provide led indicators of
changes in drug use and drug related problems.
In 2006/07, there was a 3% increase in the total number of telephone calls received by the service, from
14,763 calls in 2005/06 to 15,180 calls in 2006/07. The number of telephone calls received in 2006/07 was
21% higher than the number of calls received in 2002/03 (12,529 calls).
In 2006/07, 64% of the telephone calls to the service concerned alcohol related problems. The proportion of
total calls related to alcohol problems fell from 79% in 2002/03 to 62% in 2003/04, and has remained fairly
consistent at this level over recent years (Figure 18.1). Over this time, the number of telephone calls related
to cannabis problems increased from 1,010 calls in 2002/03 to 2,108 calls in 2006/07 (+108%). Similarly, the
number of telephone calls for amphetamine problems increased from 736 calls in 2002/03 to 1,824 calls in
2006/07 (+148%). There was some decline in the number of calls for amphetamine problems in recent years,
down from 2,124 calls in 2005/06 to 1,824 calls in 2006/07 (-14%). There was also some decline in the
number of calls for cannabis problems in recent years, down from 2,244 calls in 2005/06 to 2,108 calls in
2006/07 (-6%).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
195
Figure 18.1: Percentage of calls received for alcohol versus other drugs, 2002-2007
100%
90%
80%
6%
11%
13%
14%
14%
10%
10%
15%
14%
9%
6%
70%
13%
13%
14%
12%
60%
Other drug
Cannabis
50%
40%
Amphetamine
Alcohol
79%
30%
62%
60%
61%
64%
2003/4
2004/5
2005/6
2006/7
20%
10%
0%
2002/3
Source: Alcohol and Drug Association of New Zealand (2006, 2007)
A closer look at the composition of calls for drug related problems other than alcohol, shows that there was
an increase in the number of calls related to methamphetamine problems, from 548 calls in 2002/03 to 1,695
calls in 2006/07 (+209%) (Figure 18.2). There also an increase in the number of calls for problems related to
the use of benzodiazepines (from 187 calls in 2002/3 to 557 calls in 2006/07) (+197%) and for problems
related to the use of opiates (from 272 calls in 2002/3 to 673 calls in 2006/07) (+147%). In more recent years
there have been a growing number of calls to the service for problems related to BZP party pills (from 81 in
2004/05 to 256 in 2006/07) (+216%). There was a recent decrease in the number of calls related to
methamphetamine, down from 1,941 calls in 2005/06 to 1,695 calls in 2006/07 (-13%), and a recent decrease
in the number of calls for amphetamine sulphates, down from 183 in 2005/06 to 129 calls in 2006/07 (-30%).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
196
Figure 18.2: Percentage of calls received for drugs other than alcohol, 2002-2007
100%
90%
0%
0%
1%
3%
8%
6%
5%
8%
6%
5%
5%
4%
3%
80%
70%
11%
8%
6%
5%
12%
5%
5%
10%
2%
1%
10%
12%
12% 2%
BZP
2%
3%
Benzodiazepines
6%
60%
50%
Solvents
23%
33%
31%
30%
27%
Cocaine
Opioid
Amphetamine
40%
Methamphetamine
30%
20%
Cannabis
42%
37%
34%
2003/4
2004/5
39%
37%
2005/6
2006/7
10%
0%
2002/3
Source: Alcohol and Drug Association of New Zealand (2006, 2007)
18.3 Odyssey house drug treatment services
Odyssey House operates a range of programmes for people experiencing serious difficulties with substance
abuse (Odyssey House, 2006; 2007). New clients to Odyssey drug treatment programmes are asked to
nominate the drug type which is their main substance use problem and the top three substances they have
problems with. For adult clients in 2006/07, the drug types most commonly nominated as the main substance
problem were alcohol (37%), methamphetamine (24%) and cannabis (19%) (Figure 18.3). For youth clients
in 2006/07, the drug types most commonly mentioned as the main substance problem were alcohol (30%)
cannabis (24%), tobacco (22%) and methamphetamine (15%).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
197
Figure 18.3: Drug types nominated by Odyssey clients as their main substance problem, 2006/07
Percentage of Odyssey clients
40
35
30
25
20
15
Youth
Adult
Total
10
5
ca
nn
a
bi
al s
co
m
et
h
ha
ni ol
co
m
ph
t
e in
am t am e
ph in
et e
am
se ine
da
ti
g a ve s
m
m blin
et
ha g
do
so ne
lve
n
ot
he ts
rd
ru
op g
ia
te
m
or s
ph
in
ec e
st
as
y
ot
he
LS
rh
D
al
he
lu
r
o
ci
no in
ge
ho
n
m ic
eb
ak
co e
ca
in
e
0
Source: Odyssey House (2007)
Figure 18.4 presents the drug types nominated by new Odyssey House clients in 2006/07 as one of their three
