- Details
- Hits: 10
The Australian methamphetamine problem has reached levels that no national monitoring system has recorded before. The National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC) at UNSW Sydney released its September 2026 bulletin (Chrzanowska et al., 2026). Nearly every headline indicator points upward. Wastewater consumption, hospitalisations and overdose deaths sit at record highs. Crystal methamphetamine, meanwhile, sells at some of the lowest prices the researchers have observed.
The bulletin deserves a careful reading. Measurement of supply, use and harm is rigorous. Treatment of prevention, demand reduction and recovery is close to absent. That omission says as much about the national response to the methamphetamine crisis in Australia as any figure does.
What the Supply Data Show
The ACIC’s national wastewater drug monitoring programme estimated consumption at 15,791 kg in 2024 to 2025. That is the highest level since monitoring began. The rise appeared in every jurisdiction. Regional areas recorded the heaviest use.
Enforcement figures moved the same way. Seizures reported to the UNODC peaked at 16,408 kg in 2024. That sits close to the wastewater estimate, though the two measures cover different periods and use different methods. Global seizures reached 486,575 kg. The AFP and ABF also intercepted large shipments. One was 597 kg in Brisbane from Thailand in July 2025. Another was more than 200 kg in Sydney from Mexico in June 2026.
Record seizures have not produced scarcity. People who regularly inject drugs reported a median price of $300 per gram in 2026, or $50 per point. More than 40 per cent called methamphetamine “very easy to obtain”. Cryptomarket listings point the same way. Between June 2025 and May 2026, 59 per cent were available for delivery to Australia. The Australian methamphetamine problem persists because the market absorbs the losses and prices stay low.
The Australian Methamphetamine Problem: Patterns and Prevalence
The latest household survey from the AIHW covers 2022 to 2023 and is now several years old. About 1.0 per cent of Australians aged 14 and over had used methamphetamine or amphetamine in the previous year. Among those users, 37 per cent used monthly or more often. That includes 23 per cent who used weekly or more often. Crystal was the main form for 43 per cent. The UNODC places Oceania, which includes Australia, at 1.01 per cent past year use of amphetamine type stimulants among adults. Worldwide, the figure is 0.6 per cent.
Patterns are sharper among people who inject drugs. In 2026, 79 per cent of those reporting recent crystal use did so at least weekly. Since 2014, methamphetamine has been the drug most commonly last injected by needle and syringe programme attendees. In 2026, 54 per cent named it.
The authors acknowledge a basic limit. Australia lacks a strong understanding of population prevalence. Household surveys probably undercount because of stigma and poor coverage of heavier users. The national picture therefore rests on an old and partial map.
Harms, Hospitalisations and Deaths
The harm data on the Australian methamphetamine problem leave little room for doubt. Methamphetamine featured in 68 per cent of 6,318 suspected or reported illicit drug toxicity presentations. Those presentations went to 12 emergency departments between July 2020 and December 2024 (Greene et al., 2026).
Ambulance attendances reached 99 per 100,000 people in 2024. Hospitalisations rose to 53 per 100,000 in 2023 to 2024. Those admissions made up 24 per cent of all drug related hospitalisations. Remote and very remote areas recorded 75 per 100,000.
Overdose deaths involving amphetamine type stimulants reached 2.9 per 100,000 people in 2024. That is 39 per cent of drug induced deaths. The figure is provisional and likely to rise with data revisions. Most deaths involved males (75 per cent). Deaths clustered among people aged 35 to 54 (59 per cent), and 92 per cent were unintentional. A separate study (Stronach et al., 2024) found multiple drug toxicity in 83 per cent of methamphetamine related deaths.
What the Evidence Base Leaves Out
The Australian methamphetamine problem now has detailed indicators for supply, use and harm. It has almost none for the response. An evidence base built this way can describe a problem in fine detail and still not show whether the response works.
Start with the language. The word prevention appears once in the entire document. It sits in a closing line calling for a response that spans prevention, harm reduction, treatment and monitoring. The word recovery never appears. Its reference list tells the same story. By title, none of its 19 entries reports on prevention delivery or recovery outcomes.
The stated priorities repeat the pattern. First come better estimates of use and treatment need. Next come wider access to treatment and harm reduction, and services that meet complex needs. The only concrete interventions named are drug checking, drug alerts and take home naloxone. Prevention and recovery receive no priority of their own.
