Figure 1: Drug of choice, nationally ... - ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au

Figure 1: Drug of choice, nationally ... - ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au

National findings from the 2018 Illicit Drug Reporting System Funded by the Australian Government under the Drug and Alcohol Program % IDRS participants Figure 1: Drug of choice, nationally, 2000-2018 100 90 80 7063 60 50 40 30 2016 10 0 58 57 57 2005; 2002; 2003; 55 2004; 54 2012; 54 53 2015; 46 53 2013; 2007; 2008; 52 2009; 52 2010; 52 2011; 52 2014; 50 2016; 2001; 48 2006; 48 41 47 2016; 29 35 2015; 26 32 2001; 25 2003; 23 2014; 24 23 2008; 22 21 2011; 2012; 2002; 21 2004; 2005; 21 2007; 21 2009; 21 23 20 2006; 20 2013; 2010; 16 7 2010; 8 2000; 2001; 7 2004; 7 2006; 7 2009; 7 2011; 7 2002; 6 2003; 6 6 2005; 6 2007; 2008; 6 6 2016; 6 2012; 2013; 5 2014; 5 5 2017; 2015; 4 2 5 Heroin Cocaine Methamphetamine Benzodiazepines Morphine Note. Substances listed in this figure are the primary endorsed; nominal percentages have endorsed other substances. *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001

for 2017 versus 2018. % IDRS participants Figure 2: Drug injected most often in the past month, nationally, 2000-2018 100 90 80 70 58 60 50 40 3023 20 10 5 0 40 44 37 37 12 Heroin Cocaine Methamphetamine Benzodiazepines Morphine Note. Substances listed in this figure are the primary endorsed; nominal percentages have endorsed other substances. *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018 10 4 1 % ID R S p a rtic ip a n ts Figure 3: High frequency substance use in the past six months, nationally, 2000-2018 50 45 40 3530 30 25 26 20 15 10 5 0 47 41 32 32 17 13 17 11 6 6 11 Heroin (daily) Cannabis (daily) Powder methamphetamine (weekly) Non-prescribed morphine (weekly) Benzodiazepines Note. These figures are of the entire sample. Y axis reduced to 50% to improve visibility of trends. *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018. 100 90 79 80 69 66 70 120 66 68 65 64 64 62 60 60 60 60 58 58 57 59 56 60

50 2015; 90 72 40 2003;2004; 72 2005; 72 70 2007; 72 2009;2010; 72 2011; 72 2012; 72 72 2014; 72 2016; 75 30 2001;2002; 60 60 2013; 60 2008; 49 20 2006; 40 10 0 % used in past 6 months 180 160 140 54 74 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Median frequency of use (days) Note. Median days computed among those who reported recent use (maximum 180 days). Median days rounded to the nearest whole number. *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018. M e d ia n d a y s u s e d % ID R S P a rtic ip a n ts Figure 4: Past six month use and frequency of use of heroin, nationally, 2000-2018 Median Pirce ($) Figure 5: Median price of heroin per cap and gram, nationally, 2000-2018 500 450 450 400 350 350 350 320 370 360 360 350 350 340 350 300 300 300 320 300 350 335 280 250 200 150 100 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 0 Cap Gram Note. Among those who commented. Price for a gram of heroin was not collected in 2000. *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018. % o f th o s e w h o c o m m e n te d Figure 6: Current perceived purity of heroin, nationally, 2000-2018 100% 2000; 1 8 90% 29 80% 70% 40% 20% 0% 13 11 43 40 35 43 37 39 8 60 10 10 14 13 12 13 11 13 14 47 41 39 44 42

40 50 46 42 13 14 14 33 31 33 34 34 34 19 22 19 49 30% 10% 9 63 60% 50% 10 38 37 25 21 22 9 11 12 15 9 7 34 40 37 10 10 10 Fluctuates Low 31 35 34 11 10 13 Medium 32 30

