Stigma, and factors associated with experiencing stigma, while visiting health-care services among samples of people who use illegal drugs in Australia.

INTRODUCTION: People who inject drugs experience stigma across multiple settings, including when accessing health-care services, however, comparatively little is known about experiences of stigma towards other groups of people who use illegal drugs. This paper examines experience of, and factors associated with, stigma among two samples of people who use illegal drugs when visiting both specialist alcohol and other drug (AOD) and general health-care services. METHODS: Australians who regularly (i.e., ≥monthly) inject drugs (n = 879; illicit drug reporting system [IDRS]) or use ecstasy and/or other illegal stimulants (n = 700; ecstasy and related drugs reporting system [EDRS]) were surveyed between April and July 2022 about past 6-month experience of stigma in the above services. Multi-variable regression analyses were performed to determine the socio-demographic, drug use and health factors associated with stigma. RESULTS: Experiences of stigma in general health-care services were more common among IDRS (40%) than EDRS (24%; p < 0.001) participants, however, experiences were comparable in specialist AOD health-care settings (22% and 20%, respectively; p = 0.687). Gender identity and experiencing high psychological distress were associated with experiencing stigma across both samples. Past-year overdose was associated with experiencing stigma among the IDRS sample, while unstable housing and incomplete high school education were associated with experiencing stigma in the EDRS sample. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Experiences of stigma when accessing health-care services are relatively common across different populations of people who use illegal drugs. Our findings highlight the multiple and intersecting dimensions of stigma and provide further support for recent calls for a universal precautions approach to stigma in health care.

Encounters with police drug detection dogs at music festivals amongst people who regularly use ecstasy and/or other illicit stimulants in Australia.

INTRODUCTION: Despite increasing evidence challenging the effectiveness and legality of police drug dog operations, these strategies remain common. We aimed to describe drug dog encounters at music festivals, behavioural adaptations taken in anticipation of their presence and consequences of encounters amongst a sample of people who regularly use MDMA/ecstasy. METHODS: Data were collected via interviewer-administered questionnaires in April-June 2019. Australians aged 16 years or older who used MDMA/ecstasy and/or other stimulants monthly in the last 6 months were recruited from capital cities via social media and word-of-mouth (n = 797). Participants reported recent drug dog encounters, encounter settings and actions taken in anticipation of and in response to encounters. RESULTS: In this sample, encounters with drug dogs at festivals were common (60%), with most participants (92%) reporting anticipating the encounter. Most (86%) of this group reported behavioural adaptations to avoid a detection, with concealing drugs well (57%) and consuming prior to entering the festival (20%) most reported. Only 4% of those who expected drug dog presence chose not to carry or consume drugs. One-quarter (26%) of those who reported an encounter were stopped by police and 4% were searched (bodily/bag search). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Most participants anticipated drug dog presence at festivals, however, were not deterred from carrying or consuming drugs. Some reported adaptations to avoid detection may increase drug-related health, social and legal harms. Our study suggests drug dog presence at festivals does not deter carriage/use of illegal drugs, and echoes concerns regarding the efficacy and appropriateness of this policing initiative.