January 1999

October 2000

National Drug Intelligence Center

U.S. Department of Justice

National Drug

Threat Assessment 2001

The Domestic Perspective
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001

The Domestic Perspective

From the Director:

I am pleased to present the National Drug Threat Assessment 2001: The Domestic Perspective, 

the culmination of dedicated work by the National Drug Intelligence Center in partnership with federal, 

state, and local agencies and organizations. In accordance with the provisions of the General 

Counterdrug Intelligence Plan, signed by the President in February 2000, the National Drug Threat 

Assessment—the first of its kind—integrates foreign and domestic counterdrug intelligence and 

information on domestic drug consumption trends in a single report.

This assessment is intended to provide federal, state, and local policymakers and law enforcement 

decisionmakers with information to assist in forming counterdrug policy and plans and allocating 

resources in the fight against illegal drugs. It is the first comprehensive assessment, from a domestic 

perspective, of the threat that drugs and drug-related crime pose to our society. Furthermore, it reflects 

the collective knowledge of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

U.S. Coast Guard, and U.S. Customs Service and the four national counterdrug intelligence centers—

El Paso Intelligence Center, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Crime and Narcotics Center, and 

of course, NDIC. The use and characterization of all demand-related information was coordinated with 

the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Institute on Drug Abuse and Substance 

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies, as well as the U.S. 

Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

The National Drug Threat Assessment draws on recent information from hundreds of law 

enforcement agencies to document the current threat and emerging trends in drug trafficking and 

related criminal activity in the United States. It uses national abuse indicators—the Parents’ Resource 

Institute on Drug Education Survey, the National Institute of Justice Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring 

Program, the National Institute on Drug Abuse Monitoring the Future Study, and the Substance Abuse 

and Mental Health Services Administration Drug Abuse Warning Network, National Household 

Survey on Drug Abuse, and Treatment Episode Data Set—to construct a historical baseline of drug use 

data and information.

In January 2000, the NDIC sent copies of the National Drug Threat Survey to 843 state and local 

law enforcement agencies across the United States. Over 400 agencies responded to the survey, 

including the police departments of every U.S. city with a population of more than 1 million. 

Collectively, responding agencies have jurisdiction over 65 percent of the U.S. population.

I would like to thank all participating agencies and organizations without whose contributions this 

assessment would not have been possible. The assistance they provided in developing the process to 

publish a national assessment and the detailed information they contributed have been invaluable. I 

encourage readers to review the document and provide comments on the enclosed Product Survey. 

I look forward to collaborating on future projects.

Michael T. Horn

October 2000
U.S. Department of Justice

National Drug Intelligence Center

National Drug Intelligence Center

319 Washington Street

5th Floor

Johnstown, PA 15901-1622

(814) 532-4601

National Drug Threat Assessment 2001

The Domestic Perspective

Product No. 2001-Q0317-001

October 2000
National Drug Intelligence Center

v

National Drug Threat Assessment 2001

The Domestic Perspective

Executive Summary 

The trafficking and abuse of illegal drugs continue to afflict society, and America’s young people feel the greatest effect. National demand indicators show continuing overall stability in cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and marijuana use but also 

some disturbing trends in use among adolescents and young adults.

• The Monitoring the Future Study showed continuing increases in reported lifetime 

and past year use of cocaine among twelfth graders between 1994 and 1997. 

Changes since 1997 have trended upward but have not been significant. Among 

eighth and tenth graders, the increases in cocaine use found in the early to mid-1990s 

have stabilized.

• Nationally, lifetime methamphetamine use is lowest among young people aged 12 to 17, 

according to the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. But widespread reports 

from law enforcement agencies of increased availability and increased use at raves, 

along with the appearance of compound MDMA/methamphetamine tablets, may indicate future increases in methamphetamine use by adolescents and young adults.

• Overall, adolescent heroin use has stabilized after roughly doubling between 1993 

and 1997. Annual use among twelfth graders is currently 1.1 percent, while among 

both eighth and tenth graders annual use is 1.4 percent. Multiple reports of the use of 

heroin and MDMA in combination at raves—either simultaneously or during the 

course of a night—may indicate increased use by young people.

• Overall, the number of marijuana users has remained relatively stable since 1991, 

although the rate of marijuana use among 12 to 17 year olds declined between 1997 

and 1999. Law enforcement reports of increased marijuana-related investigations, seizures, and arrests at elementary and junior high schools, however, suggest imminent 

changes in marijuana use.

The growing popularity and expansion of the rave culture and the criminal activity 

that surrounds it pose a major threat to America’s youth. Dramatic increases in the availability and use of club drugs, especially MDMA and GHB, and the array of hallucinogens 

and other illegal drugs available at raves and dance clubs indicate that the full impact of 

the rave culture has not yet been felt.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

vi

• Between 1998 and 1999 reported lifetime, past year, and current use of the increasingly 

popular club drug MDMA rose substantially among twelfth graders, and past year use 

increased among tenth graders, according to 1999 Monitoring the Future Study data.

• Over 10 percent of the 412 state and local law enforcement agencies that responded 

to the National Drug Threat Survey identify the appearance of club drugs—sometimes MDMA or GHB, but usually both—in their jurisdictions in the past year. 

Responses from over 50 percent of respondents indicate that the rave culture has 

expanded well beyond large metropolitan areas into smaller cities, towns, and rural 

areas across the nation.

• In addition to providing an outlet for the distribution of a variety of club drugs, the 

rave culture provides trafficking organizations and independent profiteers with an 

opportunity to introduce a variety of drugs to a new group of users.

While international drug trafficking organizations are meeting the demand for all 

drug types, they are taking steps to make drugs more acceptable, easier to administer 

and, in general, more appealing to new groups of users. Young people appear to be the 

primary targets of their efforts. 

• Recent seizures of Southeast Asian methamphetamine tablets (“Yaba”) in California 

and the availability of those tablets at southern California nightclubs suggest that the 

use of Asian methamphetamine tablets may have already spread beyond traditional 

ethnic Asian users.

• Higher purity heroin that can be snorted or smoked is increasingly available and less 

expensive than ever before, making it more attractive to new and younger users. 

While instances are limited, heroin is beginning to appear more frequently at raves 

and dance clubs.

• Heroin, MDMA, LSD, and combination tablets are available in a wider variety of 

visually appealing and easy-to-administer forms, most of which are appearing first at 

raves and on college campuses.

Cocaine. Mexican and Colombian drug trafficking organizations continue to dominate 

wholesale distribution of cocaine. However, Dominican organizations have secured 

Mexican sources of cocaine in the Southwest and continue to expand their involvement 

and influence in cocaine trafficking. Dominican organizations have become the preeminent 

cocaine distributors in the New England, New York/New Jersey, Mid-Atlantic, and 

Southeast Regions and are expanding into the Great Lakes, West Central, and Pacific 

Regions. Local independent dealers—including Caucasians, African Americans, and 

Hispanics—are heavily involved in cocaine transportation and retail distribution. 

Recent information from law enforcement agencies suggests the existence of a wellcoordinated logistics system that allows major Mexican and Colombian drug trafficking 

organizations to manage the movement of cocaine from various points of entry, through 

transportation hubs and distribution centers, to markets throughout the nation. Six major 

transportation hubs supply cocaine to distribution centers in major market areas. From 

Los Angeles, Central Arizona (Tucson and Phoenix), El Paso, Houston, Miami, and 

Puerto Rico, Mexican and Colombian organizations control the flow of cocaine from 

Mexico, Colombia, and the Caribbean to markets in the United States.
National Drug Intelligence Center

vii

Methamphetamine. Many agencies throughout the Pacific, Southwest, and West Central 

Regions continue to report increases in the production, availability, and use of methamphetamine, especially noting increases in small-scale laboratories. California’s Central 

Valley, with the highest rate of “superlab” seizures in the nation, has emerged as a major 

methamphetamine production center and a source of supply to areas throughout the country. 

Several agencies in states not generally associated with methamphetamine production note 

dramatic increases in local production and use, and two major police departments note an 

increase in the availability of methamphetamine at raves. Although Caucasian dealers and 

other local independents seem to account for a significant portion of the domestic production 

and distribution of high purity methamphetamine, Mexican producers probably still 

account for most of the methamphetamine available in the United States.

There are no indications that any group is positioned to challenge Mexican dominance 

of illegal methamphetamine production and distribution. But law enforcement information 

documents the emergence of a multimillion-dollar secondary industry that supports methamphetamine production in the United States. Groups consisting of Middle Eastern, 

Mexican, and Asian criminals operating in the United States acquire thousands of cases of 

pseudoephedrine tablets and then use sophisticated schemes to launder pseudoephedrine 

shipments primarily to Mexican clandestine methamphetamine laboratory operators in the 

Pacific and Southwest Regions. 

Heroin. Demand for high purity heroin continues. To meet demand, the availability of high 

purity, comparatively low cost heroin is increasing, spurred in part by direct contact and 

cooperation between Dominican organizations in the East and Mexican organizations in the 

West. Dominican drug trafficking organizations are expanding beyond their traditional base 

of operations. Already the dominant distributors of South American heroin in the Northeast, 

the Dominican organizations’ expansion is effecting a rise in the availability of South 

American heroin in areas of the Great Lakes, Southeast, and West Central Regions. 

Mexican authorities have seized at least two laboratories capable of producing 

high purity white powdered heroin. The presence of these laboratories may indicate 

that Mexican organizations intend to compete with South American heroin in the 

larger market areas of the East where white powdered heroin is preferred. Indications 

of Mexican organizations’ expansion are bolstered by reports of the increasing 

availability of Mexican black tar and brown powdered heroin in the Mid-Atlantic, 

New York/New Jersey, and New England Regions. 

Marijuana. Marijuana is the most widely available and abused illegal drug in the 

United States. In a country where approximately 20 percent of the population has used 

the drug at least once, many law enforcement agencies express concern that the marijuana problem is not taken seriously. A development that merits attention is the rise in 

the number of investigations, arrests, and seizures at and around high schools, which 

suggests increased marijuana use among youth.

Widespread cannabis cultivation, both indoor and outdoor, is filling the growing 

demand for high potency marijuana. The potency and yield of cannabis crops is increasing 

through the use of cloning and hydroponics, and high THC content marijuana is available 

in more areas of the United States than ever before. Reports of smuggling BC Bud by 

maritime vessel and motor vehicle from Canada to Washington State illustrate methods 

used to facilitate this increased availability.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

viii

Other Dangerous Drugs. Other Dangerous Drugs, particularly the club drugs MDMA 

and GHB, pose a much greater threat than is currently perceived. Given continuing and 

sometimes dramatic increases in availability and use, club drugs may pose a greater 

immediate threat to adolescents and young adults than any other single drug. Many law 

enforcement agencies express concern over the perception that club drugs are “safe,”

noting increases in overdoses, deaths, and sexual assaults that directly coincide with 

increases in the availability and abuse of club drugs and rave activity.

Recent information generated by a cooperative NDIC–DEA document exploitation 

mission indicates that the Internet is widely used as a means to order GBL, the primary 

precursor for GHB. Even more troubling, however, are indications that some purchasers 

of GBL—potential manufacturers of GHB—are convicted pedophiles, suggesting a 

more ominous potential misuse of the drug. 

Trafficking Trends. The face of drug trafficking may be changing. Trends indicate that 

the traditional perception that drug traffickers are foreign, nameless entities or members 

of specific minority groups must change to include more localized groups and individuals, especially Caucasians. Although Mexican and Colombian drug trafficking organizations currently dominate wholesale distribution of illegal drugs, there are strong 

indications that Caucasian dealers and other local independents are responsible for much 

of the increased availability and abuse of drugs in suburban and rural areas. Because of 

the success of Operation Millennium (a coordinated U.S.–Colombian investigation) and 

to minimize future exposure to law enforcement and the U.S. justice system, Colombian 

trafficking organizations appear to be moving from extensive involvement in the transportation and distribution of cocaine and heroin to more limited involvement strictly in 

bulk wholesale supply. 

• Colombian organizations are increasingly relying on Dominican organizations based 

in the United States to transport and distribute cocaine, and U.S.-based Dominican 

and Mexican organizations are increasing their involvement in transporting and 

distributing South American heroin.

• Independent domestic traffickers, including Caucasians, African Americans, and 

Hispanics, are involved in cocaine transportation and retail distribution, methamphetamine production and distribution, and heroin transportation and distribution. 

• Independent Caucasian traffickers account for most cannabis cultivation in the 

United States and a substantial portion of the distribution of domestic and foreigngrown marijuana. Young adult Caucasians, especially college students, are primarily 

responsible for distributing club drugs nationwide. 

Northern Border. Information from federal, state, and local agencies suggests that the 

level of drug trafficking across the Northern Border is greater than currently believed. 

Increased drug trafficking activity in the North could create a demand for a greater law 

enforcement presence along the Northern Border. 

• Law enforcement agencies in California, Montana, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington 

identify several Canadian cities as transshipment points for drugs, particularly heroin, 

high potency marijuana, and club drugs, smuggled into their areas. 

• The DEA identifies Canada as a source of methamphetamine precursors to clandestine 

laboratory operators in the United States. 
National Drug Intelligence Center

ix

• Agencies in Maine, New York, North Dakota, and Washington identify Canadian cities 

as final destinations for cocaine transshipped through their areas.

Money Laundering. Money laundering is intrinsic to the illicit drug trade. The enormous 

revenues generated by the sale of illicit drugs pose a serious threat to the economic security 

of the United States. Traffickers use laundered drug proceeds to finance further drug 

operations, promote corruption, and fund insurgency and terrorist organizations. Mexican 

and Colombian drug trafficking organizations, the primary producers, transporters, and 

wholesalers of illegal drugs throughout the United States, earn billions of dollars from their 

drug trafficking activities and pose the greatest challenge to U.S. anti-money laundering 

efforts. Bulk currency and monetary instrument smuggling and money service businesses 

are the primary methods used to launder drug proceeds generated in the United States. 

Colombian traffickers also extensively use the Black Market Peso Exchange, a parallel 

banking system that is more effective, for their purposes, than the official banking system.

• Domestic money laundering is most prevalent in Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, New 

York/New Jersey, San Juan (PR), and the Southwest Border. These areas, with the 

exception of Chicago and Miami, were recently designated High Intensity Money 

Laundering and Related Financial Crime Areas, according to The National Money 

Laundering Strategy for 2000. 

• An estimated $30 billion in bulk cash and monetary instruments were smuggled into 

Mexico in fiscal year 1999, indicating Mexico’s significance in the money laundering 

process. There are also indications that the amount of drug proceeds cycled through 

Mexico directly back to U.S. payees is increasing. 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

x
National Drug Intelligence Center

xi

National Drug Threat Assessment 2001

The Domestic Perspective

Scope and Methodology

Data provided by hundreds of federal, state, and local agencies and organizations and 

information gleaned from assessments of specific elements of the drug threat such as the 

Interagency Assessment of Cocaine Movement, the Global Heroin Threat to the United 

States, and the NDIC Threat Assessment: U.S. Arrival Zone were used to characterize the 

drug threat. In accordance with guidance from the U.S. Attorney General and the Director 

of the Office of National Drug Control Policy to incorporate information from state and 

local agencies, the NDIC developed the National Drug Threat Survey, a directed research 

project. The objective was widespread coverage of urban, suburban, and rural areas without regard for population density. Recipients were targeted by U.S. Attorney District and 

included state police and investigative agencies, county sheriffs, and municipal police 

departments. The survey specifically targeted agencies in the more populous cities and 

surrounding counties as well as those in smaller cities and rural counties. Agencies were 

asked to characterize the drug threat within their respective areas of responsibility and 

jurisdictions and to provide supporting detailed information by drug type.

Analytical judgment determined the threat posed by each drug type or category, taking 

into account quantitative and qualitative information on availability, demand, production 

and cultivation, transportation, and distribution.

• Availability. To evaluate drug availability and that portion of the drug threat it represents, analysts considered quantitative information on seizures, investigations, arrests, 

indictments, sentencing, purity, and price. Qualitative data, like the subjective views 

of individual agencies on availability and the relationship between individual drugs 

and crime, particularly violent crime, were also considered.

• Demand. The evaluation of the threat represented by domestic demand for illegal drugs 

was based on accepted interagency estimates and data captured in national demand 

monitoring mechanisms. Quantitative and qualitative information compared include the 

estimated number of total users, prevalence of drug use among various age groups—

especially youth, admissions to treatment facilities, influence of drugs on crime and the 

penal system, emergency department information, and drug-related deaths.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

xii

• Production and Cultivation. To evaluate the threat posed by production and 

cultivation, analysts considered accepted interagency estimates of production 

and cultivation. Qualitative information pertaining to the presence and level of 

domestic activity, general trends in production or cultivation levels, involvement 

of organized criminal groups, toxicity and other related safety hazards, environmental effects, and associated criminal activity were also considered.

• Transportation. To evaluate the transportation threat, analysts evaluated interagency 

estimates of the amounts of specific drugs destined for U.S. markets, involvement of 

organized criminal groups, smuggling and transportation methods, and indicators of 

changes in smuggling and transportation methods.

• Distribution. The evaluation of the threat posed by drug distribution was almost 

entirely qualitative. Analysts considered the involvement of organized criminal 

groups and comparative estimates of their level of sophistication and national influence, 

their entrenchment in wholesale and retail distribution, indications of their expansion 

or cooperation with other groups, and the level of criminal activity associated with 

their distribution activities. 
Table of Contents

National Drug Intelligence Center

xiii

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v

Scope and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Cocaine and Crack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Assessment of the Threat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Transportation to the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Transportation Within the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Transportation Hubs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Transportation Hubs as Distribution Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Distribution Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Key Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Methamphetamine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Assessment of the Threat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

Production Within the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Production Outside the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Transportation Hubs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Distribution Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Key Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Heroin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Assessment of the Threat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

Distribution Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

Key Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

xiv

Marijuana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Assessment of the Threat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Cultivation and Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Key Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Other Dangerous Drugs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Club Drugs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

MDMA or “Ecstasy” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

GHB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Ketamine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Rohypnol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Hallucinogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

LSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Psilocybin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

PCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Pharmaceuticals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Key Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Money Laundering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Money Laundering Hubs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Key Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
National Drug Intelligence Center

1

National Drug Threat Assessment 2001

The Domestic Perspective

October 2000

Cocaine and Crack

Cocaine, in both powdered and crack forms, 

permeates the United States. Colombian drug 

trafficking organizations continue to control coca 

cultivation and cocaine production, most of which 

occurs in Colombia. Colombian organizations and 

their surrogates control transportation through the 

Caribbean Corridor, while Mexican drug trafficking 

organizations control the movement of cocaine 

through Mexico and across the Southwest Border.1

An established system of transportation hubs and 

distribution centers allows Mexican and Colombian 

organizations to manage the flow of cocaine to 

markets throughout the United States. Inside the 

United States, Mexican organizations dominate 

transportation and wholesale distribution in the 

West and Midwest, while Colombian organizations, although still involved, appear to be ceding 

some responsibility for transportation and wholesale distribution to other groups, particularly 

Dominicans, in the eastern United States. Although 

Mexican and Dominican organizations dominate 

among identifiable groups at the retail distribution 

level, independent dealers—including African 

Americans, Caucasians, and Hispanics—appear to 

be the norm. The production and availability of 

crack is directly linked to the availability of 

cocaine powder. Both production and distribution 

continue to be associated with street gangs.

Assessment of the Threat

Cocaine remains a major problem throughout 

the country. Availability and demand for both continue to be high. Information provided to NDIC by 

federal, state, and local agencies and organizations 

indicates that the transportation, distribution, abuse, 

and criminal activity related to powdered and crack 

cocaine continue to constitute the greatest drug 

threat to the United States.