main substance use problems. For youth clients, cannabis (100%) was the drug type most commonly
mentioned, followed by alcohol (70%), tobacco (63%), methamphetamine (26%) and solvents (11%). For
adult clients, alcohol (64%) and cannabis (64%) were the drug types most commonly mentioned, followed
by tobacco (44%), methamphetamine (44%) and amphetamine (12%).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
198
Figure 18.4: Drug types nominated by Odyssey clients as one of their three main substance problems,
2006/07
100
Percentage of Odyssey clients
90
80
70
60
Youth
50
Adult
Total
40
30
20
10
m
ca
nn
a
b
al i s
co
et
ho
ha
m nico l
ph
tin
am et am e
ph in
et e
am
se ine
da
ti
g a ve s
m
m blin
et
ha g
do
so ne
lv
o t en t
he s
rd
ru
op g
ia
te
m
or s
ph
in
ec e
st
as
y
ot
he
LS
rh
D
al
lu her
ci
o
no in
g
ho eni
c
m
eb
ak
co e
ca
in
e
0
Source: Odyssey House (2007)
18.4 Community Alcohol and Drug Services (CADS)
The Community Alcohol and Drug Service (CADS) provide free alcohol and other drug services to the
people of the Auckland region. The statistics presented in this section are from CADS six monthly reports
for the first six months of the year (i.e. January-June) for 2006 and 2007 (CADS, 2006; 2007).
New clients to CADS programmes are routinely administered an alcohol and other drug screening package to
elicit a range of information related to the clients alcohol and drug use. The CADS screen package is
comprised of six individual screening instruments that explore six different drug types (i.e. alcohol;
cannabis; amphetamine; opiates; benzodiazepines; and other drugs). A positive screen indicates probable
problematic and/or dependent alcohol or drug use according to screen specific criteria. A single new client
can return a positive screen for more than one drug type. In 2007, approximately 27% of new CADS clients
screened positive for two or more drug types.
There was a decrease in the number of drug screens completed for new clients from 1,311 in the first six
months of 2006 to 1,193 in the first six months of 2007 (-9%). There were some changes in the composition
of positive screens by drug type between 2007 and 2006 (Figure 18.5). In 2007, there were 908 positive
screens for alcohol compared to 870 positive alcohol screens in 2006 (+4%). Positive screens for cannabis
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
199
decreased from 371 in 2006 to 306 in 2007 (-18%). There was also a decrease in the number of positive
screens for amphetamine, down from 226 in 2006 to 171 in 2007.
Figure 18.5: Percentage of positive screens by drug type, 2005-2007
100%
90%
3%
2%
5%
3%
2%
4%
3%
2%
4%
13%
14%
11%
24%
23%
Percent of positive screens
80%
20%
70%
Other
60%
Benzodiazepines
Opiates
50%
Amphetamine
Cannabis
40%
Alcohol
30%
52%
54%
2005
2006
60%
20%
10%
0%
2007
Source: Community Alcohol and Drug Services (2005; 2006; 2007)
18.5 Summary of secondary data sources on drug use
• There has been a 21% increase in the number of calls to the Alcohol and Drug Help-line in 2006/07
compared to 2002/03
• There have been increased calls to the Alcohol and Drug Help-line in 2006/07 compared to 2002/03
for problems related to methamphetamine (+209%), benzodiazepines (197%) and opiates (+147%)
• There has been a growing number of calls to the Drug Help-line for BZP party pills since 2004/05
• In 2007, the drug types most commonly nominated as the main substance use problem by new adult
clients to Odyssey drug treatment services were alcohol (37%), methamphetamine (24%) and
cannabis (19%)
• In 2007, the greatest number of positive screens (indicating problematic use) for new clients for
CADS drug treatment programmes in 2006 were for alcohol (908 positive screens), cannabis (306
positive screens) and amphetamines (171 positive screens)
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
200
References
Anderton, J. (Hon) (2007), BZP to be banned, Press Release, 28 June 2007
Alcohol and Drug Association of New Zealand (2006) Alcohol and Drug Helpline Annual Report
01 July - 30 June 2006. ADANZ.
Alcohol and Drug Association of New Zealand (2007) Alcohol and Drug Helpline Annual Report
01 July - 30 June 2007. ADANZ.
Biernacki, P., Waldorf, D. (1981) Snowball sampling: problems and techniques of chain referral
sampling. Sociological Methods and Research 10 141-163.