Demand reduction fares no better. The bulletin names strong local demand as one of the forces behind the market. It reports no measure of any effort to reduce it. No figure covers education reaching young people, and no data cover campaigns. Nor does any indicator track how many people start using.
Treatment Counts Without Recovery Outcomes
Treatment data do show growing demand. Methamphetamine was the second most common principal drug of concern in closed treatment episodes in 2024 to 2025 (AIHW). It accounted for 24 per cent of those episodes, and numbers have doubled since 2015 to 2016.
Most clients were male (63 per cent). The largest age group was 30 to 39 (38 per cent). Just over half (51 per cent) smoked the drug. Counselling was the most common treatment type at 35 per cent. Non-residential settings accounted for 65 per cent of episodes.
These figures count activity. They do not count completion, abstinence, relapse or sustained recovery. The bulletin therefore cannot say whether treatment works, for whom, or for how long. Its authors add that “the gap between treatment need and access remains unknown”. That limit matters because use and harms run highest in regional and remote areas. Specialist services in those areas can be scarce.
The authors also reason that experience of methamphetamine dependence may be increasing. If so, the Australian methamphetamine problem carries a growing recovery need that the bulletin cannot track.
Why Harm Reduction Alone Falls Short
The bulletin recommends drug checking, drug alerts and take home naloxone. It ties them to polysubstance use and misrepresented substances. The drug checking data show what those measures respond to. More than 90 per cent of samples expected to contain methamphetamine did so. Even so, heroin has turned up in methamphetamine samples. Methamphetamine has also appeared in samples sold as MDMA and ketamine.
That describes an unpredictable market. Checking offers a way to manage risk for people already using. It says nothing on how to stop a young person starting, or how to help someone stop. Measures that respond after supply reaches the user cannot answer the Australian methamphetamine problem on their own. Prevention that reduces uptake and recovery that ends use must sit beside them.
Measuring What Matters About the Australian Methamphetamine Problem
Governments track seizures to the kilogram and wastewater to the jurisdiction. They should hold prevention, demand reduction and recovery to the same standard. That means published targets and outcome data.
A caution applies. The report states that it conducted no statistical testing on changes over time. Readers should consult the original sources. Even so, the trend is not in dispute. Two questions remain unanswered. Are fewer people starting? Are more people recovering? Until the data answer them, no one can judge the response to the methamphetamine crisis in Australia.
Source: unsw
- Details
- Hits: 265
New figures from Australia’s national wastewater monitoring programme paint a stark picture of the country’s drug landscape. Methamphetamine use in Australia has nearly doubled over the past decade, with the latest annual data confirming consumption levels at their highest point since records began in 2016.
The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) released the findings on Wednesday evening, drawing on wastewater samples collected from 64 sewage treatment plants across the country between August 2024 and 2025. The results reveal not only record highs for crystal meth, commonly known as ice, but also for cocaine and ketamine, raising serious questions about the scale of harm unfolding quietly in homes and communities across the nation.
Ice Consumption Almost Doubles
The numbers are significant. Estimated ice drug consumption in Australia rose from 8,405kg to 15,971kg over the monitoring period, a 23% increase on the previous year alone. That figure places Australia as the second-highest consumer of methamphetamine in the world, behind only the United States, according to the Sewage Core Group Europe (Score), which tracks international wastewater data across 34 nations.
In per capita terms, Australia ranked fifth globally for combined consumption of methamphetamine, cocaine, MDMA and heroin, sitting behind the US, Chile, Belgium and the Netherlands.
ACIC chief executive Heather Cook described the findings as a “stark reminder” that Australia remains a “lucrative target for transnational crime.”
“These aren’t abstract figures,” Cook said. “They represent real harm and real consequences playing out in hospitals, homes and communities across the country.”
Cocaine, Ketamine and Heroin Also Rising
Methamphetamine use in Australia is not the only cause for concern. Cocaine consumption also reached a record national high, with an estimated 7,985kg consumed in 2024 to 2025. Ketamine use hit new peaks as well, with Sydney recording the highest ketamine consumption of any monitored area in the country.
Heroin use, while far less widespread, reached record levels in capital cities, with the Northern Territory seeing the largest annual spike, a 50% increase year on year.