34 7 10 11 High Note. The response Dont know was excluded from analysis. *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018. % o f th o s e w h o c o m m e n te d Figure 7: Current perceived availability of heroin, nationally, 2000-2018 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 6 21 14 11 38 42 11 12 21 34 12 21 36 14 46 46 41 39 9 11 11 11 37 34 38 36 53 52 48 51 13 38 10 10 39 39

50 49 8 8 10 38 37 34 53 52 55 40 39 72 33 47 44 53 50 35 Very difficult Difficult Easy 47 Very easy Note. The response Dont know was excluded from analysis. *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018. % ID R S p a rtic ip a n ts Figure 8: Past six month use of any methamphetamine, powder, base, and crystal, nationally, 2000-2018 100 90 80 7063 58 60 50 40 30 2015 89 75 73 74 75 79 74 69 67 60 66 68 66 69 40 72 75

71 68 20 10 10 0 Speed Base# Crystal 77 75 20 7 Any Methamphetamine Note. Base asked separately from 2001 onwards. Any methamphetamine includes crystal, speed, base and liquid methamphetamine combined. Figures for liquid not reported historically due to small numbers, however in 2018 3% of the national sample reported use of liquid amphetamine in the six months preceding interview. *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018. # Median days Figure 9: Frequency of use of any methamphetamine, powder, base, and crystal, nationally, 2000-2018 90 80 70 60 50 37 40 30 18 20 10 0 24 10 24 22 24 24 24 20 22 24 24 24 38 48 46 30 19 2014;2015; 20 2016; 20 20 14 2003; 12 12 2012; 12 12 6 2006;2007; 10 2008; 10 2009; 2011; 10 2013; 2004;2005; 7 2010; 7 7 6

5 Speed Base 18 Crystal Any Methamphetamine Note. Median days computed among those who reported recent use (maximum 180 days). Median days rounded to the nearest whole number. Y axis reduced to 90 days to improve visibility of trends. Median days used base and crystal not collected in 2000-2001. *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018. Median Price ($) Figure 10: Median price of powder methamphetamine per point and gram, nationally, 2002-2018 400 350 350 300 300 250 250 200 300 200 200 200 200 200 200 250 275 300 300 300 210 200 150 100 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 0 Point Gram Note. Among those who commented. *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018. 50 50 50 50

50 50 50 % o f th o s e w h o c o m m e n te d Figure 11: Current perceived purity of powder methamphetamine, nationally, 2002-2018 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 15 35 31 19 15 16 28 31 31 26 34 20 14 36 14 41 19 36 15 45 14 47 32 29 32 28 25 17 17 13 12 13 High Medium 13 40 33 14 Low

16 33 18 31 31 29 20 22 14 15 14 26 20 24 37 34 29 28 37 23 13 19 38 30 12 14 28 28 37 37 23 21 Fluctuates Note. Methamphetamine asked separately for the three different forms from 2002 onwards. The response Dont know was excluded from analysis. *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018. % o f th o s e w h o c o m m e n te d Figure 12: Current perceived availability of powder methamphetamine, nationally, 2002-2018 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 11 36 52 14 35 48 14 45 39

14 12 39 43 13 18 45 50 44 42 40 Very difficult 29 16 18 16 44 38 45 37 41 35 Difficult 11 44 Easy 45 15 45 39 14 19 15 51 37 36 34 40 39 20 9 32 39 33 48 Very easy Note. Methamphetamine asked separately for the three different forms from 2002 onwards. The response Dont know was excluded from analysis. *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018. Median Price ($) Figure 13: Median price of base methamphetamine per point and gram, nationally, 2002-2018

450 400 375 350 300 250 300 250 250 200 200 300 200 300 50 50 50 200 50 50 300 300 250 200 200 90 50 400 325 150 100 400 50 50 50 50 50 0 Point Gram Note. Among those who commented. *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018. 50 100 80 50 50 50 % o f th o s e w h o c o m m e n te d Figure 14: Current perceived purity of base methamphetamine, nationally, 2002-2018 100% 90% 80% 70% 19 11

