Everyone wants to reduce methamphetamine-related harm. It is our country’s second-most harmful drug (behind alcohol) and cost us about $1.5 billion in social harm in 2024.
Recently, the government released news of an "action plan to combat methamphetamine harm".
Seeing that the government plans to expand enforcement powers and funding is nothing short of disappointing. Not only because it signals more of the same failing approach, but also because it’s generally not what New Zealanders want.
A recently published Helen Clark Foundation report found that New Zealanders would spend proportionally less of the total drug budget on enforcement (by about 32%).
Instead, much more funding would be put into prevention, stopping or delaying the onset of harmful methamphetamine use. Even more money would be funnelled into harm reduction which aims to reduce harm for people who are already using meth, but who may not want or be ready to stop using.
The "war on drugs" is really a "war on people who use drugs" — and it doesn’t work.
The $30 million boost to services is commendable. We can only hope this funding continues, expands and begins to alleviate work stress and reduce the wait lists for these life-saving services.
But in the prevention lane, what does it mean to carry out a "hard-hitting" media campaign? Who is it that might be hit hard?
Are we not all aware of the risks that can come with meth use? It feels like not a week goes by without at least some news of meth-related arrests or harm.
But it could indeed be the case that awareness is lower than we would like to think, owing somewhat to the low investment in comprehensive drug education in previous decades, as well as the prevalence of media misinformation.
Even if they are right, it’s hard to know how effective a media campaign like that described will be. Evidence regarding the use of media campaigns for reducing meth use is mixed and has led to further stigmatisation and deterred help-seeking in the past.
Thinking optimistically, the potential is certainly there to make a positive influence on our society, but designing a media campaign that will be widely seen and make a positive impact in terms of reducing meth-related harms will be difficult.
Wouldn’t it be better to spend money on prevention strategies that are more than education? Things that genuinely make a difference to people’s lives?
Rather than further communicating harms, we need a strengths-based campaign that reduces stigma and promotes help-seeking. This should be designed and led by people with lived experience of meth harm — promoting social contact and understanding, openness and honesty, and the importance of context.
In the face of enforcement failure that is bound to continue and paradoxically drive further harm, there are many alternative options at our disposal that could make a positive impact for people who use meth.
We already have strategies that reduce various drug harms without driving people further underground, and into the pockets of gangs, and a large 2022 report also outlined a plethora of next steps.
These ranged from the expansion of drug-checking services to better serve this community, legalisation and provision of utensils for safer smoking purposes to reduce health impacts and costs in the meantime, and trialling stimulant substitution which would provide a regulated supply of a stimulant.
Many of these alternatives have the potential to benefit simply because they increase contact with supportive services and safer connections with kind people, rather than crime.
Despite the known importance of whānau and compassionate care in mitigating addictions, we often underestimate the power of everyday interactions. With more opportunities to connect with people who fear discrimination and criminalisation, reduced use of drugs can be easier to achieve for those who want it.
One principled and evidenced way to reduce this stigma is to fully decriminalise the use of meth (and other drugs) while strongly investing in health and social responses — a recommendation made by many organisations and working groups in Aotearoa for a long time, most recently the New Zealand Drug Foundation.
And perhaps someday soon, we will be mature enough as a nation to debate the details of how we remove the harms of the black market through differing legalisation models.
Continuing to treat this as a war on meth, however you phrase it, ultimately means a continued war on people who use meth.
We should not continue to be a nation that wages war on its own people. This approach has not worked and will continue to drive isolation and addiction rather than mitigate it.
If the government wants to seriously reduce meth harm, it must look to prevent the real scourge, the underlying drivers of harmful drug use patterns such as a lack of supportive communities, reduced housing access and employment options, cultural disconnection and mental distress.
It must also reflect on their dogmatic reluctance to change our cluttered, outdated drug laws, which continue to cost a lot, while they harm people who use drugs, their whānau and wider society. — Newsroom
• Dr Jai Whelan is a postdoctoral research fellow, department of public health, University of Otago, Christchurch; Dr Rose Crossin is a senior lecturer in the department of public health, University of Otago (Christchurch); Sam Lasham is a researcher, School of Pharmacy, University of Auckland, and national co-ordinator for Students for Sensible Drug Policy Aotearoa; Dr Brin Ryder is an assistant research fellow, University of Otago; and Trish Dribnenki is a harm reduction nurse.
