National Amphetamine-Type Stimulant Strategy Background Paper

More documents

Recommendations

Info

46 same reasons they use the drugs - a desire for excitement and risk-taking behaviour and raised levels of aggression. Table 3.1: Perceptions of adult police detainees of the effects of drug use on their driving Worse Better Same as normal n % n % n % Alcohol only 72 62 12 10 32 28 Cannabis 37 44 15 18 32 38 Cocaine 3 50 0 0 3 50 Heroin 14 61 1 4 8 35 <strong>Amphetamine</strong>/methamphetamine 39 49 20 25 20 25 Benzodiazepines 20 83 1 4 3 13 Alcohol and any of these drugs 51 65 11 14 16 21 Source: AIC, DUMA collection 2006 The 2004 NDSHS found that of Australians aged 14 years and over who had used illicit drugs in the past 12 months, one in four (23%) had driven a motor vehicle after they had used illicit drugs (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2005a). This was more common for males than females. In contrast, one in six persons (16.1%) had driven a motor vehicle after they had consumed alcohol (translating to 2.2 million people, consisting of approximately 1.5 million males and 0.7 million females). The 2006 EDRS reported that of those who had driven a car in the previous six months, 77% had driven within one hour of taking an illicit drug on at least one occasion (Dunn et al., 2007). Of these, 78% reported driving after taking ecstasy, 34% after amphetamine (‘speed’), 26% after crystal methamphetamine, and 15% after base methamphetamine. Participants who had driven a car in the preceding six months were asked to indicate how impaired a person’s driving ability would be under the influence of various drugs. For ecstasy, the majority indicated that driving under the influence of ecstasy would carry a ‘moderate risk’ (42%) or ‘high risk’ (31%). For methamphetamine, the majority indicated that driving under the influence of methamphetamine would carry a ‘low risk’ (36%) or ‘moderate risk’ (26%). The 2006 IDRS also enquired about driving risk behaviour and of those who had driven recently, 78% reported driving after taking an illicit drug (O’Brien et al., 2007). Among this group, 30% reported driving after taking speed, 23% after crystal methamphetamine and 14% after base. Several jurisdictions have now introduced random roadside drug testing and comments were made in reference to this during consultations. Specifically, this was noted as providing an opportunity to deter drug impaired driving and for ATS early interventions. ATS are among the most common drugs identified in road-side drug testing and it is likely that many people thus identified (e.g., youth out late at night, transport industry staff) might not otherwise come into contact with health and community services.
47 Sexual behaviour ATS, and particularly methamphetamine, have been linked with increased libido and decreased disinhibition. Among those in the 2006 EDRS who reported engaging in penetrative sex, the majority (85%) reported using drugs during sex in the previous six months (Dunn et al., 2007). Among this sample, 83% reported using ecstasy, 18% reported speed use and 16% reported use of crystal methamphetamine on these occasions. Use of protective barriers during sex when combined with drug use was similar to protective use in general, and more common with casual (50%) than regular (19%) partners. Molitor and colleagues (1999) compared the sexual risk behaviour among a sample of injecting methamphetamine users to injecting drug users never using methamphetamine. Results indicated that male methamphetamine injectors had more sex partners and participated in more acts of anal intercourse with casual partners and vaginal intercourse with regular and casual partners than their counterparts. Female methamphetamine injectors engaged in more acts of vaginal intercourse with regular partners than their counterparts. Furthermore, male methamphetamine injectors reported trading sex for money or drugs, and were less likely to use condoms than their counterparts. Lastly, methamphetamine use also correlated with using shared needles or syringes and not always disinfecting needles or syringes. Heterosexual ATS users have been reported to engage in more risky sexual behaviours including multiple sexual partners, anonymous partners and unprotected sex (Lineberry & Bostwick, 2006). In a study exploring sexual risk behaviours among a sample of 139 HIVnegative, heterosexual methamphetamine users, participants reported using condoms for vaginal sex about one third of the time (Semple et al., 2004). In contrast, condoms were used for anal sex about one quarter of the time, and 7% of the time for oral sex. A United States study examining the sexual behaviours of 1011 males found 15.6% reported recent or past methamphetamine use (Krawczyk et al., 2006). Recent methamphetamine users were more likely to have casual or anonymous female sex partners, multiple partners, partners who injected drugs, and received drugs or money for sex with a male or female partner. However, while there is evidence for a link between methamphetamine dependence and unprotected sex, McKetin and colleagues (2005) argued that this may be due to the associated lifestyle of these persons rather than due directly to the pharmacological effects of methamphetamine. There is proportionally more research into sexual risk behaviour and methamphetamine use among homosexual populations. Research in the United States suggests that methamphetamine use is endemic to urban gay and bisexual men (Halkitis et al., 2001). Research also consistently shows an association between methamphetamine use and HIV infection, likely to be a result of the high-risk sexual behaviours in conjunction with the drug use (Reback, 1997; Worth & Rawstorne, 2005). In Australia, figures from the Sydney Gay Community Periodic Survey 1996-2005 reported that 20% of gay men in Sydney had used crystal methamphetamine in the previous six months (Hull, Rawstorne et al., 2006a). In Queensland, Melbourne and Perth, the rate among gay men is reportedly lower, at between 12-16% (Hull, Brown et al., 2005; Hull, Prestage et al., 2006; Hull, Rawstorne et al., 2006b).