Overall, the total estimated consumption of the four major illicit drugs combined rose by a record 26.8 tonnes, representing a 21% increase on the previous year. The combined market value of these drugs climbed from $11.5 billion in 2023 to 2024 to a record $14.3 billion, with ice drug consumption in Australia accounting for 77% of total expenditure.
What Wastewater Data Can and Cannot Tell Us
Before drawing sweeping conclusions, it is worth understanding what wastewater monitoring actually measures. The method analyses sewage for traces of drugs that people have consumed and excreted, offering a near real-time snapshot of drug use that avoids the under-reporting typical of self-reported surveys.
However, it measures the volume of drugs consumed, not the number of individuals using them. A rise in methamphetamine use in Australia as detected through wastewater could mean more people are using the drug, or that the same individuals are using larger quantities more frequently. It cannot distinguish between the two.
Nor can wastewater data easily separate illicit drug use from legal prescriptions. There has been a notable increase in prescribed amphetamines for ADHD treatment in recent years. Experts note, however, that the scale of the increase recorded is unlikely to be explained by prescription use alone.
It is also worth noting that long-running population surveys have shown a decline in the proportion of Australians who use methamphetamine over the past 15 years. The picture is more nuanced than raw volume figures suggest: a smaller group of people appear to be using the drug more intensively, with harms concentrated among those most severely affected.
Regional Areas Carry a Heavier Burden
The data highlights persistent regional disparities. Ice drug consumption in Australia remains consistently higher per capita in regional communities compared to capital cities. Tasmania recorded the largest annual increase in methamphetamine use at 38%, followed by the Northern Territory at 36% and the Australian Capital Territory at 30%.
Experts caution that regional wastewater data can appear disproportionately high because a smaller population may be using drugs more heavily, and because visitors to regional areas, including festival-goers, can skew results temporarily. Regional communities also tend to have fewer treatment services, greater economic pressures and tighter social networks that can amplify both availability and harm.
Cocaine, heroin and ketamine use, by contrast, remained predominantly an urban concern.
A Resilient and Adaptable Drug Market
Perhaps the most sobering takeaway from the ACIC data is not the volume of any single drug, but what it reveals about the resilience of illegal drug markets overall.
Despite sustained law enforcement efforts and significant investment in supply disruption, markets have continued to grow. Australia’s high prices and strong demand make it an attractive destination for international criminal networks. When one supply route is cut off, another tends to emerge.
Cook noted that serious organised crime groups are “not only persistent but highly innovative,” and that the scale of the market demands “constant vigilance, evolving tools and strong collaboration across all jurisdictions.”
The report also flagged early signals of emerging substances entering the Australian market, including synthetic opioids, underscoring the need for monitoring systems and community responses that can keep pace with a rapidly shifting drug landscape.
The Case for Harm Reduction
Understanding trends in methamphetamine use in Australia matters not simply as a measure of criminal activity but because of the very real consequences for individuals and communities. More people are presenting to hospital emergency departments, more ambulance call-outs are being recorded, and treatment services are under increasing pressure.
The pattern emerging from the data suggests that a smaller group of Australians are experiencing increasingly severe problems with drug use. Reaching these individuals earlier, with more targeted support and treatment, is essential.
Supply-side enforcement alone has not reversed these trends. Addressing the scale of harm requires investment in evidence-based prevention, accessible treatment options and the kind of community support that can make a genuine difference in people’s lives.
(Source: WRD News)
- Details
- Hits: 398
A comprehensive decade-long study examining drug and alcohol presence in Victorian road crashes has revealed alarming trends, with methylamphetamine emerging as the most prevalent illicit substance detected in both injured and fatally injured drivers between 2010 and 2019.The research, published in Injury Prevention and led by Monash University, represents the largest investigation of its kind conducted in Australia. Analysing data from 19,843 injured drivers and 1,596 fatalities, the findings paint a concerning picture of drug-impaired driving across Victoria’s roads.
Methylamphetamine Prevalence in Road Crashes Reaches Alarming Levels
The study found that methylamphetamine had the highest prevalence among Victorian drivers involved in crashes. Researchers detected the substance in 12.3% of fatalities and 9.1% of injured drivers, and these detections increased over time.
Taken together, these statistics underscore a growing public health and road safety challenge. In particular, methylamphetamine impairs cognitive function, reaction times, and decision-making abilities, all of which are critical for safe vehicle operation.