Breen, C., Topp, L. and 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. National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales,
Sydney.
Community Alcohol and Drug Services (CADS) (2005) Six Monthly Community Alcohol & Drug
Services Outputs by District Health Board January - June 2005. Auckland.
Community Alcohol and Drug Services (CADS) (2006) Six Monthly Community Alcohol & Drug
Services Outputs by District Health Board January - June 2006. Auckland.
Community Alcohol and Drug Services (CADS) (2007) Six Monthly Community Alcohol & Drug
Services Outputs by District Health Board January - June 2007. Auckland.
Copeland, J., Dillon, P. (2005) The health and psycho-social consequences of ketamine use.
International Journal of Drug Policy 16 122-131.
Dunn, M., Degenhardt, G., Campbell, G., George, J., Johnston, J. and 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. National Drug
and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney.
Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs (2001) The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs (EACD)
Advice on: Gamma-Hydroxybutyric Acid and Related Substances (Fantasy). EACD,
Wellington.
Field, A., Casswell, S. (1999) Drug Use in New Zealand: Comparison Surveys 1990 & 1998.
Alcohol and Public Health Research Unit, University of Auckland.
Fitch, C. and Stimson, G. (2003) RAR-Review: An International Review of Rapid Assessments
Conducted on Drug Use A Report from the WHO Drug Injection Study Phase II.
Department of Mental Health and Substance Dependence, World Health Organization,
Geneva.
Gawin, F., Ellinwood, E. (1988) Cocaine and other stimulants: actions, abuse and treatment. New
England Journal of Medicine 318 1173-1182.
Gossop, M., Darke, S., Griffiths, P., Hando, J., Powis, B., Hall, W., Strang, J. (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.
Gowing, L., Henry-Edwards, S., Irvine, R., Ali, R. (2002) The health effects of ecstacy: a literature
review. Drug and Alcohol Review 21 53-63.
Gowing, L., Henry-Hedwards, S., Irvine, R., Ali, R. (2001) Ecstacy: MDMA and Other RingSubstituted Amphetamines. World Health Organization, Geneva.
Griffiths, P., Vingoe, L., Hunt, N., Mountenay, J. and 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.
Hando, J., O'Brien, J., Darke, S., Maher, L. and Hall, W. (1997) The Illicit Drug Reporting System
(IDRS) Trial: Final Report. NDARC Monograph No.31. National Drug and Alcohol
Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
201
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.
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., Okudaira, K.,
Iseki, E., Sakai, T., Kosaka, K. (2002) Methamphetamine in Japan: the consequences of
methamphetamine abuse as a function of route of administration. Addiction 97 809-817.
McKetin, R., McLaren, J. (2004) The Methamphetamine Situation in Australia: A Review of
Routine Data Sources. National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New
South Wales, Sydney.
McKetin, R., McLaren, J., Lubman, D., Hides, L. (2006) The prevalence of psychotic symptoms
among methamphetamine users. Addiction 101 1473-1478.
Mounteney J. and Leirvag, S. (2004) Providing an earlier warning of emerging drug trends: the fore
var system. Drugs: education, prevention and policy 6 449-471.
National Drug Intelligence Bureau (2005) New Zealand Illicit Drug Report 2004. NDIB,
Wellington.
National Drug Intelligence Bureau (2007) New Zealand Illicit Drug Data: 2006 Calendar Year.
NDIB, Wellington.
New Zealand Customs Service (2002) Review of Customs Drug Enforcement Strategies 2002.
Project Horizon Outcome Report. New Zealand Customs Service, Wellington.