Of the 412 state and local agencies responding 

to the National Drug Threat Survey, 109 rate 

cocaine as one of the greatest drug threats in their 

areas. Over 280 agencies in every state, the District 

of Columbia, Guam, and the Northern Marianas 

consider the cocaine problem in their area stable, 

but at high levels. Only 80 agencies note an 

increase in the cocaine problem, and 20 say that 

the problem is decreasing.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

2

Although cocaine trafficking, abuse, and 

related criminal activity span the nation, the 

cocaine problem is greater in certain regions of the 

country: New England, New York/New Jersey, 

Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, and Florida/Caribbean.2

Cocaine has been surpassed by methamphetamine 

in most of the western and midwestern states, but it 

is still considered a major threat by law enforcement 

in metropolitan areas throughout the country and 

along the Southwest Border. 

Crack is a major problem in urban areas. Of 

those metropolitan police departments identifying 

crack as a problem, most consider it the greatest 

threat. The ready availability of cocaine and the 

movement of street gangs beyond traditional areas 

of operation have led to the spread of crack to 

many suburban and rural areas. Law enforcement 

agencies in many areas report that crack abuse and 

distribution are having a serious negative impact 

on society, leading to violence and other criminal 

activities, principally by street gangs.

Of the 113 agencies that identify a specific correlation between drugs and violent crime, 67 note a 

correlation between cocaine and crack trafficking 

and violent crime. Of those agencies, 53 emphasize 

the relationship between crack and violent crime—

more than for any other drug. Agencies highlight 

gang-related violence, particularly turf wars, as a 

primary effect of crack trafficking.

Availability

Law enforcement agencies throughout the 

nation generally agree that cocaine availability 

remains high. Many agencies report an increase in 

the availability of cocaine in suburban and rural 

areas, which has contributed to a similar increase 

in the availability and abuse of crack in many of the 

same areas. Cocaine and crack continue to consume 

the resources of law enforcement and the justice 

system. Of the 412 agencies responding to the 

National Drug Threat Survey, over 200 identified 

cocaine availability as high. Federal-wide Drug 

Seizure System (FDSS) data show a significant 

increase in cocaine seizures between 1998 and 

1999—from approximately 118,500 kilograms in 

1998 to over 135,000 kilograms in 1999.3

 U.S. 

Department of Justice Organized Crime Drug 

Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETFs) obtained 

over 2,700 cocaine and crack indictments in 

1999—more than three times the number for 

methamphetamine. Cocaine- and crack-related 

offenses accounted for almost half of all federal 

drug sentences in 1998.

Purity levels from 80 to 90 percent are common 

throughout the New England, New York/New 

Jersey, Mid-Atlantic, Great Lakes, Southeast, 

Florida/Caribbean, Southwest, and Pacific Regions. 

In the West Central Region, cocaine purity varies 

widely. In urban areas throughout the region, purity 

levels are comparable to those in the major market 

areas of the East. In suburban and rural areas, purity 

can be as low as 20 percent. Wholesale and retail 

cocaine prices reflect the same general trend: prices 

for high purity cocaine are lowest in major markets 

and higher in areas farther away. Wholesale prices 

generally range from $16,000 to $22,000 per kilogram but have been reported as low as $9,000 in 

Houston and as high as $35,000 in St. Louis. Retail 

prices range from $75 to $100 per gram but have 

been reported as low as $20 per gram in Miami and 

as high as $125 in Denver.4

Law enforcement agencies in urban areas 

report that crack remains readily available. In 

most areas where trafficking and abuse of crack 

have become entrenched, local law enforcement 

considers it the greatest threat. Many agencies in 

suburban and rural areas report increased availability of crack and the involvement of street gangs 

in crack conversion, distribution, and violent 

criminal activity. Crack purity mirrors that of 

cocaine in most jurisdictions. Prices are generally 

low in major urban markets ($10 per rock), higher 

in suburban areas ($20–$30), and substantially 

higher in small towns and rural communities (as 

high as $50). 
National Drug Intelligence Center

3
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

4

Demand

Interagency estimates place annual demand for 

cocaine in the United States at approximately 300 

metric tons, or 35 percent of estimated annual 

potential production and about 50 percent of 

estimated worldwide demand.5 Overall, cocaine use 

has remained relatively stable for the past 5 years, 

with the estimated number of hardcore users 

ranging from 3.3 million to 3.6 million each year.

National studies indicate relative overall stability in the use of powdered cocaine, or cocaine 

hydrochloride. In 1999, cocaine was the second 

most commonly used illegal drug (after marijuana) 

in the United States. National Household Survey on 

Drug Abuse (NHSDA) data for 1999 indicate that 

approximately 25 million individuals aged 12 or 

older reported lifetime cocaine use, approximately 4 

million reported past year use, and 1.5 million 

reported current use.6 The prevalence of cocaine use 

varied considerably across age groups: lifetime use 

was highest among 35 to 44 year olds, but rates of 

past year and current use were higher among young 

adults aged 18 to 25.

The most recent information available from the 

Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS), a survey of 

national admissions to substance abuse treatment 

services, shows that cocaine accounted for nearly 

15 percent of all admissions to publicly funded 

treatment facilities in 1998 (Table 1).7

 Of those 

cocaine admissions, 27 percent were for powdered 

(nonsmoked) cocaine. According to TEDS data, 

the typical powdered cocaine user admitted to publicly funded treatment is white, male, and 32 years 

of age (Table 2).

Findings from the Arrestee Drug Abuse 

Monitoring (ADAM) Program continue to show 

that cocaine is the drug most frequently detected 

among arrestees, but the percentage of arrestees 

testing positive for cocaine has decreased at many 

sites.8 Data from the Drug Abuse Warning Network 

(DAWN), which include both powdered and crack 

cocaine, show cocaine to be the drug most 

frequently mentioned in hospital emergency 

department episodes, accounting for 30 percent of 

all episodes in 1999.9 Total cocaine mentions have 

remained relatively stable for the past 5 years. 

Table 1. Cocaine Admissions 1993–1998

(Number and percent distribution)

Nonsmoked Smoked (Crack) Total Percentage of All Drugs

1998 63,002 170,491 233,493 14.9

1997 60,405 169,724 230,129 15.0

1996 66,777 190,143 256,920 16.0

1995 69,421 202,865 272,286 16.6

1994 76,322 217,344 293,666 18.0

1993 75,860 201,216 277,076 17.5

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Treatment Episode Data Set, 1998.

Table 2. Cocaine Admissions by Sex/Race/Age

NonsmokedSmoked 

(Crack)

Total Admissions 63,002 170,491

Sex:

Male 65.8% 58.1%

Female 34.2% 41.9%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Race:

White 49.5% 33.1%

Black 34.6% 59.3%

Hispanic 13.4% 5.6%

Other 2.5% 1.9%

Total 100.0% 100.0%

Average age

 at admission 32.8 34.4

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse 

and Mental Health Services Administration, 

Treatment Episode Data Set, 1998.
National Drug Intelligence Center

5

Across the 42 metropolitan areas surveyed by 

DAWN, cocaine remained the drug most 

frequently mentioned by medical examiners in 

1998. Although medical examiner mentions of 

cocaine were relatively stable overall, seven cities 

reported large increases in 1998, while four reported 

large decreases.10

The Monitoring the Future (MTF) Study of 

secondary school students indicates that although 

the resurgence in cocaine use in the early to mid1990s has slowed and, in most cases, stabilized, 

levels are still quite high compared with those in 

the early 1990s.11 Five-year comparisons show 

increases in the prevalence of lifetime and past 

year cocaine use among twelfth graders. Notable 

increases occurred between 1994 and 1997. 

Changes since 1997 have trended upward but have 

not been as significant. In 1999, reported lifetime 

use of cocaine among twelfth graders was 9.8 percent, up from 5.9 percent in 1994. Similar trends 

were found in high school seniors’ past year and 

current cocaine use. Cocaine use among eighth 

and tenth graders rose from 1992 to 1997, then 

leveled off (Table 3).

Data from the Parents’ Resource Institute on 

Drug Education (PRIDE) Survey show an increase 

in past year cocaine and crack use among twelfth 

graders from 5.3 percent in the 1994–1995 school 

year to 8.0 percent in the 1998–1999 school year 

(Table 4).12 The PRIDE Survey also indicates 

increases among students in junior high school 

(sixth to eighth grade) and senior high school 

(ninth to twelfth grade) over the same period. 

PRIDE data for the 1999–2000 school year, however, show encouraging declines among junior 

high, senior high, and twelfth-grade students. 

The use of crack, unlike powdered cocaine, has 

varied considerably over the past 5 years. Estimates 

of the number of current crack users in the United 

States have ranged from 650,000 in 1996 to 413,000 

in 1999, but there are no estimates of the level of 

demand for crack. Data from the NHSDA for 

1999 indicate that almost 6 million individuals 

aged 12 or older reported lifetime crack use, while 

approximately 1 million reported crack use in the 

past year and about 413,000 reported current use.

Although cocaine and crack accounted for only 

15 percent of admissions to publicly funded treatment facilities in 1998, most—73 percent—were 

for crack. TEDS data indicate that the typical crack 

user admitted to publicly funded treatment is black, 

male, and 34 years of age. Almost 42 percent of 

Table 3. Percent of 8th, 10th, and 12th Graders 

Reporting Lifetime, Past Year, and Current Cocaine Use

Lifetime Past Year Current

8th 10th 12th 8th 10th 12th 8th 10th 12th

1999 4.7 7.7 9.8 2.7 4.9 6.2 1.3 1.8 2.6

1998 4.6 7.2 9.3 3.1 4.7 5.7 1.4 2.1 2.4

1997 4.4 7.1 8.7 2.8 4.7 5.5 1.1 2.0 2.3

1996 4.5 6.5 7.1 3.0 4.2 4.9 1.3 1.7 2.0

1995 4.2 5.0 6.0 2.6 3.5 4.0 1.2 1.7 1.8

1994 3.6 4.3 5.9 2.1 2.8 3.6 1.0 1.2 1.5

1993 2.9 3.6 6.1 1.7 2.1 3.3 0.7 0.9 1.3

1992 2.9 3.3 6.1 1.5 1.9 3.1 0.7 0.7 1.3

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Monitoring the Future Study, 1999.

Table 4. Percent of Past Year Cocaine Use

School 

Year

Junior 

High

Senior 

High

12th 

Grade

Total

(6–12)

99–00 2.2 5.3 7.1 3.7

98–99 2.7 6.1 8.0 4.7

97–98 2.8 6.0 7.9 4.6

96–97 3.0 5.9 7.0 4.5

95–96 2.7 5.6 7.1 4.3

94–95 1.9 4.5 5.3 3.3

Source: Parents’ Resource Institute on Drug Education Survey, 

1999–2000.

Note: Data is for cocaine and crack combined.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

6

admissions to publicly funded treatment for crack

abuse were female, compared with 34 percent of 

admissions for powdered cocaine. Over 40 percent 

of admissions to publicly funded treatment for 

crack use smoked on a daily basis; of admissions 

for powdered cocaine use, less than 29 percent 

used it daily.

The MTF Study indicates slow but steady 

increases in crack use from 1993 through 1998, 

though not all year-to-year changes were statistically significant. In 1999, past year crack use 

declined among eighth graders and current use 

decreased among tenth graders. The rate of past 

year crack use among twelfth graders (2.7%), 

while the highest in the 1990s, is still well below 

the rate in 1986 (4.1%).

Production

Coca is cultivated primarily in Colombia; the 

country accounts for an estimated 67 percent of 

the powdered cocaine available for worldwide 

consumption. Peru and Bolivia, which account 

for 21 and 12 percent, respectively, are the only 

other significant source countries. The conversion 

of cocaine to crack occurs almost exclusively at 

the retail level in the area in which the crack is to 

be distributed. 

Coca cultivation estimates support potential 

production of 765 metric tons of 100 percent pure 

cocaine in 1999. Seizures of cocaine bound for 

the United States indicate that bulk wholesale 

shipments actually average 80 to 90 percent 

purity. Of the 587 metric tons of cocaine detected 

departing South America in 1999, 512 were 

believed to be destined for the United States. Of 

this amount, 76 metric tons were seized in transit 

and another 56 were seized at the U.S. border.

Transportation

Federal, state, and local law enforcement information indicates the existence of a well-coordinated, 

integrated logistics system that spans the United 

States, allowing major Mexican and Colombian 

drug trafficking organizations to manage the flow of 

cocaine to markets throughout the country. These 

organizations control the movement of cocaine from 

source countries to the United States through 

various points of entry, through and among transportation hubs in the Southwest and Southeast 

Regions, and from distribution centers to markets 

throughout the nation.

Transportation to the United States

Interagency analysis of cocaine shipments 

detected from South America to the United States in 

1999 shows a modest change from 1998 in the use 

of the primary transportation corridors (Mexico–

Central America, Caribbean, and Direct to 

Continental United States). Midyear data for 

2000 indicate greater use of Mexico and illustrate 

the fluidity of cocaine trafficking and the flexibility 

of the organizations that control it. In 1999, Mexico 

remained the primary conduit for cocaine destined 

for the United States, accounting for 54 percent of 

detected movement (59% in 1998). However, midyear data for 2000 indicate that approximately 66 

percent of cocaine bound for the United States transited Mexico. In 1999, the Caribbean Corridor 

accounted for 43 percent of all detected shipments 

(30% in 1998), and Haiti and Puerto Rico remained 

the primary destinations for cocaine shipments 

through the Caribbean Corridor. Midyear data for 

2000 show a reduction in the use of the Caribbean 

Corridor, particularly Haiti and Puerto Rico, to 33 

percent of detected movement, but shipments to 

Jamaica appear to have increased. In 1999, 

transit directly to the continental United States 

accounted for only 3 percent of detected shipments (11% in 1998).
National Drug Intelligence Center

7

Mexican and Colombian drug trafficking 

organizations continue to control most cocaine 

transportation to the United States. Mexican 

organizations control the transit of cocaine 

across the Southwest Border primarily at ports 

of entry (POEs) by vehicles (commercial trucks, 

privately owned vehicles, buses, and taxis) and 

by couriers on foot. Mexican organizations also 

use private vehicles, couriers, pack animals, and 

private aircraft to cross the border between POEs. 

Colombian organizations, in cooperation with 

Dominican, Jamaican, Bahamian, and Haitian 

groups, control the transportation of cocaine in the 

Caribbean. Containerized cargo, airdrops, go-fast 

boats, fishing vessels, and coastal freighters are used 

to move cocaine among the Caribbean islands and 

to the United States.

Transportation Within the United States

Law enforcement information indicates that 

Mexican organizations dominate cocaine transportation in the United States, particularly in the 

Pacific, West Central, Southwest, Great Lakes, 

and Southeast Regions. A number of agencies in 

the Mid-Atlantic Region also note Mexican 

involvement in cocaine transportation. However, 

many agencies throughout the country, especially 

in suburban and rural jurisdictions, state that 

local independent dealers, mainly Caucasians, 

are almost as prominent as Mexican organizations.13 Colombian organizations continue to be 

involved, particularly in the eastern United 

States, but have begun to depend more heavily 

on Caribbean groups—primarily Dominican, 

Haitian (especially in Florida), and Jamaican—

to move cocaine. Organized gangs, including 

outlaw motorcycle gangs (OMGs) and street 

gangs, appear to be more prominent in transporting 

cocaine than was previously believed.

Responses to the National Drug Threat Survey 

and domestic seizure information provided by the 

El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) document the 

redundancy and interconnectivity of the logistics 

system through which drug trafficking organizations 

manage the flow of cocaine to U.S. markets. This 

system enables traffickers to direct supply among 

transportation hubs and distribution centers, to 

supply multiple markets through alternate routes, 

and probably to supplement cocaine supplies in 

areas experiencing shortages as a result of 

seizures and other law enforcement activity. (The 

following map illustrates this interconnectivity 

using Columbus, Ohio, as an example.)

Transportation hub: A city or area that is 

the intended primary destination of drugs and 

from which one or more distribution centers 

are supplied. Transportation hubs usually 

function as distribution centers as well. 

Distribution center: A city that supplies 

drugs to local markets in and out of state. 

Transshipment point: A city or area in 

which drugs are temporarily stored with 

the ultimate intent being transportation to 

another location for distribution. 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

8
National Drug Intelligence Center

9

Transportation Hubs

The principal transportation hubs in the 

United States are Los Angeles, Central Arizona 

(Tucson and Phoenix), El Paso, Houston, Miami, 

and Puerto Rico. Mexican organizations control 

the movement of cocaine to transportation hubs 

through smuggling corridors in the Southwest 

Region. They also control the movement of cocaine 

from transportation hubs in the Southwest to the 

distribution centers of Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, 

New York, and Philadelphia, as well as to markets 

throughout the country. Colombian organizations 

control the flow of cocaine into and through Miami 

and Puerto Rico as well as the flow of some 

cocaine into Houston, supplying organizations 

throughout the eastern United States and in the 

Great Lakes Region.

Los Angeles. The primary source of cocaine to the 

Los Angeles area is Mexico, via southern California 

(San Diego) and El Paso, Texas. The Los Angeles 

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) 

states that Mexican drug trafficking organizations 

are now sending smaller shipments of cocaine to 

Los Angeles simultaneously to reduce losses from 

the seizure of large shipments. From Los Angeles, 

Mexican organizations supply cocaine to other 

Mexican organizations in Chicago and Detroit 

and to Dominican and possibly Colombian 

organizations in New York. Los Angeles-based 

Mexican organizations also supply cocaine to 

associates in cities north of Los Angeles along 

Interstate 5. Past seizures indicate some maritime 

transport to Los Angeles from Colombia, but available information does not indicate to what extent. 

The continued presence of Colombian organizations 

suggests that they may control some shipments 

directly to Los Angeles and probably control 

shipments to associated Colombian organizations 

in Oakland, San Francisco, Seattle, and other 

locations on the U.S. West Coast. The Los 

Angeles Field Division of the Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA) notes that Peruvian 

groups are attempting to establish cocaine routes 

to Los Angeles independent of Colombian or 

Mexican organizations. 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

10

Central Arizona. Mexican organizations operating from Tucson and Phoenix control cocaine 

transportation from Mexico directly into Arizona. 

From Arizona, they manage the movement of 

cocaine to Atlanta, Chicago, Cleveland, Los 

Angeles, Minneapolis, and New York, as well as 

to several cities between Arizona and the Great 

Lakes Region. 

El Paso. Mexican organizations based in El 

Paso control the flow of cocaine into El Paso 

through several entry points in the El Paso 

metropolitan area and along the border between 

Columbus, New Mexico, and Del Rio, Texas. In 

addition to supplying cocaine to Los Angeles, 

El Paso-based Mexican organizations supply 

associates—primarily Mexican—in Chicago, 

Denver, New York, and Philadelphia. 

Houston. Mexican and Colombian organizations 

manage cocaine transportation into and through 

Houston, which is supplied overland from 

Mexico via border entry points between Del 

Rio and Brownsville and by sea. McAllen, 

Texas, in particular, is a major transshipment 

point. The DEA Houston Field Division notes a 

high volume of cocaine shipped through 

McAllen in tractor-trailers en route primarily to 

Houston but also to Dallas, Chicago, New 

York, and other areas to the north and east. 

Maritime shipments of cocaine directly from 

Colombia and the Caribbean to Houston probably 

constitute a majority of the Colombian market share 

in Houston. From Houston, the cocaine is shipped to 

associated African-American, Colombian, Dominican, and Mexican organizations in Atlanta, Chicago, 

New York, Rochester (NY), and Tampa. 

Miami. Miami is one of the most important 

transportation hubs in the eastern United States. 

