- EN
Table TDI-36. Primary amphetamine use among new clients entering treatment (%), 2006–11
| Country | 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Belgium | : | : | : | 12 | 13.1 | 11.1 | |
| Bulgaria | 2.7 | 2 | 6.5 | 3.5 | 1 | 3.5 | |
| Czech Republic | 61.7 | 63.6 | 62.7 | 63.1 | 67.8 | 69.6 | |
| Denmark | 14.9 | 13.5 | 14.2 | 12.2 | 11.5 | 8.8 | |
| Germany | (1) | 10 | 10.4 | 10.6 | 10.3 | 12.6 | 15.3 |
| Estonia | : | : | 4.5 | 6.4 | 10.8 | 4.9 | |
| Ireland | 0.9 | 1 | 1 | 0.6 | 0.9 | : | |
| Greece | 0 | 0 | 0.1 | 0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | |
| Spain | 1.2 | 1.2 | 1 | 1.2 | 1.2 | : | |
| France | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | |
| Italy | (2) | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Cyprus | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.3 | 0.9 | 0.2 | |
| Latvia | (3) | 22.3 | 24 | 24.5 | 29 | 29.6 | 28.2 |
| Lithuania | (1) | 4.3 | 6.6 | 4.8 | 4.3 | 2.7 | 2.0 |
| Luxembourg | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.0 | |
| Hungary | 5.3 | 10.2 | 9.8 | 9.7 | 9.8 | 11.0 | |
| Malta | 0 | : | : | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | |
| Netherlands | 7.5 | 6.9 | 7.1 | 6.1 | 6.2 | 6.6 | |
| Austria | 2.5 | 2.8 | 1.8 | 2.5 | 2.9 | 3.5 | |
| Poland | : | : | 26.1 | 24.7 | 0.0 | : | |
| Portugal | (4) | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0 | 0 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Romania | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 1.5 | 0.9 | |
| Slovenia | 0.3 | 0 | 0 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 0.5 | |
| Slovakia | 32.2 | 33.2 | 39.1 | 34.6 | 41 | 41.9 | |
| Finland | 22 | 22.9 | 24.4 | 18.8 | 12.3 | 11.7 | |
| Sweden | 33 | 27.7 | 24.8 | 18.1 | 19.2 | : | |
| United Kingdom | (5) | 4.5 | 4.4 | 3.8 | 3.3 | 3.6 | : |
| Croatia | 0 | 7 | 2 | 3.3 | 1.9 | 2.2 | |
| Turkey | 0 | 0 | 0.1 | 0 | 0 | 0.8 | |
| Norway | : | : | : | : | : | : |
Notes:
: Indicates no data are available
Percentages are of new clients with known primary drug.
Only countries with available data are shown
(1) Data refers to stimulants in general.
(2) In 2010 around 27% of all clients and 32% of new clients were registered as not known / missing for the primary drug category. Caution should be made when comparing data over time.
Data are from 2009. Data presented in the table come from TDI pilot project. Caution should be made when interpreting the data.
(3) In 2010 Latvia submitted a new dataset with a more precise TDI EMCDDA definition. 2010 data in this table are still methodologically in line with the data from previous years.
(4) In 2010 came into implementation a new national information system implying methodological changes particularly in the registration criteria. Caution should be made when comparing 2010 data with previous years.
(5) Data corresponds to the financial year, that is from 1st of April to 31st March of the following year.
See also ‘General notes for interpreting data’ on the Explanatory notes and help page.
Sources:
Reitox national reports 2012 — Standard table 34 See also Table TDI-4 and Table TDI-5 and see Table TDI-0] for details on sources.