9 16 13 14 60% 50% 29 43 39 14 15 39 18 17 31 40% 18 16 10 30 38 28 28 33 10 32 10 19 15 16 15 17 23 15 20 15 15 25 43 39 30 28 30 31 34 17 40 32 27 31 9 16 11 26 10% 0%

37 31 35 31 34 25 18 28 47 39 30% 20% 8 40 46 29 24 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 High Medium Low Fluctuates Note. Methamphetamine asked separately for the three different forms from 2002 onwards. The response Dont know was excluded from analysis. *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018. % o f th o s e w h o c o m m e n te d Figure 15: Current perceived availability of base methamphetamine, nationally, 2002-2018 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 9 18 14 20 14 17 22 20 17 16 18 15 13 11 30 31 41 41 39 50 47

55 58 38 44 41 41 49 45 44 41 23 27 18 13 49 32 35 38 56 34 35 Very difficult 20 34 Difficult 32 32 Easy 35 39 34 30 33 30 Very easy Note. Methamphetamine asked separately for the three different forms from 2002 onwards. The response Dont know was excluded from analysis. *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018. Median Price ($) Figure 16: Median price of crystal methamphetamine per point and gram, nationally, 2001-2018 700 600 600 500 500 400 300 300 250 300 350 350 350 400

380 500 500 450 400 400 350 300 200 100 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 100 100 100 100 80 0 Point Gram Note. Among those who commented. No data available for gram in 2001. *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018. 50 50 50 % o f th o s e w h o c o m m e n te d Figure 17: Current perceive purity of crystal methamphetamine, nationally, 2002-2018 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 7 6 6 8 25 22 8 9 6 9 27 25 14

11 11 8 19 15 29 32 28 14 12 16 15 13 16 14 13 13 31 30 30 28 28 17 18 14 12 15 16 31 27 32 40 37 26 62 64 56 60 51 41 41 Fluctuates 32 Low 46 40 Medium 42 44 40 19

15 18 19 33 30 High Note. Methamphetamine asked separately for the three different forms from 2002 onwards. The response Dont know was excluded from analysis. *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018. 30 35 % o f th o s e w h o c o m m e n te d Figure 18: Current perceived availability of crystal methamphetamine, nationally, 2002-2018 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 11 14 20 26 15 44 36 26 43 39 46 33 40 48 32 15 27 35 27 15 28 40 44 37 Very Difficult 31 Difficult 19 41 34 Easy 15 14

12 43 38 46 40 46 42 9 42 49 4 4 5 6 39 38 39 30 56 58 56 Very easy Note. Methamphetamine asked separately for the three different forms from 2002 onwards. The response Dont know was excluded from analysis. *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018. 64 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 8 6 6 5 5 35 24 4 5 5 5 5 4 27 18 6 16 4 22 20 22 20

% Used 21 18 17 3 3 15 16 2 12 13 3 3 3 11 13 14 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Median days Note. Median days computed among those who reported recent use (maximum 180 days). Median days rounded to the nearest whole number. Y axis reduced to 10 days to improve visibility of trends. *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018. M e d ia n D a y s % ID R S p a rtic ip a n ts Figure 19: Past six month use and frequency of use of cocaine, nationally, 2000-2018 Median Price ($) Figure 20: Median price of cocaine per cap and gram, nationally, 2000-2018 450 400 350 350 300 250 250 250 250 280 300 350 340 300 350 300 325 350 375 400 380 350 200 200

200 150 100 50 60 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 0 Cap Gram Note. Among those who commented. *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 % o f th o s e w h o c o m m e n te d Figure 21: Current perceived purity of cocaine, nationally, 2000-2018 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 27 46 10 16 2002; 3 6 43 43 31 28 43 31 24 6 6 32 26 35

40 27 28 9 5 23 31 13 24 36 43 27 26 35 11 15 41 13 24 7 22 9 12 27 26 32 8 10 26 31 32 49 36 33 39 31 23 28 29 27 29 32 Fluctuates 29 Low 32 9 22 9 33 24 34 16