Multiple Substances Detected in Victorian Drivers
The research revealed that 16.8% of car drivers and motorcyclists tested positive for one or more drugs. Alcohol remained a significant factor, with 14% of crashes involving a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at or exceeding 0.05%.
Cannabis (THC) emerged as another substance of concern, with detections rising amongst injured drivers until 2018. The study found THC detected in 8.1% of injured drivers and 15.2% of fatally injured drivers.
MDMA-positive driving decreased amongst injured drivers and remained stable at approximately 1% of fatalities throughout the study period.
Drug-Driving Patterns in Motorcyclists
Motorcyclists emerged as a particularly vulnerable population. Between 2015 and 2019, methylamphetamine was detected in 27.9% of motorcyclist fatalities, a figure substantially higher than the overall driver population. THC followed at 18.3%, with alcohol at or above 0.05% BAC detected in 14.2% of fatal motorcycle crashes. Similar but lower frequencies were observed amongst injured motorcyclists.
These elevated rates amongst motorcyclists warrant particular attention, as riders already face heightened vulnerability on roads due to reduced physical protection compared to enclosed vehicle occupants.
Alcohol Trends Show Mixed Results
The study documented a decline in alcohol detections (≥0.05% BAC) amongst fatalities. However, alcohol detections increased amongst injured motorcyclists and car drivers until plateauing in 2017. This mixed trend suggests that whilst fatal alcohol-related crashes may be decreasing, alcohol continues to contribute significantly to road trauma overall.
Demographics and Risk Factors
The research identified that there was a higher incidence of drug-positive driving amongst men and individuals aged between 25 and 59 years, alongside patterns of increasing drug use in motorcyclists.
Implications for Road Safety Prevention
The comprehensive data from the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine and Victoria Police provides robust evidence of persistent drug-impaired driving despite Victoria’s enhanced road safety measures.
Co-senior author Adjunct Associate Professor Dimitri Gerostamoulos from Monash University’s Department of Forensic Medicine and the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine stated that the findings confirm methylamphetamine, alcohol, and cannabis are the drugs that cause the most harm on Victorian roads.
The decade-long trends demonstrate that current prevention strategies require re-evaluation and strengthening. The study’s authors concluded that despite enhanced road safety measures in Victoria, drug-driving persists, indicating a need for revised prevention strategies targeting this growing issue.
Addressing the Drug-Driving Challenge
This research provides critical baseline data for policymakers, law enforcement, and public health officials working to reduce drug-driving incidents. The upward trajectory of methylamphetamine detections, combined with persistent alcohol involvement and rising cannabis presence, indicates that impaired driving prevention must remain a priority.
Understanding which substances most frequently impair drivers, and which demographic groups exhibit highest risk, enables targeted prevention initiatives. The particularly high rates of drug detection amongst motorcyclists suggest this group requires specialised attention in prevention messaging and enforcement strategies.
As Victoria continues developing its road safety framework, this evidence base highlights where authorities should concentrate prevention efforts to achieve meaningful reductions in drug and alcohol-related road trauma.
Read the full paper in Injury Prevention: https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2025/01/17/ip-2024-045342
(Source: WRD News)
- Details
- Hits: 402
Author links open overlay panel
(Note, it is NOT Cannabis – only one cannabinoid applied under therapeutic oversight that can aid in treating methamphetamine addiction)
Abstract: Cannabidiol (CBD), a non-psychoactive cannabinoid, shows great promise in treating methamphetamine (METH) addiction. Nonetheless, the molecular target and the mechanism through which CBD treats METH addiction remain unexplored. Herein, CBD was shown to counteract METH-induced locomotor sensitization and conditioned place preference. Additionally, CBD mitigated the adverse effects of METH, such as cristae loss, a decline in ATP content, and a reduction in membrane potential. Employing an activity-based protein profiling approach, a target fishing strategy was used to uncover CBD's direct target. ATP5A1, a subunit of ATP synthase, was identified and validated as a CBD target. Moreover, CBD demonstrated the ability to ameliorate METH-induced ubiquitination of ATP5A1 via the D376 residue, thereby reversing the METH-induced reduction of ATP5A1 and promoting the assembly of ATP synthase. Pharmacological inhibition of the ATP efflux channel pannexin 1, blockade of ATP hydrolysis by a CD39 inhibitor, and blocking the adenosine A1 receptor (A1R) all attenuated the therapeutic benefits of CBD in mitigating METH-induced behavioral sensitization and CPP. Moreover, the RNA interference of ATP5A1 in the ventral tegmental area resulted in the reversal of CBD's therapeutic efficacy against METH addiction. Collectively, these data show that ATP5A1 is a target for CBD to inhibit METH-induced addiction behaviors through the ADO–A1R signaling pathway.