Colombian organizations control the flow of 

cocaine into Miami primarily from the Caribbean, 

but, according to the Tampa Police Department, 

Tampa is also a source of some of the cocaine 

transported to the Miami area. The Miami Police 

Department reports that New York City is the 

primary destination for cocaine shipped out of 

Miami. Additional information from law 

enforcement agencies indicates a significant 

increase in cocaine smuggling aboard Haitian 

coastal freighters.

Puerto Rico. Colombian organizations and their 

Caribbean associates control cocaine transportation 

from the northern coasts of Colombia and Venezuela either directly to Puerto Rico or indirectly 

through the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Trinidad 

and Tobago, St. Croix, St. Martin/Sint Maarten, 

and St. Thomas. Traffickers smuggle multihundredkilogram shipments of cocaine directly to Puerto 

Rico using a variety of air and maritime methods 

including commercial and cargo aircraft, go-fast 

vessels, and containerized cargo. There is a significant lack of information, however, regarding 

the use of containerized cargo. Traffickers also 

employ a combination of go-fast vessels, cruise 

ships, ferries, fishing boats, private yachts, and 

motherships to “island hop” cocaine to Puerto Rico. 

There are indications that, because of increased 

detection and monitoring activity near Haiti and 

the Dominican Republic, airdrops in the waters 

east of Puerto Rico may be increasing. From 

Puerto Rico, traffickers use commercial flights, air 

cargo, containerized cargo, private watercraft, and 

cruise ships to move cocaine to associates in New 

York, Miami, Orlando, Philadelphia, and Newark.

Jacksonville and Tampa, Florida, are noteworthy sources of cocaine to other cities in the 

United States, but there is insufficient information 

to classify either as a transportation hub or 

distribution center. Colombian organizations 

transport cocaine directly to both cities. Jacksonville 

appears to lack the widespread influence of the 

major distribution centers, but criminal organizations in Jacksonville supply cocaine to associates 

in north Florida, Georgia, New York, and Illinois. 

The FBI Jacksonville Field Division notes a 

marked increase in cocaine smuggling through the 

Port of Jacksonville. Tampa appears to have less 

influence than even Jacksonville as a distribution 

center but may supplement cocaine supplies at 

transportation hubs. Colombian and Central 

American organizations in Tampa supply and are 

supplied by associates in Houston and Miami.
National Drug Intelligence Center

11

Distribution

Mexican organizations continue to dominate 

wholesale cocaine distribution, particularly in the 

Pacific, Southwest, West Central, Great Lakes, and 

Southeast Regions. However, information from law 

enforcement agencies indicates that Mexican organizations are establishing operations and gaining 

market share in the eastern United States, especially 

in New York and Philadelphia. Colombian organizations continue to dominate wholesale distribution 

in the eastern United States, but apparently have 

ceded responsibility for some wholesale distribution 

to Dominican and Jamaican associates throughout 

the New England, New York/New Jersey, and 

Florida/Caribbean Regions. Colombian wholesale 

distribution organizations also dominate the larger 

market areas of the Mid-Atlantic. According to 

responses to the National Drug Threat Survey, 

local independent dealers, particularly Caucasians, 

are almost as prominent in wholesale cocaine distribution as Mexican organizations—especially in 

suburban and rural areas. Survey responses also 

indicate that although Mexican organizations 

maintain a presence in retail distribution, they 

surrender dominance to local independent dealers 

(including Caucasians, African Americans, and 

Hispanics) and street gangs.

Wholesale: The level of distribution at which 

drugs are purchased directly from a source of 

supply or importer and sold, normally, to 

midlevel distributors in pound, kilogram, or 

multi-unit quantities. 

Midlevel: The level of distribution at which 

drugs are purchased directly from wholesale distributors in pound, kilogram, or 

multi-unit quantities and sold in smaller 

quantities to other midlevel distributors or to 

retail distributors. 

Retail: The level of distribution at which 

drugs are sold directly to users.

Local independent dealers and street gangs 

continue to dominate crack distribution, almost 

all of which occurs at the retail level. Federal, 

state, and local law enforcement agencies report 

that crack distributors prefer to move cocaine and 

convert it to crack locally to avoid the more 

severe penalties associated with trafficking crack. 

Almost 300 of the 412 state and local agencies 

responding to the National Drug Threat Survey 

identify crack as a problem in their areas, of which 

almost 80 percent state that crack conversion 

occurs locally. Local independent dealers, AfricanAmerican groups, and street gangs are identified 

as prominently involved in converting cocaine to 

crack. Several agencies also note the involvement 

of Mexican, Caucasian, and Dominican groups in 

crack conversion and distribution. 

Crack distribution patterns mirror those of 

cocaine: street gangs and local independent dealers 

control crack distribution to associates in and out 

of state. Of 412 respondents to the National Drug 

Threat Survey, 270 agencies identify local independent dealers and 190 identify street gangs as 

the dominant crack distributors in their areas. The 

next most frequently mentioned are Caucasians, 

identified by 122 different agencies, and Mexicans, 

mentioned by only 49. 

Transportation Hubs as 

Distribution Centers

Major Mexican and Colombian drug 

trafficking organizations control the availability 

of cocaine throughout the nation by directing 

the flow of cocaine into the United States and 

managing the movement of cocaine from transportation hubs to distribution centers nationwide. 

Transportation hubs—except for Puerto Rico, 

which almost exclusively supplies only distribution centers—also serve as distribution centers, 

but their regional influence and importance 

vary widely.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

12

Los Angeles. In addition to supplying the distribution centers mentioned above, Los Angelesbased Mexican and Colombian organizations supply 

multikilogram quantities of cocaine to associated 

organizations and independent groups and individuals throughout much of the United States. Law 

enforcement agencies identify Los Angeles as a 

primary source of cocaine to cities throughout 

California and in at least 20 other states: Alabama, 

Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, 

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, 

Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, 

New York, North Carolina, Ohio, South Dakota, 

Tennessee, and Washington, D.C.

Central Arizona. From Tucson and Phoenix, 

Mexican drug trafficking organizations supply 

cocaine to associated Mexican, Jamaican, and 

other groups throughout Arizona and in at least 

12 other states: California, Colorado, Georgia, 

Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nevada, New 

Mexico, New York, Ohio, and Texas.

El Paso. Mexican organizations in El Paso 

supply cocaine to associated organizations 

throughout north and west Texas. Few agencies 

outside Texas identified El Paso as a primary 

source of cocaine; most of the agencies were in 

midsize to large cities like Colorado Springs 

and Denver, Colorado; Kansas City, Missouri; 

Montgomery, Alabama; Raleigh-Durham and 

Greensboro, North Carolina; Richmond, 

Virginia; and suburban areas near Chicago.

Houston. Law enforcement agencies in cities and 

towns throughout east Texas—most of which 

identify Mexican organizations as the predominant 

cocaine distributors—also identify Houston as the 
National Drug Intelligence Center

13

primary source of cocaine to their areas. From 

Houston, Mexican and Colombian drug trafficking 

organizations supply associated organizations 

throughout the Southeast including Alabama, 

Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, and Tennessee.

Miami. Colombian organizations based in 

Miami control supplies of cocaine to AfricanAmerican, Bahamian, Colombian, Dominican, 

Haitian, Jamaican, and Mexican organizations in 

Florida and in at least 15 other eastern states. 

According to the Miami Police Department, New 

York City is the primary destination for cocaine 

leaving Miami. But agencies in Alabama, Georgia, 

Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, 

New York (Buffalo), North Carolina, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, 

and north Florida identify Miami as a primary 

source of cocaine to their areas.

Distribution Centers

In addition to using the transportation hubs for 

wholesale distribution, Mexican and Colombian 

criminal organizations use several other U.S. cities 

as distribution centers, supplying wholesale quantities of cocaine to organizations in and out of state. 

Among the distribution centers, the most prominent 

in terms of regional influence and importance are 

New York, Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta, Detroit, and 

Philadelphia. Other probable distribution centers 

are Columbus, Ohio; St. Louis, Missouri; 

Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota; Seattle, 

Washington; and Denver, Colorado. Information from law enforcement agencies and the 

EPIC indicates a high volume of cocaine movement to these cities, but there is insufficient 

information to determine their importance as 

distribution centers.

New York. Cocaine trafficking organizations in 

New York City, one of the largest cocaine markets 

in the country, are supplied by virtually every 

available means of transportation: by sea via 

containerized cargo, by land from the Southwest 

Border and from the Southeast Region, by air 

(especially couriers), and by various parcel 

services. Mexican and Colombian organizations 

in Los Angeles, El Paso, Houston, Miami, and 

Jacksonville control most cocaine shipments to 

New York, but according to the New York Police 

Department, Asian, Dominican, and Jamaican 

groups, are also involved. Colombian and 

Dominican organizations control the majority of 

wholesale and midlevel cocaine distribution 

within New York, but there are indications that 

Mexican organizations are gaining influence. 

According to the New York Police Department, 

local independent dealers (Caucasians and African 

Americans) and street gangs, as well as Asian, 

Central American, and Italian Organized Crime 

groups, also are involved in wholesale distribution. 

New York-based Colombian, Dominican, and 

Jamaican organizations supply cocaine to markets in some of the most populous areas of the 

United States. The influence of New York City 

as a distribution center extends throughout the 

New England, New York/New Jersey, and MidAtlantic Regions and reaches into the Southeast 

and Great Lakes Regions.

Chicago. Mexican and Colombian organizations 

coordinate the flow of cocaine from Los Angeles, 

Central Arizona, El Paso, and Houston to associated 

Mexican and Colombian organizations in Chicago. 

Responses to the National Drug Threat Survey 

indicate some movement of cocaine from Jacksonville, Florida, through Roanoke, Virginia, to 

Chicago. Mexican organizations dominate 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

14

wholesale and midlevel distribution in Chicago, 

but the Chicago Police Department identifies 

Colombian and street gang involvement in 

wholesale distribution as well. At the retail level, 

Mexican organizations also dominate distribution, 

but street gangs, local independent dealers—

Caucasians, African Americans, and Hispanics—

are heavily involved. From Chicago, Mexican 

organizations coordinate distribution to markets 

throughout the Great Lakes Region and into limited 

areas of the Southeast and West Central Regions.

Dallas. The primary sources of cocaine to the 

Dallas metropolitan area are El Paso and Houston, 

but some cocaine apparently is shipped directly 

from points between Brownsville and El Paso. 

Within Dallas, Mexican organizations control the 

majority of wholesale and midlevel cocaine 

distribution, but the Dallas Police Department also 

identifies the involvement of street gangs and 

Colombian, Central American, and Caribbean 

groups. Mexican organizations, street gangs, local 

independent dealers (particularly Caucasians), and 

Asian groups are all involved in retail distribution. 

The influence of Dallas as a regional distribution 

center extends throughout north and east Texas, 

overlapping that of El Paso and Houston, and 

reaches into Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, and Oklahoma. The Dallas Police 

Department notes an increase in cocaine transshipment through Dallas over the past few years.

Atlanta. The Atlanta Police Department identifies Miami, Brownsville, Texas, and Savannah, 

Georgia, as the primary sources of cocaine to the 

area, but the Jacksonville and Houston Police 

Departments also identify Atlanta as a destination 

for cocaine leaving their jurisdictions. The large 

number of cocaine sources to Atlanta and the 

high volume of cocaine transiting those source 

areas suggest that the volume of cocaine transported 

to Atlanta is correspondingly high. According to the 

Atlanta Police Department, Mexican organizations, 

local independent dealers, and street gangs dominate cocaine distribution at the wholesale level. 

At the retail level, street gangs, local independent 

dealers, and Caucasians, as well as Colombian, 

Jamaican, and Mexican groups, are all involved. 

Atlanta’s influence as a distribution center appears 

to be limited to the Southeast Region, particularly 

Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, 

and Tennessee, but includes many of the more 

populous cities in those states.

Detroit. According to the DEA Detroit Field 

Division, organizations in Chicago, Miami, 

New York, Los Angeles, and Texas supply 

cocaine to organizations in Detroit. Within 

Detroit, Colombian, Mexican, and Jamaican 

organizations, as well as Caucasians, are involved 

in wholesale and midlevel cocaine distribution. 

According to the Detroit Police Department, 

street gangs and local independent dealers dominate 

retail distribution. Detroit’s influence as a 

regional distribution center overlaps that of 

Chicago, but is more limited in extent. Detroitbased organizations manage cocaine distribution 

throughout Michigan and to markets in Indiana, 

Iowa, Kentucky, Ohio, western Pennsylvania, 

and West Virginia.

Philadelphia. Mexican and Colombian organizations in El Paso, Miami, and New York supply 

wholesale cocaine distribution groups operating 

in Philadelphia. These groups include Dominican 

and Colombian organizations, street gangs, and 

local independent dealers including African 

Americans, Asians, and Caucasians. But Caribbean groups—particularly Dominicans with connections to other Dominican groups in New York 

City—dominate wholesale and midlevel cocaine 

distribution. According to the Philadelphia Police 

Department, Dominican groups, street gangs, 

Caucasians, and OMGs are all involved in cocaine 

distribution at the retail level. Philadelphia-based 

organizations, particularly Dominicans, distribute 

cocaine to groups throughout Pennsylvania and in 

Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Virginia, and 

Washington, D.C.

Other probable distribution centers include 

Columbus, Ohio; St. Louis, Missouri; Minneapolis 

and St. Paul, Minnesota; Seattle, Washington; and 

Denver, Colorado. Drug trafficking organizations 

in these cities distribute locally and to groups and 

independent dealers in surrounding states. The 

influence of these cities, however, does not 
National Drug Intelligence Center

15

appear to match that of the distribution centers 

noted above. According to information provided 

by police departments and sheriff’s offices in 

each of these cities, locally based Mexican 

organizations with ties to Mexican organizations 

along the Southwest Border are heavily involved 

in cocaine transportation and distribution. In 

Columbus, Dominican and Jamaican organizations with connections to New York and Florida 

dominate cocaine distribution. In the Minneapolis 

and St. Paul areas, the dominant cocaine distributors 

are local street gangs with ties to gangs in Chicago 

and Mexican groups with connections to Mexican 

organizations in Arizona, California, and Texas. 

Mexican, Colombian, and Central American 

groups dominate cocaine distribution in Seattle. 

Although drug trafficking organizations in each of 

these cities clearly maintain connections to other 

organizations and independent dealers in and out 

of state, more information is needed to characterize wholesale and retail distribution patterns in 

these areas.

Key Developments

Many agencies across the country note no 

major changes in the cocaine situation in the past 

year, stating that cocaine availability and use 

continue to be stable at high to moderate levels. 

A number of agencies note an increase in the 

involvement of local independent dealers in 

cocaine trafficking. The most significant recent 

developments relate to the continuing expansion 

of Dominican and Mexican organizations and 

indications from investigations in a number of 

key locations that the two are working together. 

• According to many law enforcement agencies 

in the New England, New York/New Jersey, 

Mid-Atlantic, and Southeast Regions, 

Dominican groups have become the preeminent 

cocaine distributors in many parts of those 

regions. Additional information from federal, 

state, and local law enforcement agencies indicates that Dominican groups have expanded 

operations to the Great Lakes and portions of 

the West Central and Pacific Regions.

• The FBI Field Division in Milwaukee notes 

that Dominican groups, working in close cooperation with several prison and street gangs, 

have established a distribution network that 

mirrors Dominican networks in New York.

• The Columbus Division of Police identifies 

Dominican groups as the dominant cocaine 

distributors in Columbus, Ohio, and the 

Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office notes a high 

level of Dominican activity in Cincinnati.

• According to the Tampa Police Department, 

Dominican organizations are attempting to 

gain a foothold in the Tampa area.

• The Anchorage Police Department reports 

that Dominican groups with direct connections to Colombian sources of supply are 

the dominant cocaine distributors in 

Anchorage and that Mexican groups are 

beginning to rival Dominicans.

• According to some DEA and FBI Field 

Divisions, Dominican groups have established direct connections to Mexican 

cocaine sources in the Southwest Region. 

Other key developments suggest that drug 

trafficking organizations are becoming more 

flexible in employing techniques to avoid 

detection and increase profits when transporting, 

storing, and distributing cocaine.

• Several agencies, including the Columbus (OH) 

Division of Police, Drug Task Forces in Waco 

and McAllen, Texas, and the Houston County 

Sheriff’s Department (GA), note significant 

decreases in the size of cocaine shipments.14

• Some state and local law enforcement agencies 

note the increased use of private vehicles with 

hidden compartments and the use of increasingly sophisticated smuggling and concealment 

techniques. Some agencies, particularly in 

south and east Texas, have observed an 

increase in the use of tractor-trailer rigs to 

move large quantities of cocaine.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

16

• Agencies in two of the nation’s largest cocaine 

markets, the Chicago and Los Angeles Police 

Departments, report an increased tendency on 

the part of drug trafficking organizations to 

transport smaller shipments more frequently 

and store smaller quantities of cocaine in multiple locations. These organizations retrieve the 

cocaine only on a call-and-deliver basis for 

sale, thus minimizing the risk of exposure and 

of losing large quantities of cocaine.

• The Austin (TX) Police Department identifies 

an increasingly popular technique of marketing 

“rebricked” cocaine. A kilogram brick of 

cocaine, which normally sells for $17,000 to 

$18,000, is broken down and an adulterant is 

added, reducing the purity from 85 to 25 

percent. The resulting powder is again pressed 

into bricks and sold for approximately $10,000 

each, dramatically increasing profits.

Although most state and local law enforcement agencies note no significant changes in the 

crack situation in their jurisdictions, some identify 

significant increases in the purity of crack—

up to 85 percent. A number of agencies also note 

increasingly sophisticated distribution techniques 

and a decrease in outdoor sales.

Projections

Almost all national indicators point to continued 

overall stability in cocaine and crack availability and 

abuse, but at high levels. Despite indications of 

overall stability, some changes in the cocaine and 

crack situation could pose challenges for drug 

control efforts in the near future.

Mexican, Colombian and, increasingly, 

Dominican organizations will continue to use a 

now well-established logistics system in the 

United States to maintain supplies and stable 

prices in markets throughout the nation.

Colombian organizations may be moving to 

an exclusively bulk wholesale supplier role to 

avoid exposure to law enforcement and the U.S. 

judicial system. This theory is suggested not only 

by the Colombians’ increasing reliance on 

Dominican, Haitian, and Jamaican groups to transport and distribute cocaine, but by the expansion of 

Mexican and Dominican organizations and the 

increasingly greater direct contact between them.
National Drug Intelligence Center

17

Methamphetamine

Methamphetamine, in various forms, is available throughout the United States. It is produced 

illegally in the United States, Mexico, and Asia, 

but there are no conclusive estimates of the levels 

of either domestic or international methamphetamine production. Despite an increasingly greater 

correlation between independent Caucasian laboratory operators and methamphetamine production—which has spread to almost every state—

Mexican organizations in Mexico and in the 

United States probably account for most of the 

methamphetamine available in the United States. 

Mexican organizations clearly dominate transportation and wholesale distribution as well, but 

retail distribution is shared with independent 

dealers (particularly Caucasians and Hispanics), 

street gangs, and OMGs.

Assessment of the Threat 

A combination of factors makes methamphetamine the second greatest drug threat facing the 

United States. The production, trafficking, and 

abuse of methamphetamine and the violence 

associated with all aspects of the illicit methamphetamine trade continue to plague the United 

States. The methamphetamine problem is moving 

into urban areas and eastward from the Southwest, Pacific, and West Central Regions into the 

Great Lakes, New England, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, and Florida/Caribbean Regions. The illegal 

methamphetamine trade was limited to relatively 

low-grade dl-methamphetamine and associated 

almost exclusively with OMGs. Now, sophisticated Mexican drug trafficking organizations 

operating large-scale laboratories in Mexico and 

the United States supply most of the U.S. demand 

for methamphetamine and dominate wholesale 

and retail distribution. Thousands of independent 

laboratory operators, mostly Caucasians, with 

ready access to precursor chemicals are using a 

variety of methods to produce d-methamphetamine, most of which is intended for personal use 

or very limited local distribution.