14 32 Medium 27 46 21 30 High Note. The response Dont know was excluded from analysis. Figures may not add up to 100% due to rounding. * p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018. % o f th o s e w h o c o m m e n te d Figure 22: Current perceived availability of cocaine, nationally, 2000-2018 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 10 28 2001; 3 7 17 22 30 32 10 30 48 33 11 28 7 8 25 26 6 22 2009; 2 7 18 30 5 27 10 25 2013;2014; 3 45 27 46 38 29 33 16 29 33 25

26 25 36 40 37 28 29 Very difficult 54 35 18 Difficult 35 43 28 25 Easy 45 20 42 28 Very easy Note. The response Dont know was excluded from analysis; *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018. 25 38 34 21 5 6 7 34 35 29 39 31 42 22 28 22 32 42 170 100 90 80 70 120 60 50 40 30 20 10 84 86 0 180 180 180 178 180 180 180 180

170 175 160 170 96 86 83 82 82 83 81 77 % Used 76 75 79 76 72 73 180 160 135 140 140 120 120 100 100 80 60 40 20 73 73 73 73 0 Median days Note. Median days computed among those who reported recent use (maximum 180 days). Median days rounded to the nearest whole number. *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018. M e d ia n d a y s u s e d % ID R S P a rtic ip a n ts Figure 23: Past six month use and frequency of use of cannabis, nationally, 2000-2018 Figure 24: Median price of hydroponic (a) and bush (b) cannabis per ounce and gram, nationally, 2003-2018 (B) Bush cannabis 350 300 280 280 278 300 300 300 300 300 290 300 300 300 280 280 280 250 250 Median Price ($) Median Price ($) (A) Hydroponic cannabis 300 250 250 250 200 250 250 240 220

200 200 200 200 200 200 220 230 200 200 200 150 150 100 100 50 0 50 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 0 Ounce Ounce Gram Note. Among those who commented. From 2003 onwards hydroponic and bush cannabis data collected separately. No data available for ounce in 2000 and 2001. 20 20 20 (A) Hydroponic cannabis 100% 90%

80% 7 3 27 70% 7 3 29 6 4 26 7 3 30 7 4 28 7 4 7 4 9 4 % o f th o s e w h o c o m m e n te d % o f th o s e w h o c o m m e n te d Figure 25: Current perceived potency of hydroponic (a) and bush (b) cannabis, nationally, 2004-2018 (B) Bush cannabis 9 3 9 4 10 3 11 5 9 4 9 4 10 5 100% 90% 80% 31 32 30 29 30 32 32 31 33 29 60% 50% 50% 30% 17 9 18

7 13 22 51 54 22 19 59 52 40% 63 62 64 59 61 58 57 58 59 20% 58 55 52 57 55 57 9 7 5 7 6 12 18 16 50 54 52 60 23 23 25 23 21 4 24 10 9 14 11 54 6 12 52

47 61 52 26 30 54 20% 10% 0% 0% Low 15 4 10 8 19 41 30% 10% Fluctuates 6 70% 60% 40% 10 21 17 Fluctuates 20 27 22 32 Low Note. The response Dont know was excluded from analysis. Hydroponic and bush cannabis data collected separately from 2004 onwards. *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018. 32 (A) Hydroponic cannabis 100% 90% 80% 70% 8 35 6 35 7 42 9 37 10 44 9 42 8

38 (B) Bush cannabis 8 7 39 % o f th o s e w h o c o m m e n te d % o f th o s e w h o c o m m e n te d Figure 26: Current perceived availability of hydroponic (a) and bush (b) cannabis, nationally, 2004-2018 40 7 9 40 40 7 37 8 8 11 100% 90% 43 38 40 60% 60% 50% 40% 40% 20% 57 59 51 52 45 48 54 55 52 53 51 55 49 54 49 20% 10% 0% 0% Difficult Easy

Very easy 22 30 24 23 19 21 17 25 26 47 43 27 29 21 19 22 21 43 35 48 36 40 46 27 26 38 43 46 42 45 38 40 34 33 37 37 30% 10% Very difficult 19 70% 50% 30% 19 80% 35 43 28 Very difficult 38