- Details
- Hits: 672
Recent research from Australia’s National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre reveals troubling findings about methamphetamine use in opioid treatment programmes. The comprehensive study, spanning from 2014 to 2024, highlights persistent challenges facing individuals receiving opioid agonist treatment (OAT) and their vulnerability to concurrent dual addiction.
Stable Yet Concerning Rates of Stimulant Abuse
The decade-long study examined data from Australia’s Illicit Drug Reporting System (IDRS), revealing that approximately 70% of people receiving opioid agonist treatment also reported recent methamphetamine use. This figure has remained remarkably stable over the ten-year period, despite fluctuations in overall OAT participation rates.
The persistence of these statistics suggests that current treatment approaches may not adequately address the complex needs of individuals struggling with multiple substance dependencies. This dual addiction pattern presents significant challenges for healthcare providers and treatment programmes across Australia.
Treatment Type Influences Methamphetamine Use in Opioid Treatment
The research identified notable differences in stimulant use patterns depending on the type of opioid replacement therapy received. Patients receiving methadone showed the lowest rates of concurrent methamphetamine use at 64%, compared to those on other treatments:
- Oral buprenorphine (Subutex): 74%
- Oral buprenorphine-naloxone (Suboxone): 79%
- Long-acting injectable buprenorphine: 84%
These findings suggest that methadone may offer certain protective factors against methamphetamine use in opioid treatment settings, though the mechanisms behind this difference require further investigation.
Demographics and Risk Factors for Dual Addiction
The study revealed concerning demographic patterns amongst those using both opioids and methamphetamines. Methamphetamine use in opioid treatment was significantly associated with:
- Younger age (median age 46 versus 52 years)
- Higher rates of housing instability (25% versus 14%)
- Higher prescribed doses of opioid medications
- Reduced access to take-home medications
These findings highlight the vulnerability of younger adults in treatment programmes and underscore the connection between social instability and polysubstance abuse. Housing insecurity appears particularly problematic, affecting one in four individuals with concurrent dual addiction.
Implications for Treatment Success
The research raises important questions about treatment effectiveness and programme design. Participants reporting methamphetamine use in opioid treatment demonstrated patterns suggesting more complex addiction profiles, including higher medication doses and reduced treatment flexibility through take-home arrangements.
Interestingly, despite these challenges, treatment satisfaction levels remained similar between groups, suggesting that patients may not recognise the additional risks posed by concurrent dual addiction. This finding emphasises the importance of comprehensive education and support within treatment programmes.
The Need for Enhanced Treatment Approaches
These findings highlight significant gaps in current addiction treatment models. The persistent 70% rate of concurrent stimulant use suggests that traditional opioid replacement therapy alone may be insufficient for many patients. Healthcare providers and policymakers must consider developing more comprehensive treatment strategies that address methamphetamine use in opioid treatment simultaneously.
The research emphasises the importance of addressing underlying social factors, particularly housing stability, which appears strongly linked to treatment outcomes. Programmes that integrate social support services alongside medical treatment may prove more effective in preventing dual addiction.
Combating Methamphetamine Use in Opioid Treatment: Prevention Strategies
The stability of these concerning statistics over a decade demonstrates the urgent need for enhanced prevention strategies. Early identification of risk factors (particularly among younger patients and those experiencing housing instability) could enable more targeted interventions before methamphetamine use in opioid treatment becomes established.
Treatment programmes must evolve to recognise and address the complex interplay between opioid dependence, stimulant abuse, and social circumstances. Only through comprehensive, individualised approaches can we hope to break the cycle of dual addiction and improve long-term recovery outcomes.
The research underscores that successful addiction treatment requires more than medical intervention alone. It demands a holistic approach addressing the social, psychological, and environmental factors that contribute to sustained recovery. (Source: U.N.S.W.)