Page 1:
National Amphetamine-Type Stimulant
Page 4 and 5:
ii Acknowledgments This research wo
Page 6 and 7: iv Table of contents Acknowledgemen
Page 8 and 9: vi List of tables Table 1.1: Amphet
Page 10 and 11: viii
Page 12 and 13: 2 The NDS framework and the Law Enf
Page 14 and 15: 4 Table 1.1: Amphetamine-type stimu
Page 16 and 17: 6 particularly on the Pacific Coast
Page 18 and 19: 8 Figure 1.1: MDMA (ecstasy) tablet
Page 20 and 21: 10 a 10-year period. While some of
Page 22 and 23: 12 Figure 1.4: Forms of methampheta
Page 24 and 25: 14 Figure 1.5: Median purity of met
Page 26 and 27: 16 As noted, the route of administr
Page 28 and 29: 18 Chapter 2: Setting the Context T
Page 30 and 31: 20 Figure 2.2: Prevalence of ecstas
Page 32 and 33: 22 19 years (Dunn et al., 2007). Th
Page 34 and 35: 24 The use of MDMA among police det
Page 36 and 37: 26 this survey is conducted with th
Page 38 and 39: 28 models might be useful. On the o
Page 40 and 41: 30 the questionnaire in February 20
Page 42 and 43: 32 2.5 Summary According to the lat
Page 44 and 45: 34 anxiety, agitation, tremor, teet
Page 46 and 47: 36 may be stronger than the link wi
Page 48 and 49: 38 Srisurapanot and colleagues (200
Page 50 and 51: 40 Psychiatric problems appear to o
Page 52 and 53: 42 In 2005, there was a total of 68
Page 54 and 55: 44 The most recent EDRS survey foun
Page 58 and 59: 48 Shoptaw and Reback (2007) review
Page 60 and 61: 50 It has also been speculated that
Page 62 and 63: 52 Parental ATS use In addition to
Page 64 and 65: 54 The Minnesota Department of Heal
Page 66 and 67: 56 Chapter 4: Prevention and Harm R
Page 68 and 69: 58 should cover the full range of d
Page 70 and 71: 60 specific drug (Spoth et al., 200
Page 72 and 73: 62 be applied regularly and systema
Page 74 and 75: 64 Strategies targeting vulnerable
Page 76 and 77: 66 Examples of particular periods t
Page 78 and 79: 68 At-risk workplaces There is incr
Page 80 and 81: 70 The consultation forum with Abor
Page 82 and 83: 72 young people was noted in the su
Page 84 and 85: 74 and/or others); mental health ef
Page 86 and 87: 76 of the fact that frequently peop
Page 88 and 89: 78 Sexual risk behaviour is a furth
Page 90 and 91: 80 • Cleaning up; • Transport o
Page 92 and 93: 82 Assessing the risks of illicitly
Page 94 and 95: 84 4.4 Challenges of applying preve
Page 96 and 97: 86 but a number of studies are now
Page 98 and 99: 88 The pack included a video, train
Page 100 and 101: 90 Chapter 5: Treatment and Service
Page 102 and 103: 92 to the occurrence of amphetamine
Page 104 and 105: 94 In relation to the need for spec
Page 106 and 107:
96 These studies replicate earlier
Page 108 and 109:
98 addressed not only the drug user
Page 110 and 111:
100 Research conducted in the subse
Page 112 and 113:
102 users, data that may be general
Page 114 and 115:
104 that limit brain exposure to me
Page 116 and 117:
106 only significant difference was
Page 118 and 119:
108 through the use of antipsychoti
Page 120 and 121:
110 to develop the capacity of the
Page 122 and 123:
112 It was also suggested that link
Page 124 and 125:
114 as new evidence emerges. New ps
Page 126 and 127:
116 border in 2000 (McKetin et al.,
Page 128 and 129:
118 Table 6.1: Number of clandestin
Page 130 and 131:
120 Table 6.2: Examples of domestic
Page 132 and 133:
122 Tasmania In 2004, strengthened
Page 134 and 135:
124 Recommendations from the consul
Page 136 and 137:
126 Although there are a number of
Page 138 and 139:
128 illegal drugs. When incarcerate
Page 140 and 141:
130 heroin) (Payne et al., 2007). I
Page 142 and 143:
132 Some examples of diversion prog
Page 144 and 145:
134 Other research has compared psy
Page 146 and 147:
136 Rehabilitation in Corrections T
Page 148 and 149:
138 Synthetic Drugs measure will im
Page 150 and 151:
140 • Stealing from motor vehicle
Page 152 and 153:
142 criminal offences There continu
Page 154 and 155:
144 • Increase international coll
Page 156 and 157:
146 • Ensuring offence and penalt
Page 158 and 159:
148 Law enforcement agencies are pl
Page 160 and 161:
150 Appendix 1 National consultatio
Page 162 and 163:
152 Appendix 2 Written submissions
Page 164 and 165:
154 Australian Institute of Health
Page 166 and 167:
156 Bowers, J. & Johnson, S. (2003)
Page 168 and 169:
158 Crits-Christoph, P., Siqueland,
Page 170 and 171:
160 Drug & Alcohol Services South A
Page 172 and 173:
162 Halkitis, P.N., Parsons, J.T.,
Page 174 and 175:
164 Hull, P., Rawstorne, P., Zablot
Page 176 and 177:
166 Leek, L., Seneque, D., & Ward,
Page 178 and 179:
168 McKetin, R., McLaren, J., Kelly
Page 180 and 181:
170 NSW Health (2006). Psychostimul
Page 182 and 183:
172 Ressler, K.J., & Nemeroff, C.B.
Page 184 and 185:
174 Small, W., Kerr, T., Charette,
Page 186 and 187:
176 United Nations Office for Drug
Page 188 and 189:
178
Page 190:
180
show all

National Amphetamine-Type Stimulant Strategy Background Paper

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?