41 Difficult 33 35 Easy Very easy Note. The response Dont know was excluded from analysis. * Hydroponic and bush cannabis data collected separately from 2004 onwards. *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018. 100 90 80 70 60 90 50 45 40 30 20 10 0 175 180 180 160 140 120 48 44 49 29 50 30 52 28 49 49 30 31 52 32 46 27 50 51 25 26 46 26 48 24 46 24 100 41 39 37 42 80 60 19 17 16 16 40 20

0 % Any Use % Non-Prescribed Use Median days (any) Note. Includes methadone syrup and tablets. Non-prescribed use not distinguished 2000-2002. Median days computed among those who reported recent use (maximum 180 days). Median days rounded to the nearest whole number. *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018. M e d ia n D a y s % ID R S p a rtic ip a n ts Figure 27: Past six month use (prescribed and non-prescribed) and frequency of use of methadone, nationally, 2000-2018 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 21 30 21 20 10 0 33 35 35 25 % Any Use 24 29 26 23 22 21 19 % Non-Prescribed Use 16 18 14 14 14 10 107 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Median days (any) Note. Median days computed among those who reported recent use (maximum 180 days). Median days rounded to the nearest whole number. Y axis reduced to 60 days to improve visibility of trends. *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018. M e d ia n D a y s % ID R S p a rtic ip a n ts Figure 28: Past six month use (prescribed and nonprescribed) and frequency of use of buprenorphine, nationally, 2002-2018 100 90 80 70 60

50 40 30 20 10 0 56 60 50 M e d ia n D a y s % ID R S p a rtic ip a n ts Figure 29: Past six month use (prescribed and non-prescribed) and frequency of use of buprenorphine-naloxone, nationally, 2006-2018 40 36 30 14 8 14 3 17 8 9 22 12 23 13 22 13 26 14 24 14 25 15 26 17 19 11 24 14 20 10 20 10 0 % Any Use % Non-Prescribed Use Median days Note. From 2006-2011 participants were asked about the use of buprenorphine-naloxone tablet; from 2012-2015 participants were asked about the use of buprenorphine-naloxone tablet and film; from 2016- 2018 participants were asked about the use of buprenorphinenaloxone film only. Median days computed among those who reported recent use (maximum 180 days). Median days rounded to the nearest whole number. Y axis reduced to 60 days to improve visibility of trends. *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018. 100 90 80 70 60 50 43 40 30 20 14 10 0 180 160 140 120 50

47 49 52 44 47 53 49 5047 46 44 42 4339 43 40 38 3835 3735 100 80 31 28 2926 29 24 2622 24 60 40 20 0 % Any Use % Non-Prescribed Use Median days Note. Median days computed among those who reported recent use (maximum 180 days). Median days rounded to the nearest whole number. *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018. M e d ia n d a y s % ID R S p a rtic ip a n ts Figure 30: Past six month use (prescribed and non-prescribed) and frequency of use of morphine, nationally, 2001-2018 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 12 10 8 6 4 2118 2623 3028 3028 3230 32 28 36 32 39 35 36 32 33 29 25 21 2118 6 6

4 2017 1714 2 0 % Any Use % Non-Prescribed Use Median days (any) Note. From 2005-2015 participants were asked about any oxycodone; from 2016-2018, oxycodone was broken down into three types: tamper resistant (OP), non-tamper proof (generic) and other oxycodone. Median days computed among those who reported recent use (maximum 180 days). Median days rounded to the nearest whole number. Y axis reduced to 12 days to improve visibility of trends. *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018. M e d ia n D a y s % ID R S p a rtic ip a n ts Figure 31: Past six month use (prescribed and non-prescribed) and frequency of use of oxycodone, nationally, 2005-2018 100 180 90 160 80 140 70 120 60 100 50 80 40 60 30 20 10 0 M e d ia n D a y s % ID R S p a rtic ip a n ts Figure 32: Past six month use (prescribed and non-prescribed) and frequency of use of fentanyl, nationally, 2013-2018 40 8 3 2013 10 9 2014; 3 2014 % Any Use 10 2015; 5 9 2016; 4 2015 2016 % Non-Prescribed Use 8 2017; 3 2017 Median days