In less than 10 years, methamphetamine has 

grown from a problem limited to the Southwest, 

Pacific, and portions of the West Central Regions 

to one of nationwide concern. Agencies in every 

state except Connecticut, Massachusetts, New 

Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont identify existing or emerging problems with methamphetamine.

Methamphetamine Terms

Dextro-methamphetamine: d-methamphetamine is produced using the precursor 

chemical ephedrine/pseudoephedrine. It is 

the most potent and widely abused form of 

methamphetamine and is associated with 

Mexican drug trafficking organizations. 

Dextro-levo methamphetamine: dl-methamphetamine is produced using the precursor 

phenyl-2-propanone (P2P). It is only half as 

potent as d-methamphetamine and is associated primarily with outlaw motorcycle gangs. 

Ice: Ice is a colorless, odorless form of 

smokeable d-methamphetamine resembling 

glass fragments or ice shavings. Its production 

(a process of recrystallizing methamphetamine) and distribution are normally associated with Asian traffickers. 

Ephedrine/pseudoephedrine production: 

This method uses the chemicals ephedrine/

pseudoephedrine, hydriodic acid, and red 

phosphorus. It produces large quantities of 

d-methamphetamine. 

“Nazi” production: This method uses the 

precursor chemical ephedrine/pseudoephedrine and secondary chemicals such as 

sodium metal and anhydrous ammonia. It produces small quantities of d-methamphetamine. 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

18

Profound environmental damage results 

from methamphetamine production, much of 

which occurs within the United States, and the 

costs of remediating laboratory sites are daunting. 

In 1998 and 1999 combined, law enforcement 

agencies seized clandestine laboratories in every 

state except Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Vermont. In 1998, the DEA seized 70 “superlabs,”

those capable of producing 10 or more pounds of 

methamphetamine in a single cook. Of those 70 

laboratories, 56 were seized in California, 4 in 

Colorado, 3 in Pennsylvania, and 1 each in 

Arizona, Delaware, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, 

Nevada, and Washington. 

Of the 412 state and local agencies responding to the National Drug Threat Survey, 139 rate 

methamphetamine as one of the greatest drug 

threats in their areas. Over 200 agencies in 47 

states, Guam, and the Northern Marianas identify 

an increase in the methamphetamine problem 

within their jurisdictions. Almost 130 agencies 

consider the methamphetamine problem stable 

and only 15 said it was decreasing. Over 200 

agencies in 42 states note the presence of local 

methamphetamine production. 

Law enforcement agencies note a direct 

relationship between methamphetamine distribution and abuse and violent crime, particularly 

domestic violence, child abuse, aggravated 

assault, and murder. Of the 113 agencies that 

identify a specific link between drugs and violent crime, 42 note a high correlation between 

methamphetamine production, trafficking, and 

abuse and violent crime.
National Drug Intelligence Center

19

Availability

Law enforcement agencies generally agree that 

availability is high. More than 150 agencies 

responding to the National Drug Threat Survey 

identify methamphetamine availability as high and 

note corresponding increases in methamphetaminerelated investigations and arrests.

Federal-wide Drug Seizure System data show 

that over 2,700 kilograms of methamphetamine 

were seized in 1999—approximately 200 kilograms 

more than were seized in 1998. U.S. Department of 

Justice OCDETFs obtained 914 methamphetamine 

indictments in 1999—28 percent more than 1998, 

but still well below the levels for cocaine and crack.

Purity varies widely across the country. Purity is 

highest in the Pacific Region, particularly in Guam, 

Hawaii, and the Northern Marianas, where DEA 

laboratories have verified purity levels of “ice” at 90 

percent and higher. In other areas of the country, 

purity can range from 10 percent to 80 percent, 

depending on the source. Purity levels of Mexican 

methamphetamine have fallen below 10 percent in 

many areas, but information from the DEA San 

Diego and San Francisco Field Divisions, as well as 

from a number of state and local agencies, suggests 

that purity levels may be on the rise. Purity levels 

for “Nazi dope” (methamphetamine produced by 

the Nazi method) are generally much higher than for 

Mexican methamphetamine. 

Prices also vary widely. Wholesale prices are 

highest in the Pacific islands, reaching $60,000 per 

pound. Within the contiguous 48 states, wholesale 

prices are generally higher in areas farthest from the 

West Coast, averaging $20,000 per pound in the 

Midwest and East and only $5,000 to $7,000 per 

pound in the West. 

Demand

There are no conclusive estimates of nationwide demand for methamphetamine or of the 

total number of methamphetamine users. 

National data indicate that, at least as of 1999, 

methamphetamine abuse had not permeated 

younger age groups. Data from the NHSDA for 

1999 indicate that approximately 9.4 million people in the United States tried methamphetamine at 

least once in their lifetime. Lifetime use was 

highest among those aged 26 to 34 (5.4%) and 

lowest among 12 to 17 year olds (1.4%). 

Information from TEDS for 1998 shows that 

methamphetamine accounted for only 3.6 percent 

of all admissions to publicly funded treatment 

facilities and that 75 percent of admissions for 

abuse of amphetamines (mostly methamphetamine) were using other drugs as well. The TEDS 

also shows that amphetamine admissions (mostly 

methamphetamine) were predominantly white 

(80.4%) and that over half (52.9%) were male. 

Admissions peaked at the 25 to 34 age group for 

both males and females.

According to 1998 ADAM findings, there was 

little change in the prevalence of methamphetamine 

use among arrestees. Use remains higher among 

Caucasians than any other group. Methamphetamine appears only sporadically at ADAM sites 

beyond the Southwest, Pacific, and West Central 

Regions, but its prevalence continues to increase in 

areas where methamphetamine is well established.

Emergency department data from DAWN show 

no significant changes in the number of methamphetamine and speed mentions from 1998 to 1999. 

Among metropolitan areas with the most mentions 

in 1999, Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix, and San Diego 

showed decreases—possibly attributable to substantial decreases in the purity of methamphetamine 

sold by the Mexican organizations that control those 

markets. Two areas—St. Louis, and Seattle—

showed increases in the number of methamphetamine and speed mentions. 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

20

Production 

Methamphetamine is produced illegally in large 

amounts in the United States, Mexico, and Asia, but 

there are no accepted estimates of total domestic or 

international production. Efforts to estimate 

domestic production are severely hampered by the 

lack of a universally accepted definition of a clandestine laboratory and the lack of routine reporting 

of laboratory seizures to the EPIC’s National Clandestine Laboratory Database. Information provided 

to NDIC by the DEA and state and local law 

enforcement agencies suggests that total laboratory 

seizures may be underreported.

Methamphetamine laboratory: A clandestine laboratory is an illicit operation with a 

sufficient combination of apparatus and 

chemicals that either has produced or could 

produce methamphetamine.

Statistics show laboratory seizures are highest in 

the Pacific Region (particularly in California, 

Washington, and Oregon) and in Arizona, Missouri, 

Arkansas, and Oklahoma. Almost every state in the 

West Central Region is experiencing increases in 

clandestine laboratory activity, and according to 

state and local law enforcement, laboratory 

seizures are on the rise in Texas and throughout 

the Southeast Region. Generally, local production 

has followed the appearance of methamphetamine 

within local drug user populations almost immediately, but local production has not completely 

displaced outside sources. Agencies in 19 states 

with reportedly high levels of local production also 

identify Mexico as a source of methamphetamine.

Of 412 agencies that responded to the 

National Drug Threat Survey, 201 agencies in 42 

states note the presence of local methamphetamine production and 133 agencies in 37 states 

note an increase in clandestine laboratory activity. 

Of the 201 agencies that identify the presence of 

local production, 105 state that the laboratories 

are found primarily in rural locations and 73 state 

they are found in urban locations.
National Drug Intelligence Center

21

The proliferation of methamphetamine laboratories in the United States poses a threat to the safety 

of citizens, especially children, in areas near those 

laboratories and to law enforcement personnel 

called upon to remove those laboratories. According 

to EPIC, law enforcement agencies seized almost 

7,200 clandestine methamphetamine laboratories in 

1999, although the DEA acknowledges that a significant number of laboratory seizures are not reported 

to EPIC or Regional Intelligence Sharing Systems. 

In the course of these seizures, law enforcement 

agencies noted the presence of nearly 870 children 

at the sites—180 of the children were exposed to 

toxic chemicals, and 12 were injured by toxic chemicals. Explosions occurred at 111 of the laboratories 

seized, and explosives or booby traps were found at 

81. Comparing data from the California Drug 

Endangered Children (DEC) office suggests that 

like laboratory seizures in general, the effect of 

methamphetamine production on children may be 

underreported. DEC reports that in 1999, over 1,000 

children were present at 482 methamphetamine

laboratories in only seven counties. Preliminary data 

from DEC for 2000 indicate similar numbers. 

The average methamphetamine laboratory 

produces 5 to 7 pounds of toxic waste for every 

pound of methamphetamine produced. The cost of 

cleaning laboratory sites places a heavy financial 

responsibility on law enforcement agencies and 

governments at all levels. Law enforcement personnel are required by federal law to be trained 

and certified to participate in a laboratory cleanup 

operation. According to state and local law 

enforcement agencies, the costs of remediating a 

methamphetamine laboratory range from $2,500 

for the smallest laboratories to over $250,000 for 

the largest. While some remediation costs are 

borne by the DEA, the expense of removing 

methamphetamine laboratories is prohibitive for 

most law enforcement agencies, especially 

smaller, rural departments with limited staffing, 

limited funds, and an abundance of local laboratories. Increasing laboratory seizures nationwide 

have depleted available remediation funds; one 

department has reported that it “cannot afford to 

seize any more meth labs.”

Production Within the United States

Methamphetamine producers remain dependent 

on a continuous supply of precursor chemicals, 

especially ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, either of 

which will produce d-methamphetamine, the more 

potent of the two most frequently available forms. 

Federal and state controls on ephedrine and pseudoephedrine have severely limited domestic methamphetamine producers’ ability to acquire these 

precursors in bulk. Consequently, laboratory operators in the United States have turned to ephedrine 

and pseudoephedrine tablets, which are readily 

available at liquor, convenience, and discount retail 

stores nationwide. The DEA notes an increase in the 

smuggling of pseudoephedrine tablets from Canada 

to the United States, and the DEA Los Angeles 

Field Division notes a 100 percent increase in the 

price of pseudoephedrine in the past year. 

Operation Backtrack, a DEA Special Enforcement Program initiated in February 1997, was 

created to target chemical companies and 

individuals that divert pseudoephedrine, 

ephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine to clandestine laboratory operators. Investigations 

sponsored by Operation Backtrack have 

helped illustrate the extent and the profitability 

of the illegal methamphetamine trade. Since 

its inception, Operation Backtrack has 

resulted in the following:

• The seizure of over $16.5 million in 

combined assets, over $11 million of which 

was in cash

• The seizure of 152.3 million dosage 

units of pseudoephedrine—enough to 

manufacture between 11,500 and 15,000 

pounds of methamphetaminea

• The arrest of 317 individuals on various 

charges relating to the diversion of precursor 

chemicals; of those arrested, 46 percent were 

of Middle Eastern descent and 24 percent 

were of Mexican descent

a. According to DEA’s Office of Diversion Control, 152.3 

million 60-mg pseudoephedrine tablets at a 60 percent reduction 

rate would result in 11,562 lb of methamphetamine. At the 

maximum potential reduction rate of 92 percent, the same 

number of tablets would yield 15,261 lb of methamphetamine.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

22

The two most frequently practiced methods of 

methamphetamine production in the United 

States are the “red phosphorus,” or “Mexican,”

method and the “Nazi” method. Both are capable 

of producing high potency d-methamphetamine. 

The red phosphorus method is widely used 

throughout the Southwest and Pacific Regions by 

most Mexican methamphetamine organizations 

and by others who acquire the recipe by a 

variety of means, including the Internet. The red 

phosphorus method is used most frequently in 

high-capacity laboratories to produce multipound quantities of methamphetamine of varying 

purity. The Nazi method is practiced throughout 

the country by local independent producers and 

dealers, mostly Caucasians with no affiliation to 

any criminal organization. The Nazi method is 

normally used to produce very high purity methamphetamine in quantities of less than an ounce; 

it is especially prominent in the West Central 

Region and in portions of the Southwest Region. 

Another method, using phenyl-2-propanone 

(P2P), has been used historically by OMGs to 

produce the less potent dl-methamphetamine. Its 

use continues to be reported by agencies in California, Colorado, Delaware, Louisiana, Michigan, 

Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wyoming, 

but appears to be most prominent in eastern 

Pennsylvania, where OMGs still control most of 

the methamphetamine trafficking.

A substantial portion of the methamphetamine available in the United States is 

produced at clandestine laboratories controlled 

by Mexican organizations based in Mexico and 

California, which leads the nation in laboratory 

seizures. Law enforcement agencies throughout 

the nation mention California most frequently 

as a source of methamphetamine. Other frequently mentioned sources are Arizona, Florida, 

Missouri, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. 

Mexican organizations dominate production in 

each of these states. Between 1992 and 1998, 

the number of states in which Mexican nationals 

were sentenced on methamphetamine-related 

charges grew from 3 to 30, illustrating the 

expanding role Mexican organizations are 

playing in the production and distribution of 

methamphetamine in the United States. 

As chemical interdiction efforts and the “letter 

of non-objection” program continued to cut the 

supply of precursor chemicals to Mexican organizations, the purity of Mexican methamphetamine 

dropped dramatically in 1998 and 1999.15 It now 

appears that some non-Mexican groups are 

attempting to fill the void in the market for high 

purity methamphetamine with their own superlab 

operations. For example, in September 1998 DEA 

Kansas City seized a methamphetamine laboratory 

operated by a non-Mexican group that had the 

capability to produce more than 100 pounds of 

methamphetamine.

Information from the U.S. Forest Service 

documents a significant increase in the use of 

public lands for methamphetamine production. 

Seizures of methamphetamine laboratories on 

lands administered by the U.S. Forest Service 

have increased from 28 in 1995 to 105 in 1998. 

The identification of dump sites in National 

Forests and on National Grasslands has shown a 

corresponding increase over the same period.

Law enforcement information indicates that 

some street gangs are involved in producing methamphetamine. In responding to the National Drug 

Threat Survey, agencies in 23 states and Washington, D.C., noted street gang involvement in methamphetamine production. For example, according to 

the Umatilla County (OR) Sheriff’s Office, the New 

World Order Wolfpack, a Hispanic street gang with 

links to gangs in Los Angeles, manufactures and 

sells methamphetamine in quantities ranging from 

an eighth to a quarter ounce. The gang is also 

involved in interstate drug trafficking, assaults, and 

drive-by shootings.
National Drug Intelligence Center

23

Production Outside the United States

Major methamphetamine producers in Mexico 

and Asia probably continue to receive bulk

ephedrine and pseudoephedrine from the People’s 

Republic of China—the world’s largest producer 

of organic ephedrine—and from India, a supplier 

of ephedrine for illicit methamphetamine production in Asia. Sophisticated Mexican organizations 

maintain undisputed control of methamphetamine 

production in Baja California Norte, Baja California 

Sur, Jalisco, Michoacan, Sonora, Tamaulipas, and 

possibly other Mexican states farther south. 

Although infrequent, laboratory seizures reported 

by the Mexican Government indicate the possibility 

of large-scale production of methamphetamine 

from laboratories located in Mexico. During all of 

1999, however, the Mexican Government reported 

only 12 methamphetamine laboratory seizures, 

making any effort to quantify methamphetamine 

production in Mexico very difficult.

Methamphetamine laboratories in Asia supply 

markets in Southeast and East Asia, where methamphetamine has become the drug of choice, and in 

Guam, Hawaii, and the Northern Marianas. Southeast Asian methamphetamine is normally produced 

as a tablet, the preferred form in Asia. Some Asian 

methamphetamine tablets containing up to 33 

percent methamphetamine have been seized on the 

U.S. West Coast. Another form produced in Asia, 

usually referred to as “ice,” is preferred in Guam, 

Hawaii, and the Northern Marianas. Ice is produced 

in overseas laboratories controlled almost 

exclusively by Korean criminal organizations 

and normally is found in powdered or crystalline 

form at 85 to almost 100 percent purity.

Transportation

Mexican methamphetamine organizations 

control virtually all methamphetamine transportation from Mexico to the United States, as well as a 

substantial portion of transportation within the 

United States. DEA offices, as well as state and 

local law enforcement agencies throughout the 

Southwest Region, note significant recent 

increases in the smuggling of methamphetamine 

and amphetamine from Mexico into the United 

States. Inside the United States, the distinction 

between methamphetamine produced in Mexico 

and that produced by Mexican organizations in 

the United States begins to blur. Analysis of 

responses to the National Drug Threat Survey 

identified Mexico, California (the Central Valley, 

Los Angeles, and San Diego), Central Arizona 

(Phoenix and Tucson), and Texas (Dallas, Houston, 

San Antonio, and El Paso) as the most frequently 

identified sources of methamphetamine in the 

country. With the exception of El Paso, where 

little local methamphetamine activity has been 

noted, the abundance of methamphetamine 

laboratories in and around the source areas 

makes it difficult to distinguish methamphetamine 

produced locally from methamphetamine 

originating in Mexico.

Transportation Hubs

Methamphetamine is smuggled into the 

United States through points of entry along the 

Southwest Border and on to transportation hubs 

using various methods; probably the preferred 

method is the use of private vehicles. Mexican 

methamphetamine that enters the United States 

overland from Mexico is smuggled through many 

of the same points of entry as cocaine. But only 

Los Angeles, Central Arizona, and San Diego 

appear to function as transportation hubs for 

methamphetamine. Some methamphetamine is 

transported through Texas en route to markets 

elsewhere in the country, particularly the West 

Central Region. Most of the methamphetamine 

moved from Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and 

El Paso, however, appears intended for markets in 

Texas and in limited portions of the Southwest 

and Southeast Regions.

California has been referred to as a “source 

country” for methamphetamine and was identified 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

24

by agencies in 29 states as a source of methamphetamine; Los Angeles and San Diego were the 

most frequently mentioned cities. California is by 

far the source most frequently mentioned by law 

enforcement agencies around the country, 

followed by Arizona, particularly Phoenix and 

Tucson (Central Arizona). These three apparent 

methamphetamine transportation hubs (Los 

Angeles, Central Arizona, and San Diego) have a 

high level of local production and a heavy influx 

of methamphetamine from Mexico in common. 

They also serve as distribution centers. 

Los Angeles. Mexican organizations in Los 

Angeles receive methamphetamine from organizations operating clandestine laboratories in 

Mexico and throughout California. Law enforcement agencies in 17 states specifically identify 

Los Angeles as a primary source of methamphetamine to their areas. From Los Angeles, Mexican 

organizations distribute wholesale quantities of 

methamphetamine to other Mexican organizations, 

Caucasian retailers, and street gangs in Alabama, 

Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North 

Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. The DEA Los Angeles 

Field Division reports that Mexican organizations 

based in Los Angeles are using sites in Nevada to 

store methamphetamine.

Central Arizona. Mexican organizations operating in Phoenix and Tucson receive methamphetamine from Mexican clandestine laboratory 

operators in California, Mexico, and elsewhere in 

Arizona. Phoenix seems to be the primary destination for methamphetamine produced in California 

and within the state—especially in the Greater 

Phoenix area, while Tucson, which is closer to the 

border, appears to be the primary destination for 

methamphetamine produced in Mexico. Central 

Arizona is identified as a source by agencies in 11 

states (Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, 

Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, 

Texas, and Virginia). Agencies in Arkansas, Maryland, and Washington, D.C., cite the state of Arizona 

as a primary source of methamphetamine.

