08/10/2026
Record M**h Consumption, Record Harm: Where Is Australia’s Prevention Plan?
Now!
The Australian m**hamphetamine 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 m**hamphetamine, 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 m**hamphetamine 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 m**hods. 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 m**hamphetamine “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 m**hamphetamine problem persists because the market absorbs the losses and prices stay low.
The Australian M**hamphetamine 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 m**hamphetamine 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, m**hamphetamine 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 m**hamphetamine problem leave little room for doubt. M**hamphetamine 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 m**hamphetamine related deaths.
What the Evidence Base Leaves Out
The Australian m**hamphetamine 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. M**hamphetamine 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 m**hamphetamine dependence may be increasing. If so, the Australian m**hamphetamine 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 m**hamphetamine did so. Even so, he**in has turned up in m**hamphetamine samples. M**hamphetamine has also appeared in samples sold as M**A 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 m**hamphetamine problem on their own. Prevention that reduces uptake and recovery that ends use must sit beside them.
Measuring What Matters About the Australian M**hamphetamine 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 m**hamphetamine crisis in Australia.
Source: NO Brainer - Get-A-Clue ICE