3 7 2018 20 0 Note. Data on fentanyl use not collected from 2000-2012, and data on any non-prescribed use not collected 2013-2017. For the first time in 2018, use was captured as prescribed versus non-prescribed. Median days computed among those who reported recent use (maximum 180 days). Median days rounded to the nearest whole number. *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018. % ID R S p a rtic ip a n ts Figure 33: Past six month non-prescribed use of fentanyl, by jurisdiction, 2018 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 16 20 10 0 7 6 NSW 8 6 ACT 9 WA; 9 8 8 8 6 0 VIC TAS; 0 TAS Any (prescribed and non-prescribed) WA 16 NT QLD Non-prescribed Note. Figures for non-prescribed and any use not presented for SA due to n5. In Tasmania, no participants reported fentanyl use. 50 40 30 20 10 0 11 14 16 14 9 7 2013 2014 2015 % Any Use

2016 7 6 2 2017 2018 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 M e d ia n D a y s % ID R S p a rtic ip a n ts Figure 34: Past six month use and frequency of low-dose codeine (for non-pain purposes), nationally, 2013-2018 Median days Note. Median days computed among those who reported recent use (maximum 180 days). Median days rounded to the nearest whole number. Y axis reduced to 50% and 90 days to improve visibility of trends. Differences between 2017 and 2018 data should be viewed with caution due to differences in the way questions were asked in 2018 i.e. participants could only report use occurring in the last six months but prior to rescheduling in February 2018). *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018. % ID R S p a rtic ip a n ts Figure 35: Past six month use of codeine, by jurisdiction, 2018 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 45 12 27 17 National 35 33 16 23 11 NSW 22 16 8 ACT 18 13 VIC Low dose 23 19 High dose SA Any 25 1214 9 6 TAS

27 26 21 WA NT 8 20 13 QLD % IDRS participants Figure 36: Past six month use of other drugs, nationally, 2000-2018 93 10092 88 90 8068 62 70 56 60 46 50 32 30 40 30 18 18 17 15 20 11 3 10 1 0 00 001 002 003 004 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Benzodiazepines Alcohol Pharmaceutical stimulants Tobacco Anti-psychotics E-cigarettes Steroids Note. Non-prescribed use is reported for prescription medicines (i.e., benzodiazepines, anti-psychotics, and pharmaceutical stimulants). Participants were first asked about steroids in 2010, anti-psychotics in 2011 and e-cigarettes in 2014. Pharmaceutical stimulants were separated into prescribed and non-prescribed from 2006 onwards, and benzodiazepines were separated into prescribed and non-prescribed in 2007; *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018. Figure 37: Use of opioids, stimulants and benzodiazepines on the day preceding interview, 2018 Note. This figure captures those who had used stimulants, opioids and/or benzodiazepines on the day preceding interview (83%; n=744). % ID R S p a rtic ip a n ts Figure 38: Past 12 month non-fatal overdose, nationally, 2000-2018 100 90 80 70 60 50

40 3025 20 10 19 13 13 15 9 12 15 15 13 13 15 14 13 16 18 0 Note. Estimates from 2000-2005 refer to heroin and morphine non-fatal overdose only. *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018. 17 16 20 % ID R S p a rtic ip a n ts Figure 39: Take-home naloxone program and distribution, nationally, 2013-2018 100 9086 80 70 60 50 4035 30 20 7 10 0 85 87 52 43 12 17 86 49 18 13 Heard of naloxone Trained in naloxone administration Note. *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018. 86 53 26 18 Heard of take-home programs Heard of naloxone rescheduling 85 58 32 23