. 
National Drug Intelligence Center

25

San Diego. Mexican organizations in San Diego 

are supplied by laboratories in Baja California Norte 

and southern California. Large quantities of methamphetamine also are produced in San Diego, and 

the city is frequently mentioned by law enforcement 

agencies as a source of methamphetamine. Mexican 

organizations in San Diego control distribution to 

associated organizations in Arizona, Hawaii, 

Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, and Texas. 

Mexican organizations producing methamphetamine throughout the Pacific, Southwest, and 

West Central Regions rely on private vehicles 

driven by family members, organization members, 

or paid associates to move methamphetamine from 

transportation hubs or clandestine laboratories to 

markets throughout the United States. Although 

private vehicles are preferred, Mexican organizations also use mail services and couriers aboard 

aircraft, buses, and trains to transport methamphetamine to markets farther away. Most of the 

methamphetamine produced by independent 

laboratory operators in the United States is intended 

for local consumption, so little transportation 

occurs outside local markets. 

According to the DEA, the limited amount of 

Asian methamphetamine tablets seized thus far 

on the U.S. mainland was destined for California 

and entered the United States through the mail 

system. According to law enforcement agencies 

in Guam, Hawaii, and the Northern Marianas—

the primary U.S. markets for Asian ice—the 

preferred transportation methods are couriers on 

commercial airlines, the mail system, and containerized shipping. Shipments of ice frequently 

transit Los Angeles en route to Hawaii.

Distribution

With ready access to high volumes of methamphetamine produced at laboratories they control, 

Mexican methamphetamine organizations dominate wholesale distribution throughout the Pacific, 

Southwest, and West Central Regions and continue 

to expand into the Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, and 

Southeast. State and local law enforcement information indicates that independent Caucasian dealers, 

street gangs, and OMGs—supplied by Mexican 

organizations—are involved in wholesale transactions, especially in suburban and rural areas, but 

presently lack the organization, production output, 

and established networks to challenge Mexican 

dominance of the illegal methamphetamine trade.

Mexican organizations also maintain 

involvement in retail methamphetamine distribution 

but probably are surpassed by local independents 

and street gangs at the retail level. Most street 

gangs, especially Hispanic gangs, appear to be 

supplied by Mexican organizations, which produce 

large quantities of methamphetamine in superlab operations in California and Mexico. A few 

street gangs and many OMGs continue to produce 

and distribute their own methamphetamine.

For example, in eastern Pennsylvania, OMGs 

continue to dominate local methamphetamine 

production and distribution, according to the 

Philadelphia Police Department. Thousands of 

independent, small-scale producers sell their 

own product at the retail level—particularly in 

the West Central and Southeast Regions. 

Distribution Centers

Los Angeles and Central Arizona (Phoenix and 

Tucson) appear to be the only areas that distribute 

methamphetamine at a level comparable with the 

major cocaine distribution centers. However, 

Mexican organizations in a number of other cities, 

some of which do not have a major methamphetamine problem, distribute methamphetamine to 

associated organizations, street gangs, and local 

independent dealers in and out of state.

Atlanta. Mexican organizations in Arizona, 

California, and Texas supply Mexican organizations and local independent dealers in Atlanta, 

which has recently experienced a significant 

increase in local methamphetamine production 

and use, according to the DEA and FBI Atlanta 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

26

Field Divisions. The FBI Atlanta Field Division 

considers Atlanta a central distribution point for 

methamphetamine in the Southeast. From 

Atlanta, Mexican organizations supply methamphetamine to other Mexican groups, OMGs, and 

local independent dealers elsewhere in Georgia 

and in North Carolina and Tennessee.

Central Florida. In the past few years, Central 

Florida, particularly rural areas of Hillsborough 

and Polk Counties, has emerged as a source of 

methamphetamine to other areas in Florida. 

Almost all methamphetamine seized in Central 

Florida is linked to Mexican organizations in 

southern California. According to the DEA 

Tampa District Office, the Tampa Bay area has 

become the focal point for distribution in Florida.

Chicago. Mexican organizations in Chicago, a 

city that does not appear to have a major production 

or use problem, receive methamphetamine from 

California, Iowa, and Texas. The FBI Chicago Field 

Division notes that Mexican organizations appear 

to be expanding methamphetamine production and 

distribution in the area. From Chicago, Mexican 

organizations supply associated Mexican groups 

and Caucasians elsewhere in Illinois and in 

Michigan, North Dakota, and Wisconsin.

Dallas. Mexican organizations operating 

laboratories in Mexico, California, and Texas 

supply methamphetamine to Mexican organizations 

in Dallas, where methamphetamine production and 

use are on the rise. From Dallas, those organizations 

control wholesale methamphetamine distribution 

to associated Mexican groups and Caucasian 

retail distributors in Arkansas, Louisiana, 

Oklahoma, and north Texas.

Denver. Mexican organizations operating laboratories in Mexico supply wholesale quantities of 

methamphetamine to Mexican organizations in 

Denver. It appears that most of the methamphetamine destined for Denver is smuggled into the 

United States in the El Paso area and transits 

Albuquerque. From Denver, Mexican organizations 

control wholesale methamphetamine distribution 

to associated organizations in South Dakota, 

Wyoming, and Washington, D.C.

Houston. Although Houston does not appear to 

have a major methamphetamine production or 

use problem, Mexican wholesale distribution 

organizations in Houston get their supplies from 

associated organizations in Mexico and probably 

elsewhere in Texas. It appears that methamphetamine destined for Houston is smuggled across 

the border between Del Rio and Brownsville. 

From Houston, Mexican organizations supply 

associated groups, including the Mexican Mafia, 

in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, and 

elsewhere in east and south Texas.

Yakima. According to the Yakima (WA) Police 

Department, methamphetamine use is increasing 

considerably in the area. Local production is on 

the rise, and the department attributes the growth 

to Mexican organizations. The FBI Salt Lake City 

Field Division notes significant recent increases 

in the use of the Yakima area by Mexican organizations to transport methamphetamine, cocaine, 

and marijuana to areas of western Montana. Local 

law enforcement agencies in California identify 

eastern Washington as a destination for methamphetamine leaving their areas, and agencies in 

northern Idaho, western Montana, and northern 

Texas identify Yakima as a source of methamphetamine to their areas.

Key Developments

Agencies throughout the Pacific, Southwest, 

and West Central Regions continue to report 

increases in the production, availability, and 

use of methamphetamine. Many agencies in 

those regions note increases in small-scale (1 to 2 

oz per cook) methamphetamine laboratories. 

Some agencies in states not usually associated 

with methamphetamine production are noting 
National Drug Intelligence Center

27

dramatic increases in local methamphetamine 

production, availability, and use (Alabama, Alaska, 

Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, Louisiana, 

Minnesota, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania). 

Most identify the involvement of Caucasians in 

production and distribution and cite the availability of precursor chemicals and access to production methods on the Internet as contributing 

factors to the growth.

• The Colorado State Patrol notes that with a 

recent increase in local production throughout 

Colorado, highway interdiction seizures have 

declined significantly, suggesting that as local 

markets begin to develop, local producers 

emerge to supply those markets.

• The Delaware State Police reports that the 

more potent d-methamphetamine is becoming 

common in areas of Delaware traditionally 

associated with dl-methamphetamine, or “biker 

dope,” suggesting that OMGs in the area 

either are supplied by Mexican organizations 

or are producing more potent methamphetamine themselves. 

• According to the Philadelphia Police 

Department and the DEA and FBI Philadelphia 

Field Divisions, the Warlocks and Pagans 

OMGs continue to dominate local methamphetamine production and distribution. The 

Philadelphia Police Department also identifies the involvement of traditional organized 

crime in wholesale methamphetamine 

distribution, while the FBI Philadelphia 

Field Division specifically notes the 

involvement of La Cosa Nostra.

California’s Central Valley, particularly the 

Fresno, Modesto, Sacramento, and Stockton 

areas, has emerged as a major methamphetamine 

production center. The Central Valley has the 

highest rate of superlab seizures in the nation, 

surpassing even southern California in seizures of 

high capacity laboratories operated by Mexican 

nationals. Information from state and local law 

enforcement agencies indicates that laboratories 

in the Central Valley are supplying organizations 

elsewhere in California, which in turn ship the 

methamphetamine to markets in state and 

throughout the country.

Law enforcement information identifies the 

emergence of groups that acquire thousands of 

cases of pseudoephedrine and use sophisticated 

schemes to launder, at a considerable profit, 

pseudoephedrine shipments to methamphetamine 

producers. Associated wholesalers purchase pseudoephedrine for $400 to $600 per case; each case 

normally contains 144 bottles of 100 60-milligram 

pseudoephedrine tablets. The wholesalers sell the 

pseudoephedrine to methamphetamine producers 

for $2,500 to $3,000 per case. Information from the 

DEA indicates that most of these groups consist of 

individuals of Middle Eastern, Mexican, or Asian 

descent. The groups operate criminal cells in

Chicago, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Newark, 

New York, Orlando, and Portland that supply primarily Mexican methamphetamine organizations 

in Arizona, California (particularly the Fresno and 

Sacramento areas), Oregon, and Washington.

Information from local law enforcement 

agencies identifies the appearance of groups not 

normally associated with methamphetamine 

distribution and use. 

• The Kalamazoo (MI) Valley Enforcement 

Team notes that some inner-city African 

Americans are switching from cocaine and 

heroin distribution to methamphetamine. 

• The Roanoke (VA) Police Department also 

states that African Americans are beginning 

to sell methamphetamine locally. 

• The La Paz County (AZ) Sheriff’s Department 

and the Scotts Bluff County (NE) Sheriff’s 

Department Wing Task Force note that Native 

Americans have become involved in methamphetamine distribution.

• According to local police departments in 

Hawaii, Mexican organizations have emerged 

as a major force in the local methamphetamine trade—formerly under the almost 

exclusive purview of Asian organizations. 

Media reports from Asia suggest that methamphetamine producers in Southeast Asia are 

capable of producing more than 2 billion 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

28

methamphetamine tablets, or “Yaba,” annually.

Investigative information indicates that Asian 

traffickers are sending Asian methamphetamine tablets to ethnic Hmong/Mien communities 

in California’s Central Valley and areas of the 

midwestern United States. Traffickers apparently 

have made the tablets more attractive to a broader 

group of users by adding vanilla. Limited reporting 

also suggests that the use of Asian methamphetamine tablets may have already crossed ethnic lines.

• The Los Angeles HIDTA reports that Vietnamese groups in the Pacific Northwest with 

ties to southern California are distributing 

methamphetamine tablets.

• The Los Angeles HIDTA and the DEA Los 

Angeles Field Division note a developing but 

currently limited market for methamphetamine tablets at raves and nightclubs in the 

Los Angeles area. In some cases, the tablets 

are sold as MDMA; in others, the tablets are 

taken with MDMA, a combination that allows 

the users to stay awake all night. The Los 

Angeles HIDTA also reports that the substitution of methamphetamine tablets for MDMA 

has already claimed the lives of several 

unsuspecting rave attendees in Australia.

Projections

There are no indications that any group is 

positioned to challenge Mexican dominance of 

the illegal methamphetamine trade. Therefore, 

Mexican organizations will continue to dominate 

bulk methamphetamine production and wholesale 

distribution, and they will continue to supply 

street gangs, independent Caucasian retailers, and 

OMGs in some areas when necessary to continue 

expanding their dominance of the methamphetamine market.

Two agencies, the District of Columbia 

Metropolitan Police Department and the DEA New 

York Field Division, have noted an increase in 

methamphetamine at rave parties. In addition, the 

availability of easily administered, more attractive 

Asian methamphetamine tablets could lead to 

increased use of methamphetamine by urban teens, 

especially those attending rave parties. 

Asian methamphetamine is an emerging threat 

that merits attention. The current focus is on methamphetamine produced in the United States and 

Mexico. This situation, along with U.S. demand, 

high levels of methamphetamine production in 

Southeast Asia, and well-established networks of 

Asian trafficking groups in the United States, may 

provide traffickers of Asian methamphetamine 

tablets with an opportunity to enter the U.S. methamphetamine market on a larger scale.

Methamphetamine availability and use continue to move eastward. Agencies in the Great 

Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, and Southeast Regions have 

reported increases in local production. The ease 

with which precursor chemicals and instructions 

for production methods can be obtained on the 

Internet almost certainly will lead to continuing 

increases in local production as independent 

operators attempt to become established in the 

lucrative methamphetamine market. As methamphetamine laboratories appear in new areas, law 

enforcement and public service agencies unfamiliar 

with the hazards of methamphetamine production 

will be confronted with a variety of safety, 

resource allocation, and training challenges.
National Drug Intelligence Center

29

Heroin

Heroin produced in South America, Mexico, 

Southeast Asia, and Southwest Asia is available 

in the United States. Nearly half of the available 

heroin in the United States comes from South 

America. Colombian organizations control the 

cultivation of opium poppy and the production of 

South American heroin, which occur primarily in 

Colombia. They, along with associated Dominican 

groups, are primarily responsible for transportation 

as well as wholesale and retail distribution. Both 

Mexican brown powdered and black tar heroin are 

preferred in the western United States and in 

portions of the Midwest. Mexican organizations 

control production and transportation as well as 

wholesale and retail distribution of both forms of 

Mexican heroin. Southeast Asian heroin is 

encountered much less frequently than either 

South American or Mexican heroin. Opium 

poppy is cultivated and Southeast Asian heroin 

processed in a common border area of Burma, 

Laos, and Thailand. Nigerian and ethnic Chinese 

groups are primarily responsible for smuggling 

Southeast Asian heroin into the United States and 

for wholesale and retail distribution. Southwest 

Asian heroin is the least frequently encountered 

form of heroin in the United States. Although 

large quantities of heroin are produced in Southwest Asia, primarily Afghanistan, little is destined 

for the United States. A variety of groups are 

involved in importing Southwest Asian heroin into 

the United States, while many different groups, 

including Albanian, Iranian, Lebanese, Nigerian, 

Pakistani, Palestinian, and Serbian groups, are all 

involved in the actual smuggling and wholesale 

distribution. Palestinian groups, as well as 

Dominican and Puerto Rican organizations, often 

sell Southwest Asian heroin at the retail level.

Assessment of the Threat 

Most national studies point to relative stability, 

albeit at high levels, in heroin availability and use 

since 1997, despite fluctuations in the past. Since 

the early 1990s, the number of heroin users has 

increased and abuse patterns have changed. Heroin 

purity has increased dramatically and prices have 

dropped. Heroin has spread from traditional innercity markets to suburban areas and smaller towns 

across the nation. A generation of younger heroin 

users has been attracted to higher purity, lower cost 

heroin that can be snorted or smoked. Although 

use has spread, information from law enforcement 

agencies suggests that heroin is not generally 

considered a threat equivalent to powdered or 

crack cocaine or methamphetamine.

Of the 412 agencies responding to the 

National Drug Threat Survey, only 21 identify 

heroin as one of the greatest drug threats facing 

their jurisdictions—significantly fewer than those 

naming either cocaine, including crack, or methamphetamine. Some 116 agencies in 37 states 

note that the threat is increasing. Another 208 

agencies in 46 states consider the threat of heroin 

stable. Most agencies note stability in the rate of 

heroin-related investigations and arrests.

Violent crime associated with heroin appears 

to be limited. Only 19 of the 113 agencies 

identifying a correlation between drugs and 

violent crime note a correlation between heroin 

and crime. Most of them mention property crime. 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

30
National Drug Intelligence Center

31

Availability

Only 74 of the 412 agencies responding to the 

National Drug Threat Survey consider heroin 

availability high; 183 consider availability low. 

According to the FDSS, federal seizures declined 

from almost 1,500 kilograms in 1998 to just over 

1,100 kilograms in 1999. U.S. Department of Justice OCDETFs obtained 341 heroin indictments 

(approximately 8% of all OCDETF indictments) 

in FY1999, 81 more than in FY1998, but the 

percent of federal sentences for heroin-related 

offenses were unchanged.16

Law enforcement agencies throughout the 

country note that heroin is readily available, but 

comparatively few outside the major metropolitan 

areas of the New England, New York/New Jersey, 

Mid-Atlantic, and Southwest Regions identify 

heroin as the greatest threat in their jurisdictions. 

Heroin purity has increased dramatically in the past 

10 years while prices have fallen—both primary 

indicators of increased availability. Although 

heroin purity varies by source, purity levels from 

all four source regions (South America, Mexico, 

Southeast Asia, and Southwest Asia) have 

increased. The national average for purity is 

approaching 40 percent at the retail level—almost 

six times the national average 10 years ago. Retail 

prices have fallen by almost 20 percent in the past 

4 years and are now less than half of those a 

decade ago. Heroin availability varies widely by 

type, and some types are more available in certain 

regions of the United States than others.

South American. Information from DEA’s 

Domestic Monitor Program (DMP)17 for 1999 

indicates that South American heroin is available 

in Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, 

Houston, Miami, Newark, New Orleans, New 

York, Orlando, Philadelphia, San Juan, and Washington, D.C. State and local law enforcement 

agencies in Arizona, Colorado, North Carolina, 

Ohio, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, as 

well as agencies throughout the New England 

Region also note that South American heroin is 

available in their jurisdictions. Wholesale prices 

for South American heroin range from as low as 

$65,000 per kilogram in Miami to $160,000 and 

more in Detroit and Newark. At the wholesale 

level, purity averages 79 percent; at the retail level, 

it averages about 50 percent but is substantially 

higher in areas of the eastern United States.

Mexican. The DMP indicated the presence of 

Mexican black tar or brown powdered heroin in 

Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, El Paso, Houston, Los 

Angeles, Miami, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, and St. Louis in 1999. Mexican 

black tar is readily available and probably is the 

preferred form throughout the Southwest and 

Pacific Regions. State and local agencies in almost 

every state in the Great Lakes and West Central 

Regions also note that black tar heroin is readily 

available. Agencies in Florida, Georgia, 

Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., encounter 

black tar heroin with varying regularity. Like black 

tar, brown powdered heroin is readily available 

throughout the Southwest and Pacific. Reporting 

from agencies in the Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, 

and West Central Regions indicates that brown 

powdered heroin is also readily available in markets 

throughout those areas and may be more prevalent 

than black tar. Some local law enforcement agencies 

in Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, New York, 

North Carolina, and Tennessee also encounter 

brown powdered heroin. Prices for Mexican heroin 

are as low as $18,000 per kilogram in Dallas and 

up to $100,000 and higher in the Great Lakes and 

West Central Regions. At the retail level, Mexican 

heroin averages approximately 27 percent purity. 

Mexican black tar, which has historically been 

the least pure form of heroin, has increased dramatically in purity. Some samples have recently 

exceeded purity levels of 75 percent.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

32
National Drug Intelligence Center

33

Southeast Asian. In 1999, DMP testing revealed 

the presence of Southeast Asian heroin in Atlanta, 

Baltimore, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Newark, and 

Washington, D.C. State and local agencies in 

California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, 

Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, North 

Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and 

Wisconsin note that Southeast Asian heroin is 

also available in their areas. Wholesale prices for 

Southeast Asian heroin are generally lowest in 

the Detroit and San Francisco areas ($100,000 per 

kilogram) and highest in the West Central, Great 

Lakes, and Southwest Regions (over $150,000 

per kilogram). At the wholesale level, Southeast 

Asian heroin averages over 75 percent purity. At 

the retail level, it averages just over 40 percent 

purity nationally.

