1. IDMS 2006-2015 Methamphetamine
Chris Wilkins
SHORE & Whariki Research Centre
College of Health
Massey University

2. Why monitor drug use?
Drug use is hidden and concentrated among the vulnerable (e.g. young people, mentally fragile)
Market is clandestine, profitable and dynamic
Some drugs associative significant health risks (e.g. overdose, addiction, psychosis)
Drug trends can spread rapidly (i.e. social contagions)
Early response is more effective (meth in 2000)
General population surveying is expensive, infrequent and is less likely to reach heavier drug users
Some indicators are lagged (e.g. treatment admissions)
Some indicators reflect institutional priorities (e.g. drug seizures)
Evidenced based drug policy?

3. IDMS Aims
To track trends in drugs of high concern (e.g. meth, injecting drug use)
To document the availability and price of drugs of highest concern
To monitor emerging drugs (e.g. synthetic cannabinoids, NBOMe)
To identify changes in drug markets (e.g. organised crime, online drug markets)
Document health and social harms of drug use (e.g. overdose, family problems, dangerous driving)
To measure demand for health and treatment services (e.g. perceived barriers, access via criminal justice)

4. IDMS Method An annual ‘snapshot’ of drug trends
Survey of frequent 300 frequent illegal drug users
Frequent users (monthly+) (key experts of drug use)
Conducted in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch
Recruited at community level with ‘snowballing’
Report their own use + harms and key market indicators
Conducted from July-Dec
Annually from 2006 –
Statistical analysis to identify reliable trends (not just comparing raw numbers)

5. Current availability of meth, 2006-2015

6. Increasing availability in Auckland

7. Less time to purchase meth in Auckland (57% to 76%)

8. Declining price of meth

9. Declining price of meth in Auckland

10. Price gram of meth,

11. Current availability of Ice, 2006-2015

12. Increasing availability of Ice

13. Declining price of Ice

14. Price of gram of ice,

15. Seizures of meth,

16. Number of meth labs detected

17. Location of meth purchase, 2009-2015
Location (%)
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Private house 83 86 69 78 79 81
Agreed public location 42 39 46 20 56
Public area (e.g. park) 9 13 16 21 35 40
‘Tinny’ house 11 12 24
Street market 5 17 23
Pub/bar/club 2 7 15 18 22
Work 3 6
Educational institute 4 1
Internet

18. Type of seller, 2009-2015 Type of person (%) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Type of person (%)
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Drug dealer 69 56 63 80
Friend 66 54 68 62 70 71
Social acquaintance 50 52 40 57 55 49
Gang member 30 34 33 44 36
Partner/family member 10 15 20 19 11 18 28

19. Injection of meth,

20. Questions welcome