Newbold, G. (2000) Crime in New Zealand, Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
O'Brien, S., Black, E., Degenhardt, L., Roxburgh, A., Campbell, G. and de Graaff, B., et al. (2007)
Australian Drug Trends 2006: Findings from the Illicit Drug Reporting System (IDRS).
NDARC Monograph No.60. National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of
New South Wales, Sydney.
Odyssey House (2006) Monthly Report - Summary Statistics. July. Auckland.
Odyssey House (2007) Monthly Report - Summary Statistics. July. Auckland.
Shearer, J., Sherman, J., Wodak, A., van Beek, I. (2002) Substitution theory for amphetamine users.
Drug and Alcohol Review 21 179-185.
Topp, L., Hando, J., Degenhardt, L., Dillon, P., Roche, A., Solowij, N. (1998) Ecstacy Use in
Australia. NDARC Technical Report No.39. National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre &
Queensland Alcohol and Drug Research Education Centre, Sydney.
Topp, L., Mattick, R. (1997) Choosing a cut-off on the Severity of Dependence Scale (SDS) for
amphetamine users. Addiction 92(7): 839-845.
United States Department of Health and Human Services (2005) Drug Abuse Warning Network,
2003: Area Profiles of Drug-Related Mortality. SAMHSA, Office of Applied Statistics,
United States.
Watters, J., Biernacki, P. (1989) Targeted sampling: options for the study of hidden populations.
Social Problems 36 416-430.
White, B., Breen, C., Degenhardt, L. (2004) New South Wales Party Drug Trends 2003: Findings
from the Party Drugs Initiative (PDI). NDARC Technical Report No.182. National Drug
and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney.
Wilkins, C., Bhatta, K., Casswell, S. (2002a) A demand side estimate of the financial turnover of
the cannabis black market in New Zealand. Drug and Alcohol Review 21 145-151.
Wilkins, C., Bhatta, K., Casswell, S. (2002b) The effectiveness of cannabis crop eradication
operations in New Zealand. Drug and Alcohol Review 21 369-374.
Wilkins, C., Bhatta, K., Casswell, S. (2002c) 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., Casswell, S. (2003) Organised crime in cannabis cultivation in New Zealand: an
economic analysis. Contemporary Drug Problems 30 757-777.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
202
Wilkins, C., Casswell, S., Bhatta, K., Pledger, M. (2002d) Drug Use in New Zealand: National
Surveys Comparison 1998 & 2001. Alcohol & Public Health Research Unit, Auckland.
Wilkins, C., Casswell, S., 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
(1171): 1-10.
Wilkins, C., Girling, M., Sweetsur, P., Butler, R. (2005a) Methamphetamine and Other Illicit Drug
Trends in New Zealand, 2005: Findings from the Methamphetamine Module of the 2005
Illicit Drug Monitoring System (IDMS). November. Centre for Social and Health Outcomes
Research and Evaluation (SHORE) & Te Ropu Whariki, Massey University, Auckland.
Wilkins, C., Reilly, J., Casswell, S. (2005b) 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. (2005c) 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., Casswell, S. (2005d) Characteristics of amphetamine-type
stimulants (ATS) use in New Zealand: informing policy responses. Social Policy Journal of
New Zealand 25 142-153.
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. Centre for Social and
Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Massey University, Auckland.
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).
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation (SHORE), Massey
University, Auckland.
Wilkins, C., Sweetsur, P. (2006a) Exploring the structure of the illegal market for cannabis in New
Zealand. De Economist 154(4): DOI 10.1007/s10645-006-9029-7.
Wilkins, C., Sweetsur, P. (2007) Individual dollar expenditure and earnings from cannabis in New
Zealand. International Journal of Drug Policy 18 187-193.
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. In press.
Wilkins, C., Sweetsur, P., Bala, M. (2005e) Recent Trends in Amphetamine Type Stimulants (ATS)
Drug Use in New Zealand. June. Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and
Evaluation (SHORE) & Te Ropu Whariki, Auckland.
Wilkins, C., Sweetsur, P., Casswell, S. (2006) Recent population trends in amphetamine use in New
Zealand: Comparisons of findings from national household drug surveying in 1998, 2001
and 2003. New Zealand Medical Journal 119(1244): http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/1191244/2285/.
Yska, R. (1990) New Zealand Green: The Story of Marijuana in New Zealand, Auckland: David
Bateman.
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation
Te Runanga, Wananga, Hauora me te Paekaka
203