Southwest Asian. Southwest Asian heroin is the 

least frequently encountered form of heroin in the 

United States. In 1999, DEA identified it in only 

six areas: Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, New York, 

Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C. Nevertheless, 

some agencies in California, Connecticut, Florida, 

Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio, Texas, 

and Wisconsin report that Southwest Asian heroin 

is occasionally encountered in their jurisdictions. 

Among those agencies, only the Hartford (CT) 

Police Department considers it readily available. 

Southwest Asian heroin ranges from as low as 

$55,000 per kilogram in the Pacific Region, 

particularly the San Francisco area, to $180,000 

and higher in the Great Lakes and New York/New 

Jersey Regions. Southwest Asian heroin averages 

76 percent purity at wholesale and 44 percent 

purity at retail.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

34

Demand

Current interagency estimates of U.S. demand 

for heroin place it at about 18 metric tons annually. 

Although U.S. demand accounts for only 7 percent 

of worldwide demand for heroin, the United States 

is the only market supplied by all four primary 

source regions. The Global Heroin Threat to the 

United States concludes that approximately 75 percent of U.S. demand is met by sources in Colombia 

and Mexico, with South American heroin (primarily 

from Colombia) having the greater share of the 

U.S. market.

The most recent (1999) estimate of the U.S. 

hardcore heroin addict population is 980,000, more 

than 50 percent higher than the estimated 630,000 

hardcore heroin users in 1992. Adding an estimated 

250,000 to 500,000 occasional users brings the 

number to between 1.2 million and 1.5 million. 

The high number of heroin users in the United 

States probably is the result of higher purity, 

lower cost heroin—which reduces users’ perception of risk because purer heroin can be effectively 

snorted rather than injected—and a seemingly 

greater acceptance of drug use in general.

Heroin use increased substantially between 

1992 and 1997 but has leveled since. According 

to 1999 NHSDA data, an estimated 3.1 million 

individuals tried heroin in their lifetime, approximately 403,000 used heroin in the past year, and 

208,000 used it in the past month. 

In 1998, heroin was tied with cocaine 

(smoked and nonsmoked) as the illicit drug most 

often cited as the reason for admission to publicly 

funded treatment facilities. Almost 80 percent of 

heroin admissions in 1998 had been in treatment 

previously, and 27 percent had been in treatment 

five or more times. Eighty-two percent of heroin 

admissions claimed daily use. The most common 

method of administration was injection (67%), 

followed by inhalation (28%). TEDS data since 

1992 show a continuous shift toward snorting as 

the usual method of administration (Table 5). 

This shift directly correlates to increases in the 

availability of high purity heroin beginning in the 

early 1990s.18 According to TEDS data, the typical 

heroin user admitted to a publicly funded treatment facility is white, male, and 36 years of age. 

Among ADAM arrestees, there was little 

change in the prevalence of opiate use or in the 

populations using opiates in 1998, and opiate use 

remained disproportionately concentrated among 

offenders older than 36.19 ADAM data also show 

that the use of multiple drugs among opiate users 

continues to be a substantial problem. Almost 70 

percent of arrestees testing positive for opiates 

also tested positive for cocaine, while 23 percent 

tested positive for marijuana, 16 percent for 

benzodiazepines, and 10 percent for methadone. 

Heroin/morphine ranked third in DAWN data 

for 1999, accounting for 15 percent of emergency 

department episodes. Heroin/morphine was the 

most frequently mentioned drug in 1998 DAWN 

medical examiner data for 12 metropolitan areas 

and ranked second in another 9.20

While national indicators pointing to overall 

stability in heroin use are somewhat encouraging, 

the prevalence of lifetime heroin use among 

youth, especially 13 and 14 year olds, remains at 

peak levels. According to data from the MTF 

Study, the prevalence of lifetime heroin use 

Table 5. Percent of Heroin Admissions 

1992–1998

by Route of Administration

Injection Inhalation Smoking Other

1998 67.4 27.9 2.8 1.9

1997 67.5 28.0 2.7 1.8

1996 69.4 26.5 2.4 1.7

1995 69.6 26.7 2.2 1.6

1994 72.6 23.9 1.9 1.6

1993 74.2 22.5 1.7 1.7

1992 77.1 19.4 1.5 2.0

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse 

and Mental Health Services Administration, Treatment Episode 

Data Set, 1998.
National Drug Intelligence Center

35

among eighth-grade students rose from 1.4 percent in 1993 to 2.4 percent in 1996; since 1996, it 

has stabilized around 2.3 percent. From 1993 to 

1998, prevalence of lifetime heroin use among tenth 

and twelfth graders rose from 1.3 and 1.1 percent, 

respectively, to 2.3 percent and 2.0 percent. 

The prevalence of lifetime use among tenth and 

twelfth graders remained the same in 1999. MTF 

data show stability in the prevalence of past year 

and current use among junior high and high 

school students (Table 6).

Recently released data from PRIDE for the 

1999–2000 school year show modest but encouraging declines in heroin use among junior high, 

senior high, and twelfth-grade students. Past year 

heroin use among all students surveyed decreased 

from 2.6 percent in the 1998–1999 school year to 

2.2 percent in the 1999–2000 school year. Current 

heroin use also showed modest declines for all 

three groups of students (Tables 7 and 8).

Table 6. Percent of 8th, 10th, and 12th Graders 

Reporting Lifetime, Past Year, and Current Heroin Use

Lifetime Past Year Current

8th 10th 12th 8th 10th 12th 8th 10th 12th

1999 2.3 2.3 2.0 1.4 1.4 1.1 0.6 0.7 0.5

1998 2.3 2.3 2.0 1.3 1.4 1.0 0.6 0.7 0.5

1997 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.3 1.4 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.5

1996 2.4 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.2 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.5

1995 2.3 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.1 1.1 0.6 0.6 0.6

1994 2.0 1.5 1.2 1.2 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.3

1993 1.4 1.3 1.1 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2

1992 1.4 1.2 1.2 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.3

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Monitoring the Future Study, 1999.

Table 7. Percent of Past Year Heroin Use 

School 

Year

Junior 

High

Senior 

High

12th 

Grade

Total

(6–12)

99–00 1.6 2.9 3.2 2.2

98–99 1.9 3.1 3.6 2.6

97–98 2.1 3.2 3.8 2.7

96–97 2.4 3.1 3.4 2.7

95–96 2.1 3.1 3.5 2.7

Source: Parents’ Resource Institute on Drug Education Survey, 1999–2000.

Table 8. Percent of Current Heroin Use 

School 

Year

Junior 

High

Senior 

High

12th 

Grade

99–00 1.1 1.9 2.1

98–99 1.2 2.0 2.4

97–98 1.3 1.9 2.3

96–97 1.5 1.9 2.1

Source: Parents’ Resource Institute on Drug Education Survey, 1999–2000.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

36

Production

Heroin is refined from opium gum collected 

from the opium poppy. Only one crop per year is 

grown in regions with distinct seasons, but the 

opium poppy can be cultivated year-round in areas 

with more temperate climates, particularly Mexico 

and Colombia. Heroin is produced primarily in 

four source regions: South America, Mexico, 

Southeast Asia, and Southwest Asia. These regions 

combined yielded enough opium to produce a 

potential 287 metric tons of heroin if all opium 

were processed into heroin. 

South America. Nearly half of the heroin 

available in the United States comes from 

South America, particularly Colombia. Opium 

poppy is grown in remote, almost inaccessible 

mountainous terrain in Colombia, where optimal 

growing conditions support two to three crops 

per year. Colombian drug trafficking organizations 

produced almost 8 metric tons of heroin in 1999, 

nearly all of which was intended for markets in 

the United States.

Mexico. Mexican trafficking organizations supply 

a significant portion of the heroin available in the 

United States, particularly in the West and Midwest. 

The climate in Mexico supports three crops per 

year. Mexican organizations based primarily in the 

states of Durango, Guerrero, Michoacan, Nayarit, 

Sinaloa, Sonora, Tamaulipas, and Vera Cruz have 

cultivated enough opium to convert into a potential 

4 to 6 metric tons of heroin for the past several 

years; 6 metric tons is most consistent with estimated potential production. Although Mexican 

traffickers produce only about 2 percent of the 

world’s opium, almost all of it is processed into 

heroin and intended for markets in the United 

States. Virtually all of the heroin produced in 

Mexico is either black tar or brown powder. Black 

tar heroin, so named because of its resemblance to 

roofing tar, is the most common. In producing 

black tar, Mexican traffickers bypass certain 

chemical treatment and filtering steps that normally yield a more refined, lighter colored heroin 

powder. There have been reported attempts to 

produce white powdered heroin in Mexico, but 

the extent of production is unknown.

Southeast Asia. Southeast Asian heroin is 

produced primarily in Burma, Laos, and Thailand 

in a common border area long known as the Golden 

Triangle. Poppy fields are located in remote, rugged 

terrain throughout the area, where a primary factor 

affecting yield is the weather. In 1999, Burma produced enough opium to account for most of the 

region’s estimated 104 metric tons of heroin—if all 

were converted into heroin. But an estimated 20 to 

30 percent of the opium produced in Southeast 

Asia is consumed as opium, rather than being 

refined into heroin. Although most Southeast 

Asian heroin is intended for non-U.S. markets, 

primarily in China and Southeast Asia, about 3 

metric tons of Southeast Asian heroin are smuggled into the United States annually.

Southwest Asia. In 1999, an estimated 290 

metric tons of heroin—the most of any source 

area—were produced in Southwest Asia, primarily in Afghanistan. Changing political and economic conditions in Afghanistan, along with 

continuing drought conditions in Southeast Asia, 

helped Afghanistan surpass Burma to become 

the world’s leading heroin producer in 1999. 

Despite high production, Southwest Asian organizations supply only a small share of the U.S. 

market. Most Southwest Asian heroin is destined 

for Europe, Russia, and former Soviet bloc states 

as well as growing heroin markets from Central 

to South Asia. The Global Heroin Threat to the 

United States estimates that only 1 metric ton of 

Southwest Asian heroin was smuggled into the 

United States in 1999.
National Drug Intelligence Center

37

Transportation

The primary U.S. destinations for heroin are 

New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles—all of 

which are major heroin distribution centers. 

Miami is a primary point of entry for South 

American heroin, and the city appears to function 

as a transportation hub. A substantial amount of 

heroin, particularly Mexican and increasingly 

South American, also is transported through Central Arizona, El Paso, and Houston. Information 

from federal, state, and local law enforcement 

agencies identifies Colombian, Dominican, 

Mexican, and Nigerian organizations as well as 

street gangs and independent dealers as involved 

in heroin transportation within the United States. 

Smuggling and transportation methods vary by 

heroin source.

South American. Colombian trafficking organizations control heroin transportation from Colombia 

to the United States, but increasingly are relying 

on Dominican and, on occasion, Mexican 

organizations to move their heroin. South American 

heroin frequently is shipped via Caribbean routes 

through the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, or 

Florida en route to U.S. markets. The primary 

means of smuggling South American heroin into the 

United States is aboard commercial airlines 

through international airports, principally Miami 

and John F. Kennedy, although substantial amounts 

also transit Newark and San Juan (PR) international 

airports. Couriers carrying from 1 to 3 kilograms 

of pelleted heroin either internally or strapped to 

their bodies are the principal smuggling method. 

Recent information from law enforcement agencies 

indicates that South American heroin also is 

smuggled through Mexico. The DEA Houston 

Field Division notes an increase in the availability 

of South American heroin, which it believes is 

transported through Monterrey (MX) and Houston 

en route to markets in the eastern United States for 

probable delivery to Dominican organizations. The 

DEA Los Angeles Field Division notes indications 

of increased Colombian activity in the Los Angeles 

area and of occasional use of Los Angeles by 

Colombian organizations as a transshipment point 

for South American heroin.

Mexican. Mexican polydrug organizations 

operating in the United States and Mexico control 

the transportation of Mexican heroin—both black 

tar and brown powder—from Mexico to the 

United States. These organizations use essentially 

the same methods, routes, and points of entry for 

heroin as for other drugs smuggled from Mexico 

into the United States. Common heroin smuggling 

methods include the use of couriers (especially 

undocumented Mexican aliens), commercial 

vehicles, and hidden compartments in private 

vehicles. Quantities smuggled are normally small 

(from 1 to 2 kg), but there have been recent

seizures of multikilogram shipments of Mexican 

heroin along the U.S.–Mexico border. Most 

Mexican heroin is intended for markets west of the 

Mississippi River, but state and local law 

enforcement agencies in Alabama, Florida, 

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania 

identify Mexico as a source of the heroin in 

their jurisdictions.

Southeast Asian. Nigerian and ethnic Chinese 

groups are the primary smugglers of Southeast 

Asian heroin into the United States. Destinations 

for Southeast Asian heroin are Buffalo, Chicago, 

Dallas, Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, San 

Francisco, and Seattle. Ethnic Chinese groups 

use extensive overseas connections and ties to 

Asian gangs in the United States and Canada to 

facilitate heroin transportation. Members of other 

Asian organizations involved in transporting 

Southeast Asian heroin to the United States are 

from Cambodia, Laos, Nepal, Thailand, and 

Vietnam. Asian traffickers are more likely to use 

commercial cargo shipments, often transporting 

Southeast Asian heroin through Vancouver, 

Toronto, or Montreal en route to the United 

States. Nigerian traffickers based in Thailand use 

couriers and express mail services to smuggle 

heroin into the United States. Nigerian groups are 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

38

most active in Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, 

New York, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C., 

all of which have well-established Nigerian 

populations. Recent evidence indicates that 

Nigerian traffickers are reverting to West African 

couriers, who will transport heroin for about onethird of the amount typically paid to Caucasians.

Southwest Asian. Turkish, Middle Eastern, 

South Asian, and Nigerian trafficking groups 

control the importation of Southwest Asian heroin 

into the United States, but Albanian, Iranian, 

Lebanese, Nigerian, Pakistani, Palestinian, and 

Serbian groups are all involved in the actual 

smuggling. The primary U.S. destinations for 

Southwest Asian heroin are Atlanta, Chicago, 

Detroit, New York, and Los Angeles—the last 

two of which are primarily transshipment points. 

Southwest Asian heroin is smuggled into the 

United States using mail parcels, couriers on 

commercial aircraft, and containerized cargo.

In 1999, West African traffickers based in 

Bangkok, Thailand—who normally deal in 

Southeast Asian heroin produced in neighboring Burma—sent couriers to Pakistan to obtain 

lower priced Southwest Asian heroin. Southwest Asian heroin, produced in Afghanistan but 

readily available in Pakistan, ranged from 

$1,000 to $2,400 per kilogram—considerably 

less than the $10,000 to $12,000 per kilogram 

price of Southeast Asian heroin in Bangkok. 

Pakistani authorities arrested Thai, Ukrainian, 

Nepalese, Burmese, Tanzanian, Indonesian, 

Uzbek, and Pakistani nationals who were in the 

employ of the Bangkok-based West African 

organizations. Pakistani officials seized more 

than 100 kilograms of Southwest Asian heroin 

from the couriers, who were attempting to 

smuggle the heroin to Bangkok, often by circuitous routes. Some of this heroin was undoubtedly intended for the United States, since 

Bangkok-based West African traffickers have 

been involved in smuggling Southeast Asian 

heroin to the United States for the past decade.

Distribution

While wholesale heroin distribution seems to be 

well organized and controlled by the same groups 

that transport the heroin into the United States, 

distribution below the wholesale level appears to be 

quite fragmented. Information from state and local 

law enforcement agencies across the nation indicates that the primary transporters—Colombian, 

Dominican, Mexican, and Nigerian organizations as 

well as street gangs and Caucasian independents—

also dominate wholesale heroin distribution. 

Organized, midlevel wholesale distribution exists in 

some areas, particularly Chicago and Los Angeles, 

while in other areas, such as New York, midlevel 

distribution, particularly of South American heroin, 

is less apparent than in the past. Because there are 

fewer middlemen, opportunities for diluting 

heroin decrease. The dramatic increase in purity of 

the heroin sold at street level suggests more direct 

contact between wholesale and retail distributors.

South American. Most wholesale distribution of 

South American heroin is controlled by Colombian 

organizations. Indications are that Dominican 

organizations, which are expanding well beyond 

their traditional areas of operation in the Northeast, 

may be cutting into Colombian organizations’

dominance of midlevel wholesale distribution. At 

the retail level, African-American, Caucasian, 

Dominican, Mexican, and Puerto Rican retailers 

sell South American heroin, depending on which 

group is dominant in the area.

Mexican. Mexican organizations continue to

control wholesale distribution of black tar and 

brown powdered heroin. Mexican criminals also are 

heavily involved in retail distribution in many areas, 

frequently using Mexican migrant workers and Hispanic street gangs to facilitate heroin distribution.
National Drug Intelligence Center

39

Southeast Asian. Most wholesale distribution 

of Southeast Asian heroin is controlled by the 

Nigerian and Asian (including Cambodian, ethnic Chinese, Laotian, Nepalese, Thai, and Vietnamese) organizations that transport the heroin 

to the United States. They, in turn, sell the heroin 

to other Asian groups, African-American and 

Hispanic street gangs, Dominican and Puerto 

Rican groups, and members of traditional organized crime for further distribution.

Southwest Asian. Albanian, Iranian, Lebanese, 

Nigerian, Pakistani, Palestinian, and Serbian 

smuggling groups control most wholesale distribution of Southwest Asian heroin in the United 

States. Unlike groups smuggling heroin from 

other source regions, these groups frequently 

smuggle heroin into the country without a prearranged buyer, storing the heroin until a buyer can 

be found. Pakistani smuggling groups, as well as 

Dominican and Puerto Rican organizations, often 

sell Southwest Asian heroin at the retail level.

Distribution Centers

The three primary U.S. destinations for 

heroin—New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles—

are also three of the largest heroin markets in the 

United States. These cities serve as principal heroin 

distribution centers to markets throughout the 

Northeast, Midwest, and West. 

New York. South American heroin is dominant in 

New York, although Southeast Asian and Southwest 

Asian heroin are also available. Mexican heroin is 

rare in New York City. Colombian organizations 

currently dominate wholesale distribution, but 

Dominican organizations are assuming a greater 

role. New York-based organizations distribute 

heroin to associated Colombian and Dominican 

organizations, local independent dealers, and other 

retail groups in at least 18 other states in the New 

England, New York/New Jersey, Mid-Atlantic, 

Southeast, Great Lakes, and West Central Regions.

Chicago. All four types of heroin—South 

American, Southeast Asian, Southwest Asian, 

and Mexican—are available in Chicago. South 

American and Southeast Asian heroin are most 

prominent. Colombian organizations introduced 

South American heroin to Chicago in the early 

1990s, and the two types are competing for 

dominance. Southeast Asian heroin and, to a much 

lesser extent, Southwest Asian heroin are smuggled 

into the area and distributed by Nigerian organizations. Mexican heroin lost considerable market 

share in Chicago in the mid-1980s, but Mexican 

organizations maintain a presence in the market. 

The dominant organizations in Chicago use the city 

as a center from which to distribute heroin to associates in Illinois and in at least 7 other states in the 

Great Lakes, Southeast, and West Central Regions.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

40

Los Angeles. Mexican heroin, primarily black tar, 

is the type most frequently used in Los Angeles. 

Southeast Asian, Southwest Asian, and South 

American heroin are transshipped through Los 

Angeles to markets throughout the nation. Although 

many different organizations operate in the area, 

Mexican trafficking organizations dominate transportation as well as wholesale and retail distribution 

in Los Angeles. Los Angeles is identified as a 

source of heroin by state and local law enforcement 

agencies elsewhere in California and in Arizona, 

Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, 

New Mexico, and North Carolina.

While New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles are 

clearly the most important heroin distribution centers in the United States, other cities play significant, 

albeit lesser, roles in heroin distribution.