%IDRS participants Figure 40: Borrowing and lending of needles and sharing of injecting equipment in the past month, nationally, 2000-2018 100 90 80 70 6051 50 40 30 2016 11 10 0 53 Borrowed needles Lent needles Shared other equipment 37 37 20 12 20 11 9 Re-used needle Note. Data collection for reused own needle started in 2008. Borrowed (receptive): used a needle after someone else. Lent (distributive): somebody else used a needle after them. *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018. % ID R S p a rtic ip a n ts Figure 41: Self-reported mental health problems and treatment seeking in the past six months, nationally, 2004-2018 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 13 11 32 32 11 27 7 14 13 33 29 31 11 38 Attendance 14 34 18 25 12 34 11

28 12 14 14 15 33 29 28 29 No attendance Note. Stacked bar graph of % who self-reported a mental health problem, disaggregated by the percentage who reported attending a health professional versus the percentage who have not. *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018. % ID R S p a rtic ip a n ts Figure 42: Self-reported criminal activity in the past month, nationally, 2000-2018 100 90 80 70 6054 5041 40 30 19 2012 10 7 0 52 55 49 48 46 45 42 41 45 39 39 37 36 38 39 39 40 42 25 21 26 24 4 3 Property crime Drug dealing Fraud Violent crime Any crime Note. Any crime comprises the percentage who report any property crime, drug dealing, fraud and/or violent crime in the past month. *p<0.050; **p<0.010; ***p<0.001 for 2017 versus 2018.

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • Geometry: Unit 1: Transformations

    Geometry: Unit 1: Transformations

    Transformations: Image and Pre-Image A transformation is a one-to-one correspondence between the points of the pre-image and the points of the image . A transformation guarantees that if our pre-image has three points, then our image will also have three...
  • 1 - Michigan State University

    1 - Michigan State University

    6.9 Case Study: Random-Number Generation Random-number generation static method random from class Math Returns doubles in the range 0.0 <= x < 1.0 class Random from package java.util Can produce pseudorandom boolean, byte, float, double, int, long and Gaussian values...
  • Inclusive Assessment - Ahead

    Inclusive Assessment - Ahead

    (Disability Act, 2005) Inclusive Assessment Disabled Students All Students Contingency Approach "special arrangements" such as extra time, own room, etc.) which is essentially a form of assimilation into an existing system Alternative Approach (e.g., a viva voce instead of a...
  • Automatic Language Identification

    Automatic Language Identification

    Automatic Language Identification - A Syntactic Approach ... (Most Frequent Character Sequences) Bi-grams: th, 's, re, en Tri-grams: the, ing, ion, Quad-grams: tion as in classification, association, gratification etc. e.g. English : the, an, is, at,a etc Size of the...
  • Al-Anon Members Involved in Alateen Service

    Al-Anon Members Involved in Alateen Service

    "Alateen Group Sponsors and Al-Anon Members Involved in Alateen Service who feel a moral responsibility or are compelled by law to report cases of suspected child abuse should contact their Area Alateen Coordinator, District Representative, or other Area designated trusted...
  • Monthly Business Review - czechtreasury.cz

    Monthly Business Review - czechtreasury.cz

    Clearing obligation calculation In the ESMA RTS, ESMA confirms that proxy hedging (e.g. where an instrument to carry out a direct hedge is not available), portfolio hedging and OTC derivative contracts that offset hedging contracts may qualify as 'hedging contracts'...
  • 74.419 Artificial Intelligence 2004 Natural Language ...

    74.419 Artificial Intelligence 2004 Natural Language ...

    A symbol S in N that is indicated as the start symbol. Language of a Formal Grammar The language of a formal grammar G = (N, Σ, P, S), denoted as L(G), is defined as all those strings over Σ...
  • Rat Dissection - Woodland Hills School District

    Rat Dissection - Woodland Hills School District

    TAGGED ORGANS Source #7 Review and Quiz Yourself Ureter Kidney Adrenal Gland 20 25 Rectum Stomach Rat Dissection Toward the midline Toward the back (upper surface of body) Toward the tail Toward the side Farthest from the point of attachment...