Philadelphia. The primary source of heroin to the 

Philadelphia area, according to the Philadelphia 

Police Department, is New York City. Philadelphiabased organizations, primarily Dominican and 

Puerto Rican, distribute heroin to associates in 

Pennsylvania, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, 

and West Virginia.

El Paso and Houston. State and local law 

enforcement agencies indicate that El Paso and 

Houston are transshipment points for Mexican 

heroin. Agencies in Colorado, Florida, New 

Mexico, and Texas, each of which note the availability of Mexican heroin in their areas, identify 

El Paso as a source. Agencies between Laredo, 

Brownsville, and Houston note that Houston is the 

primary destination for heroin transported through 

their jurisdictions. From Houston, Mexican heroin 

is transported to distribution groups in south and 

east Texas and in Arkansas, Missouri, Tennessee, 

and Wisconsin, according to agencies in those areas.

Detroit. Detroit-based organizations appear to 

be a source of heroin in the Great Lakes and in 

portions of the West Central Region. Agencies in 

Illinois, Iowa, Ohio, and elsewhere in Michigan 

identify Detroit as a source of heroin.

Local independent dealers, operating within 

specific communities or serving a specific clientele, 

are the norm at the retail level, regardless of the 

source of the heroin. According to information provided by agencies responding to the National Drug 

Threat Survey, transportation and wholesale groups, 

although still involved, give way to street gangs and 

local independent dealers, particularly African 

Americans, Caucasians, and Hispanics, at the retail 

level. A number of agencies around the country, 

many of which have jurisdiction over large metropolitan areas, note the movement of heroin sales 

from outdoor markets and street corners to indoor 

call-and-deliver operations in private residences.
National Drug Intelligence Center

41

Key Developments

Law enforcement agencies throughout the 

United States generally agree that the recent trend 

toward higher purity, lower cost heroin is 

continuing. Agencies throughout the nation note 

increases in purity and lower prices for Mexican, 

Southeast Asian, and Southwest Asian heroin—

most likely because of efforts by traffickers to 

compete with South American heroin. 

• The availability of very high purity, low cost 

South American heroin continues to grow. 

This growth is spurred, at least in part, by the 

movement of Dominican drug trafficking 

organizations beyond established bases of 

operation in the Northeast.

• Dominican organizations have become the preeminent distributors of South American heroin 

in the Florida/Caribbean, New England, New 

York/New Jersey, and Mid-Atlantic Regions. 

Dominican organizations are increasing their 

involvement in heroin smuggling and wholesale distribution. They are moving into areas of 

the Great Lakes, Southeast, and West Central 

Regions to expand existing markets, establish 

new markets, and increase the availability of 

South American heroin.

Federal, state, and local agencies agree that 

heroin use is expanding beyond traditional 

user groups to high school age youth and young 

adults, usually from higher socioeconomic 

classes. Some agencies note increases in the 

availability of heroin in combination with 

other drugs and new forms of heroin that allow 

for easier administration.

• Several agencies note increases in the transportation, sale, and use of heroin and cocaine 

in combination (“speedballing”), while a few 

document heroin capsules or tablets in their 

jurisdictions.

• The DEA Miami Field Division states that the 

use of heroin and MDMA (“ecstasy”) in combination at raves is a growing concern. Members 

of the Miami medical community believe that 

traffickers are marketing MDMA and heroin 

together to attract new heroin users. Since small 

doses of heroin taken orally have little effect, 

users may perceive heroin use as harmless.

Two relatively recent developments suggest 

that Mexican organizations intend to compete 

for a larger share of the U.S. market.

• Operation Tar Pit, a recent multiagency investigation targeting a Los Angeles-based Mexican 

organization, revealed that the organization had 

attempted to establish markets in the eastern 

United States.

• To date, Mexican authorities have seized two 

heroin laboratories that were established to 

produce high quality white powdered heroin. 

Although the full extent of such operations is 

unknown, possessing such a capability would 

give Mexican organizations the opportunity to 

compete in the larger markets of the East 

where white powdered heroin is preferred.

Projections

Most national studies point to overall stability in 

the U.S. heroin situation, but that stability is threatened by the availability of high purity heroin and 

efforts by drug trafficking organizations to make 

heroin less threatening and easier to administer. 

Increased use of heroin by adolescents and young 

adults could lead to even greater demands on law 

enforcement, the criminal justice and penal systems, 

and treatment facilities in the future, especially if 

those users shift to injection to administer heroin 

more effectively.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

42

With a well-established and expanding market 

for South American heroin, Colombian organizations may be moving from transportation and 

wholesale distribution to bulk wholesale supply 

almost exclusively to avoid exposure. Colombian 

organizations’ increasing reliance on Dominican 

and Mexican organizations to transport heroin, 

their greater use of Mexico as a transshipment point 

for South American heroin, and more direct contact 

between Dominican and Mexican organizations 

all point to Colombian organizations’ continued 

withdrawal from direct involvement in the U.S. 

heroin market.

Marijuana

Cannabis is cultivated indoors and outdoors 

in every state. Although no single group exercises 

control over domestic cultivation and production, 

independent Caucasian growers are responsible 

for most of the cultivation, transportation, and 

distribution of domestically grown marijuana. The 

four principal foreign sources of marijuana are 

Mexico, Colombia, Canada, and Jamaica. Drug 

trafficking organizations in Mexico produce the 

most, nearly all of which is intended for U.S.

markets. Mexican organizations control the smuggling, transportation, and wholesale distribution of 

commercial-grade Mexican marijuana. Although 

organizations in Canada supply less marijuana 

than either Mexico or Colombia, most of it is 

extremely profitable high-grade marijuana, for 

which there is increasingly greater demand in the 

United States. OMGs, particularly the Hells 

Angels, and Asian trafficking organizations, 

especially Vietnamese, are responsible for most 

marijuana smuggling from Canada to the 

United States. Groups involved in wholesale 

and retail distribution vary widely by region, 

but local independent dealers are the norm in 

marijuana distribution.

Assessment of the Threat 

Marijuana continues to be the most widely 

available and abused illegal drug in the United 

States, and many law enforcement agencies 

nationwide express concern that the threat of

marijuana is not taken seriously. The availability of 

high-grade marijuana is increasing in every region, 

and some regions report the price is decreasing.

Over 10 percent of the 412 agencies that 

responded to the National Drug Threat Survey 

consider the threat of marijuana to be equivalent to 

that of other illegal drugs. Over 80 percent of 

respondents note the presence of indoor or outdoor 

cultivation—in most cases both. Over 25 percent 

of respondents consider the threat, availability, and 

abuse of marijuana in their areas to be very high. 

Over 30 percent of respondents to the National Drug 

Threat Survey consider the threat of marijuana to be 

increasing and note significant increases in the 

quantity and quality of the marijuana available in 

their jurisdictions. 

Availability

Federal, state, and local law enforcement 

agencies agree that marijuana is the most widely 

available illegal drug in the United States. A 

number of agencies express concerns with the 

growing perception among school age children 

that marijuana use is “safe” and not likely to lead 

to the use of other drugs. Many also note 

increases in marijuana seizures and arrests at 

schools in their areas. Of the 412 agencies 

responding to the National Drug Threat Survey, 

322 (78%) consider marijuana availability to be 

very high. 
National Drug Intelligence Center

43

Despite beliefs that the threat of marijuana is 

overshadowed by concern with other illegal 

drugs, federal data show that efforts to stem the 

trafficking of marijuana continue to consume the 

resources of federal, state, and local agencies and 

the judicial system. Marijuana seizures reflected 

in the FDSS rose from almost 828,000 kilograms 

in 1998 to approximately 1.1 million kilograms in 

1999. OCDETF indictments on marijuana-related 

charges rose from 687 in FY1998 to 747 in 

FY1999, over 17 percent of all OCDETF indictments for that year. Marijuana-related offenses 

increased 17 percent from 6,054 in 1998 to 7,089 

in 1999. And at 31.5 percent, marijuana 

accounted for more federal drug sentences than 

any other drug in 1999.

Marijuana, from “ditchweed” to “hydro,” is 

available throughout the United States, but quality 

varies widely.21 The potency of commercial-grade 

marijuana and sinsemilla, the most frequently 

encountered, continues to increase. Marijuana 

potency is not usually characterized by purity, but 

by THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) content. Between 

1988 and 1998, the average THC content of 

commercial-grade marijuana rose from 3.82 percent 

to 5.88 percent. During the same period, the average 

THC content of sinsemilla increased dramatically 

from 7.62 percent to 12.26 percent, in part 

because of improved techniques for growing 

marijuana indoors. Many agencies throughout the 

nation note dramatic increases in the quality of 

marijuana in their areas. They specifically identify 

continuing increases in the availability of marijuana from Canada—especially BC Bud, a high 

THC content marijuana —and increases in indoor 

cultivation, which usually produces better quality 

marijuana. Unlike the high-grade marijuana of 10 

years ago, which averaged 7 to 14 percent THC, 

some tested samples of indoor grown sinsemilla 

have achieved potencies near 30 percent. Marijuana prices vary widely depending on the quality 

and the area in which it is sold. Prices for commercial-grade marijuana range from as little as 

$100 to almost $6,000 per pound. Sinsemilla 

prices range from $900 to $7,000 per pound 

(Table 9). 

Law enforcement agencies in every region of 

the country indicate changes in the marijuana situation. Agencies in the New England Region note 

increases in the indoor cultivation of high 

potency marijuana and a tendency toward smaller 

and more remote outdoor plots. In the New York/

New Jersey Region, agencies note general 

increases in availability, with more involvement 

of Mexican groups in distribution and more violence associated with street-level distribution. In 

the Mid-Atlantic Region, several agencies note 

that marijuana is increasingly popular among 

school age children and is increasingly cultivated 

in local indoor grows, some of which are hydroponic grows. Law enforcement agencies in the 

Southeast identify an increase in the availability 

Sinsemilla is a form of marijuana resulting 

from the cultivation of the female cannabis 

plant absent from the male plant—a technique that prevents pollination, resulting in 

larger bud growth and thus higher THC content. The average yield for mature, domestically grown sinsemilla is approximately onequarter pound per plant; domestically grown 

commercial-grade marijuana yields approximately one pound per plant. 

Table 9. Marijuana Prices per Pound

Region Commercial Sinsemilla

Northeast/Mid-Atlantic $500–$4,000 $1,500–$2,500

Great Lakes $850–$3,000 $2,500–$7,000

Pacific/West Central $100–$3,500 $1,000–$6,000

Southwest $250–$6,000 $900–$4,000

Southeast/Florida $500–$1,600 $3,000

Source: Research conducted by NDIC of more than 900 federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

44

of Mexican and high potency marijuana as well 

as an increase in local indoor grows. In the Southwest Region, agencies note a general increase in 

the availability of marijuana from Canada, an 

increase in the flow of marijuana from Mexico, 

more sophisticated smuggling methods, increased 

street gang involvement in retail distribution, and 

generally lower prices. In the Pacific and West 

Central Regions, reporting indicates increases in 

the number and sophistication of indoor growing 

operations, the availability of marijuana from 

Canada and Mexico, and the number and size of 

outdoor plots in remote areas. Agencies in the 

Great Lakes note an increase in the availability of 

marijuana from Mexico and increases in both 

indoor and outdoor growing operations.

Demand

There is no accepted estimate for marijuana 

demand in the United States, but estimates of the 

number of users suggest that the demand for marijuana vastly exceeds demand for any other drug, 

especially among younger users. National data 

indicate that despite high levels of lifetime, past 

year, and current use, marijuana use remains 

relatively stable overall. According to the 1999 

NHSDA, 76 million people aged 12 or older 

reported marijuana use in their lifetime, 20 million 

reported use in the past year, and 11 million 

reported current use. The number of marijuana 

users has remained relatively stable since 1991, 

with the exception of adolescents. The rate of 

current use among adolescents more than doubled 

between 1992 (3.4%) and 1995 (8.2%), peaked in 

1997 (9.4%), and showed a statistically significant 

decline from 1997 to 1999 (7.0%).

The societal impact of marijuana is probably 

best reflected in data from publicly funded treatment 

facilities and the health system. The proportion of 

admissions to publicly funded treatment facilities 

for marijuana abuse doubled between 1992 and 

1998, from 6 percent to 13 percent of all TEDS 

admissions; marijuana accounted for nearly half 

(49%) of all admissions under 20 years of age. In 

1998, more than half (57%) of marijuana admissions had used the drug by the age of 14, and over 

90 percent had used it by the age of 18. Of marijuana admissions, 77 percent were male, 59 percent were white, and 49 percent were under 20 

years of age. Between 1997 and 1999, DAWN 

data show that the number of emergency department mentions of marijuana/hashish increased 

from 64,744 to 87,150. Two age groups showed 

significant changes from 1997 to 1999; the 18–25 

age group increased from 19,388 to 27,272, and 

the 35 and over age group increased from 17,403 

to 25,796. Marijuana/hashish was the sixth most 

reported drug according to 1998 DAWN medical 

examiner data, accounting for 6 percent of all 

episodes, but marijuana/hashish was usually 

mentioned in combination with other drugs. Marijuana/hashish accounted for 35 percent of all mentions among decedents aged 6 to 17, but declined 

to 17 percent among those aged 18 to 25, and to 2 

percent among decedents aged 55 and over.

According to MTF Study data for the 1990s, 

lifetime, past year, and current use of marijuana 

peaked among eighth graders in 1996 and among 

tenth and twelfth graders in 1997. In the time 

since, the prevalence of marijuana use among all 

three groups, in all three categories, has remained 

relatively constant. The prevalence of use among 

young adults (19 to 28 years old) has remained 

relatively constant since 1994. 

PRIDE Survey data show slight declines in 

the prevalence of past year and current use of 

marijuana since the 1995–1996 school year. 

PRIDE data for the 1999–2000 school year show 

significant decreases in past year and current use 

of marijuana among junior high school students, 

modest declines among senior high school students, 

but minimal increases among twelfth graders 

alone. For all three groups combined, annual use 

declined from 23.3 percent in the 1998–1999 

school year to 19.9 percent in the 1999–2000 

school year.
National Drug Intelligence Center

45

Cultivation and Production

Although a significant portion of the marijuana 

available in the United States is cultivated and 

produced domestically, there are no estimates for 

domestic production. Limitations in the data available preclude such an estimate in the near future. 

Drug trafficking organizations in four countries—

Mexico, Colombia, Canada, and Jamaica—supply 

most of the foreign-produced marijuana available 

in the United States.

Within the United States, cannabis is grown outdoors and indoors in every state. According to 1998 

DEA eradication statistics, five states—Alabama, 

California, Hawaii, Kentucky, and Tennessee—

account for over 75 percent of all outdoor plant 

eradication. The same reporting identifies Alaska, 

California, Florida, Kentucky, and Oregon as the 

leading states in indoor cultivation, accounting for 

over 65 percent of all indoor eradication.22 Federal, 

state and local agencies continue to identify the 

widespread use of public lands to cultivate cannabis 

and the frequent use of elaborate security measures 

to protect plots from theft or seizure. In 1999, the 

U.S. Forest Service seized almost 1 million pounds 

of cannabis plants and processed marijuana in 35 

states. California led all states with over 500,000 

pounds seized, followed by Kentucky (474,300 lb), 

Utah (19,300 lb), North Carolina (14,600 lb), and 

Washington (10,300 lb). 

No single group exercises broad control over 

domestic cannabis cultivation and marijuana 

production, but responses to the National Drug 

Threat Survey indicate that most domestic cannabis 

is cultivated locally by independent growers, mostly 

Caucasians. Other growers identified by state and 

local agencies are Mexican groups, street gangs, 

Jamaican groups, and OMGs. U.S. Forest Service 

information also reports extensive involvement of 

Mexican nationals in cannabis cultivation on lands 

administered by the service.

Among the four primary foreign sources of 

marijuana, drug trafficking organizations in Mexico 

produce the most—over 6,600 metric tons in 1999, 

of which nearly all was intended for U.S. markets. 

Colombia historically has been a significant source 

of marijuana to U.S. markets. In recent years, however, Colombian marijuana has been supplanted to 

a large extent by Mexican and domestic marijuana. 

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the U.S. 

Department of State estimate that 800 metric tons 

of marijuana were produced in Canada in 1999, 

primarily under the direction of OMGs and Asian 

organizations. Of that 800 metric tons, an estimated 

380 metric tons were destined for the United 

States. The Department of State estimates that a 

little over 200 metric tons of marijuana were produced in Jamaica in 1997 (the latest date for which 

information is available), of which almost 160 

metric tons were available for consumption outside 

Jamaica, including the United States. 

Transportation

Marijuana produced outside the United States 

is smuggled into the country by land, sea, and air. 

OMGs, especially the Hells Angels, and Asian 

trafficking organizations control much of the 

marijuana smuggled into the United States from 

Canada, while Mexican organizations control the 

movement of marijuana across the U.S.–Mexico 

border. Commercial and private vehicles, couriers, 

and aircraft are the principal means used to smuggle marijuana across the northern and southern 

borders, although the San Juan County Sheriff’s 

Department in northwestern Washington State 

reports recent dramatic increases in marijuana 

smuggling from British Columbia into San Juan 

County by boat. Marijuana smuggled in commercial 

vehicles—normally used for larger shipments—
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

46

is usually either concealed in hidden compartments 

or mixed with legitimate goods. Private vehicles 

are used frequently to smuggle marijuana into the 

United States, and a number of agencies identify 

the increased use of sophisticated hidden compartments in private vehicles to conceal shipments. 

Pedestrian couriers body carry smaller amounts 

of marijuana through POEs and smuggle larger 

amounts in backpacks and duffel bags between 

POEs. Private aircraft routinely make airdrops of 

marijuana to individuals waiting on the ground or 

land at remote airstrips to offload marijuana. 

Commercial aircraft, most often used by Jamaican 

organizations, are used to smuggle marijuana by 

couriers who carry it on their bodies or in luggage, 

or by airfreight. The DEA Miami Field Division 

reports a possible shift in marijuana transportation 

from the Southwest Border to the Caribbean to 

avoid the heavy law enforcement presence on the 

border. Given the existing cooperation between 

Mexican wholesalers and Jamaican distributors, 

such a shift seems entirely plausible.

Maritime transportation methods are the norm 

in the remainder of the country. Colombian, 

Mexican, and Jamaican organizations control 

most smuggling in the East, Southeast, and 

along the West Coast, while OMGs and Canadian 

and U.S. traffickers are responsible for smuggling in the Great Lakes area. Traffickers use 

coastal freighters, containerized cargo, go-fast 

boats, and fishing vessels to smuggle marijuana 

into the Great Lakes and across the eastern, 

southeastern, and western U.S. borders. Large 

amounts of marijuana are smuggled into the 

United States in containers with legitimate 

cargo. Go-fast boats and fishing vessels are 

used to bring marijuana ashore from airdrops, 

motherships, and coastal freighters. 

The origin of marijuana is difficult to determine 

unless it is seized at the grow site. Marijuana 

produced in and shipped from California is particularly difficult to distinguish from marijuana 

transshipped through California and produced in 

Mexico. Most domestically grown marijuana, 

whether cultivated outdoors or indoors, is intended 

for sale and use in the local area, although some of 

the marijuana produced in the high production 

states (Alabama, Alaska, California, Florida, 

Hawaii, Kentucky, Oregon, and Tennessee) 

undoubtedly is transported to other areas for sale. 

State and local law enforcement agencies throughout the United States identify Chicago and New 

York most frequently as destinations for marijuana 

transshipped through their areas. 

Traffickers use almost every available means 

to transport marijuana from point to point inside 

the United States. State and local law enforcement 

agencies identify private vehicles as the primary 

means, but commercial trucking, airlines, trains, 

and buses as well as the mail system and private 

parcel services are identified as other methods 

used. A number of federal, state, and local 

agencies note recent increases in the use of 

express mail services to transport marijuana.

In responses to the National Drug Threat 

Survey, 216 state and local law enforcement 

agencies identified local independent dealers, 

mostly Caucasians, as the predominant transporters 

of marijuana. Mexican traffickers were the second 

most identified group. Responding agencies also 

prominently mentioned street gangs, Caribbean 

groups (particularly Jamaicans), and OMGs.

Distribution 

With multiple domestic and foreign sources 

of supply and an almost countless array of groups 

and independent dealers involved, no single group 

can be claimed to control marijuana distribution 

in the United States. However, Mexican drug 

trafficking organizations clearly dominate a 

greater portion of wholesale distribution than 

any other identifiable group. Most DEA Field 

Divisions identify marijuana from Mexico as the 

dominant type in their jurisdictions, and many 
National Drug Intelligence Center

47

report that Mexican organizations dominate 

wholesale distribution in their areas. All report that 

marijuana from Mexico is readily available. 

Because marijuana from Mexico is of substantially 

lower quality and less expensive than domestic 

marijuana, it is used frequently to “bulk up”

domestic marijuana and increase profits—even 

in areas where it is not the preferred type.

DEA findings are consistent with information 

provided to NDIC by 412 state and local law 

enforcement agencies, almost 30 percent of which 

identify Mexican organizations as the dominant 

marijuana wholesale distributors in their area. 

Local independent dealers are the most frequently 

identified wholesale marijuana distributors after 

Mexican organizations. Law enforcement agencies 

note, however, that many independent dealers are 

Caucasians supplied by Mexican organizations. 

Agencies that note domination of the local market 

by Jamaican distributors report, too, that Mexican 

organizations are a primary source of supply. 

Agencies in the northern United States identify 

connections between local independent dealers and 

Canadian sources of supply; agencies elsewhere 

note that local dealers maintain connections with 

street gangs, OMGs, and Jamaican groups. 

Mexican organizations appear to use 10 cities 

as wholesale distribution centers: Houston, Los 

Angeles, Chicago, El Paso, Dallas, New York, 

Phoenix, Brownsville, Tucson, and Atlanta. 

Federal and local agencies in each of these cities 

identify Mexican organizations as the dominant 

wholesale marijuana distributors, and state and 

local agencies throughout the nation identify these 

10 cities as the primary sources of marijuana to 

their jurisdictions. 

Mexican organizations’ dominance of marijuana distribution at the wholesale level does not 

carry over to the retail level. Local independent 

dealers, street gangs, and some ethnic groups 

dominate retail distribution in every region of the 

United States. In the New England Region, local 

independent dealers and street gangs dominate retail 

marijuana distribution. In the New York/New Jersey 

Region, local independent dealers and Jamaicans 

are the dominant forces, followed closely by 

street gangs. In the Mid-Atlantic, local dealers, 

street gangs, and Jamaicans predominate. Local 

independent dealers, street gangs, and Mexican 

groups dominate retail distribution in the Southeast, 

whereas street gangs, local independent dealers, and 

Caribbean groups (Cuban, Haitian, and Jamaican) 

predominate in the Florida/Caribbean Region. In 

the Southwest, Pacific, and West Central 

Regions, local independent dealers, street gangs, 

and Mexican groups dominate retail distribution. 

Finally, in the Great Lakes Region, local independent dealers, street gangs, and Mexican and 

Jamaican groups are all active at the retail level.

Key Developments

A number of federal, state, and local law 

enforcement agencies report increases in 

marijuana use among high school age students, 

noting increased investigations, arrests, and 

seizures at and around schools. Some agencies also 

report increases in marijuana treatment admissions 

for that age group.

Many federal, state, and local agencies 

throughout the nation note increased demand for, 

and availability of, high potency marijuana.

• Many law enforcement agencies report 

increased indoor cannabis cultivation. These 

agencies further note the use of cloning and 

hydroponics to increase the potency and yield 

of cannabis crops and report occasional cooperation among local growers.

• BC Bud, formerly limited to the Pacific 

Northwest, is now available in Honolulu, Los 

Angeles, and Oakland, as well as in some 

parts of the West Central Region.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

48

• Traffickers in eastern Canada are supplying 

high potency marijuana called Quebec Gold 

to their counterparts in the United States, 

particularly Maine and New York.

The San Juan County Sheriff’s Department, 

north of Seattle in the San Juan Islands, notes 

recent significant increases in the transportation 

of high-grade marijuana by vessel from Victoria 

and Sidney, British Columbia, through San Juan 

County. The department reports that Canadian 

traffickers bring 100-pound shipments of BC 

Bud, packaged in compressed 1-pound bricks, 

into the area in small craft and sell the marijuana 

to U.S. traffickers for as little as $1,500 per 

pound. While some of the marijuana is taken to 

Seattle and sold for $2,500 to $3,000 per pound, 

most is transported as far south as Los Angeles, 

where it sells for $6,000 per pound.

Projections

Most national data indicate continuing overall 

stability in marijuana use, but increased use and 

production of high potency marijuana may lead to 

greater demand. Some law enforcement agencies 

note increases in treatment admissions for marijuana 

that seem to correlate with increased availability and 

use of high potency marijuana in their areas. 

Mexican organizations will continue to dominate wholesale marijuana distribution for the near 

future. But several state and local agencies express 

concern that given the increasing demand for 

marijuana and what appears to be increasing tacit 

approval of marijuana use, the profit potential 

will attract individuals and criminal groups not 

currently involved in cannabis cultivation and 

marijuana distribution.

Other Dangerous Drugs 

The Other Dangerous Drugs (ODD) category 

includes club drugs, hallucinogens, and illegally 

diverted pharmaceuticals. ODD are available 

nationwide, but—with the notable exception of 

club drugs—they generally have not been considered as great a threat as other illegal drugs. 

However, information provided to NDIC by law 

enforcement agencies nationwide suggests that 

ODD pose a much greater threat than is currently 

perceived. Moreover, given the popularity of 

“raves,” the dramatic increases in the availability 

and use of club drugs may pose a greater immediate threat to adolescents and young adults than 

any other illegal drug.

More than half of the 412 agencies responding 

to the National Drug Threat Survey identify 

increases—sometimes dramatic—in the availability 

and use of club drugs, particularly MDMA 

(3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine) and GHB 

(gamma-hydroxybutyrate). Over 10 percent of 

respondents note the appearance of club drugs in 

their jurisdictions within the past year, and many 

agencies note increased use among junior high 

and elementary schoolchildren. Many agencies 

express great concern over the perception that 

club drugs are “safe” and note increases in overdoses and deaths that directly coincide with the 

rising availability of club drugs. In 1999, the 

National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) 

reported that “a number of our Nation’s best 

monitoring mechanisms are detecting alarming 

increases in the popularity of some very dangerous 

substances known collectively as club drugs.”23

Those same monitoring mechanisms show similar 

increases in 2000.
National Drug Intelligence Center

49

Club Drugs 

The club drug category comprises both 

stimulants such as MDMA and PMA 

(paramethoxyamphetamine, an MDMA lookalike 

that is much more potent) and depressants such 

as GHB, ketamine, and Rohypnol.24 A recent 

resurgence in the availability of some hallucinogens—LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide), PCP 

(phencyclidine), psilocybin, and peyote or 

mescaline—at raves and dance clubs may necessitate their inclusion in the club drug category as well.

International criminal organizations are 

responsible for much of the production, transportation, and wholesale distribution of club drugs, 

especially MDMA. But information from state 

and local law enforcement agencies clearly indicates that young adult Caucasians are primarily 

responsible for introducing, distributing, and 

using club drugs nationwide.

The primary outlets for club drugs are raves 

and dance clubs in larger metropolitan areas, 

but similar activity is occurring at clubs and 

teen parties in smaller cities and towns across 

the nation, particularly those with colleges and 

universities. In addition to serving as markets 

for MDMA and GHB, raves are providing an 

outlet for the introduction of new drugs and for 

the reintroduction of hallucinogens to a new 

group of users—today’s youth. The wide range 

of drugs available at raves and parties also 

provides opportunities for the dangerous use of 

drugs in combination—for example, MDMA and 

heroin or MDMA and peyote or mescaline, which 

some agencies refer to as “new age speedballs.”

Raves are held in permanent dance clubs or in 

temporary clubs set up in abandoned warehouses, 

open fields, or empty buildings for a single event. 

Raves are often promoted through flyers and advertisements distributed at other clubs, in record shops 

and clothing stores, on college campuses, and over 

the Internet. Many club owners sell specialty items 

to dancers in a way that arguably promotes the use 

of drugs, although there is no direct evidence that 

they are taking part in MDMA sales or earning any 

direct profit from drug sales within their clubs. 

They sell bottled water and sports drinks to 

manage hyperthermia and dehydration as well as 

pacifiers to prevent involuntary teeth clenching—

all frequently caused by MDMA use. They also 

sell menthol inhalers, chemical lights, and neon 

glow sticks, necklaces, and bracelets to enhance 

the hallucinogenic effects of MDMA. Club owners 

only rarely sell alcohol. They usually advertise 

raves as “alcohol free”—most attendees are not old 

enough to purchase alcohol legally—which may 

lead to parents’ perception that raves are safe for 

their children to attend. Club owners may be protecting themselves by not offering alcohol because 

MDMA reacts negatively with alcohol and there is 

less scrutiny of clubs without liquor licenses.

MDMA or “Ecstasy”

MDMA is a synthetic drug that acts simultaneously as a stimulant and mild hallucinogen. 

MDMA is produced as a white powder that has 

a slightly sweet scent; it is usually ingested in 

tablet, powder, or capsule form. Other names 

for MDMA include “ecstasy,” “Adam,” “X,”

“E,” “XTC,” and “empathy.” Users risk 

exhaustion from a combination of the drug’s 

effects and the physical exertion of all-night 

dancing. NIDA findings indicate that long-term 

use of MDMA causes significant, irreparable 

damage to the brain.

No drug in the ODD category represents a more 

immediate threat than MDMA. Detailed information from law enforcement agencies documenting 

dramatic, nationwide increases in the availability 

and use of MDMA, as well as the involvement of 

international organized crime groups in production, 

transportation, and wholesale distribution, places 

MDMA at the top of the ODD category.

Nearly 150 of 412 agencies responding to the 

National Drug Threat Survey identify MDMA as 

readily available in their areas. Of those, over 100 

report increases in availability, frequently referring 

to the increases as “dramatic” or “alarming.”
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

50

Over 10 percent of responding agencies note the 

appearance of MDMA within their jurisdictions 

in the past year, and many associate the drug with 

local colleges and universities.

.

Federal agencies report dramatic increases in 

MDMA trafficking. Between 1993 and 1998, the 

number of MDMA tablets submitted to DEA 

laboratories for testing increased from just under 

200 to almost 145,000. Seizures have gone from 

approximately 400,000 in 1997 to 750,000 in 1998 

to more than 3 million in 1999. U.S. Customs 

information indicates an increase in the size of 

individual shipments; for example, a December 

1999 seizure in San Bernardino, California, netted 

approximately 700 pounds of MDMA, and 1,100 

pounds of MDMA were seized at Los Angeles 

International Airport in July 2000. In the past, 

MDMA was smuggled in shipments averaging 

just 2–4 kilograms (4–9 lb).

There are no estimates of the demand for 

MDMA or the total number of users, but national 

abuse indicators suggest that demand is growing 

at an alarming rate. NHSDA data show that the 

number of respondents 12 and older who reported 

lifetime MDMA use rose from an estimated 2.7 

million in 1994 to almost 3.4 million in 1998, the 

last year for which MDMA data were available 

(Table 10). 

Table 10. Estimated Numbers (in Thousands) and Percentage of 

U.S. Population Reporting Lifetime MDMA Use

12–17 18–25 26–34 35+ Total

1998 369 (1.6%) 1,409 (5.0%) 893 (2.6%) 687 (0.5%) 3,359 (1.5%)

1997 299 (1.3%) 1,271 (4.6%) 1,088 (3.1%) 680 (0.5%) 3,338 (1.5%)

1996 242 (1.1%) 1,164 (4.2%) 875 (2.5%) 853 (0.7%) 3,134 (1.5%)

1995 267 (1.2%) 960 (3.5%) 1,007 (2.8%) 1,199 (1.0%) 3,433 (1.6%)

1994 163 (0.8%) 855 (3.1%) 869 (2.4%) 830 (0.7%) 2,718 (1.3%)

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 1998.
National Drug Intelligence Center

51

According to the 1999 MTF Study, reported 

lifetime, past year, and current use of MDMA 

increased significantly among twelfth graders 

between 1998 and 1999. Past year MDMA use 

increased among tenth graders between 1998 and 

1999, while lifetime and current use remained constant. Use in all three categories remained constant 

among eighth graders. MTF data also show a substantial increase in lifetime MDMA use (from 5.1 

to 7.2 percent) among young adults aged 19 to 28 

between 1997 and 1998, but from 1998 to 1999 the 

lifetime rate of MDMA use in this age group 

remained stable. 

Although some MDMA production occurs in 

the United States, 1990 regulations making it 

illegal to purchase or possess safrole, isosafrole, 

or piperonal—the primary MDMA precursors—

without a permit seem to have thwarted largescale domestic production. Western Europe is 

generally considered the primary source of the 

world’s supply of MDMA. Well-organized 

MDMA production groups have established 

operations in the rural regions of the Benelux 

countries—Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg—driven primarily by the availability 

of chemicals and international multimodal commercial transportation. Clandestine laboratories 

in the Benelux countries now produce at least 80 

percent of the MDMA consumed worldwide.

According to DEA’s Special Testing and 

Research Laboratory, the chemicals and equipment 

necessary to produce a kilogram of MDMA can be 

purchased for as little as $500. When first produced, 

MDMA is a nearly 100 percent pure powder with a 

licorice-like scent. The powder normally is pressed 

into pills and stamped with distinct, identifying 

designs. The DEA estimates that over 90 percent of 

the MDMA smuggled into the United States is in 

capsule or pill form; the remainder is powder. 

Although pill presses vary widely in speed, the best 

presses can process as many as 500,000 tablets per 

hour. The pills, which cost between 20 and 25 cents 

to produce, are normally sold to wholesale organizations for $1 to $2 apiece.

Israeli and Russian drug trafficking organizations, which often cooperate with one another, 

have dominated MDMA smuggling to the United 

States since the mid-1990s, establishing distribution hubs in Los Angeles, Miami, New York, 

Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C. Both employ 

similar techniques, using couriers, express mail 

services, and sea containers to smuggle large 

quantities of MDMA into the United States. 

Couriers frequently smuggle at least 10,000 

pills in each shipment. The DEA believes, however, that express mail services may now be the 

most popular smuggling method. Information 

provided to NDIC by state and local law 

enforcement agencies indicates that express mail 

services also are the preferred method to move 

MDMA within the United States. The number of 

seizures from sea containers is low compared 

with those involving other smuggling methods, 

but the DEA expects maritime smuggling to 

increase as wholesale distribution organizations 

become more sophisticated and seek to move 

larger shipments to meet the growing U.S. 

demand for MDMA.

Analysts at DEA Headquarters believe that the 

use of the Caribbean as a transshipment point by 

MDMA trafficking organizations is a distinct 

possibility. MDMA destined for the United States 

is predominantly transported directly via airfreight 

and express mail or carried by couriers traveling 

on commercial airlines. But the Caribbean’s 

numerous and established drug transportation 

groups, abundance of couriers, historic cultural 

and political connections to Europe, and frequent 

commercial flights from Europe provide trafficking 

organizations with the means to route synthetic 

drugs through the Caribbean.

Although Israeli and Russian groups dominate 

MDMA smuggling, the involvement of domestic 

groups appears to be increasing. Some groups 

based in Chicago, Phoenix, Florida, and Texas 

have secured their own sources of supply in 

Europe. Domestic groups generally are less 

sophisticated and less disciplined than their 

Israeli and Russian counterparts and more likely 

to take risks when smuggling. They often attempt 

to smuggle more pills in a single trip than can be 

transported undetected.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

52

Once inside the United States, MDMA is sold 

to midlevel wholesale distribution groups who in 

turn sell to retail distribution groups or individual 

distributors. Most MDMA is pressed into pills 

before entering the distribution system, limiting 

both the opportunities to cut the MDMA and the 

number of distribution levels characteristic of 

many other drugs. 

Midlevel wholesale distribution groups link 

retail distributors with wholesale suppliers. 

Midlevel groups normally purchase at least 1,000 

pills at a time from wholesalers. Some groups 

purchase 30 to 100 pounds (500,000 pills) at a 

time, and there is a trend toward larger deliveries 

to midlevel distribution groups.

Retail distributors, usually young adult 

Caucasian males, normally purchase 1,000 to 

2,000 pills at a time from midlevel distributors. 

Most retail distributors are independent dealers 

seeking to take advantage of the growing market 

and high profit margins. Retail distributors 

maintain consistent patterns, normally selling at 

the same clubs on specific nights. Some retail 

distributors have direct sources of supply within 

Israeli and Russian criminal organizations and 

may sell MDMA in Russian-owned clubs. Other 

retail distributors have stated that they can sell 

up to 1,000 pills a night at raves, since many 

users buy several pills in the course of an 

evening. Each pill sold can net retail distributors 

$10 to $30. Retail prices range from $15 to $40.

MDMA users, particularly dancers at raves, 

employ a variety of methods to disguise or conceal 

MDMA tablets. Among the more popular methods 

are stringing the tablets on candy necklaces, 

wrapping them in cellophane candy packages, and 

stacking them in straws.

GHB

GHB is a central nervous system depressant 

that was initially used by bodybuilders to stimulate 

muscle growth. In recent years, it has become 

popular among young adults who attend raves. 

Agencies in Boston, Detroit, Los Angeles, Miami, 

Phoenix, and Seattle have reported the use of GHB 

as a “date rape drug.” It is odorless, tasteless, and 

virtually undetectable if slipped into a drink. 

Medical and law enforcement experts say victims 

can lose consciousness within 20 minutes of 

ingesting GHB and often have no memory of 

events following ingestion. It is difficult to trace, 

usually leaving the body within 24 hours. GHB is 

available as a liquid or powder and can be manufactured in home laboratories with industrial cleaning 

solvents and other commonly available ingredients.

Calls to poison centers and emergency department episodes involving GHB have increased in 

many areas throughout the nation. Over 70 percent 

of emergency department episodes for GHB in 

1998 involved Caucasians, almost 70 percent 

involved males, and 65 percent involved persons 

aged 18 to 25.

Information from federal, state, and local 

law enforcement agencies documents dramatic 

increases in the availability and use of GHB 

nationwide. Almost 130 of 412 agencies 

responding to the National Drug Threat Survey 

identify GHB as readily available and 49 note 

the appearance of GHB within their areas in the 

past year. Most agencies note dramatic increases 

in availability, attributing the increases to a concurrent rise in rave activity. Despite reports of 

the availability of GHB and its use as a date rape 

drug, national studies and law enforcement data 

provide few details on the production, trafficking, 

and abuse of GHB.25

Combining GBL (gamma-butyrolactone) 

with either sodium hydroxide or potassium 

hydroxide produces GHB. Unlike with other 

drugs, independent laboratory operators produce 

GHB almost exclusively in the areas in which it 

is sold. Law enforcement agencies draw a direct 

correlation between GHB production and distribution locations and colleges and universities. 

Many attribute increases in local production to 

the availability of recipes on the Internet. As 

with MDMA, the primary distributors of GHB 

are young adult Caucasian males, particularly 

college students.
National Drug Intelligence Center

53

On February 18, 2000, President Clinton 

signed the “Hillory J. Farias and Samantha 

Reid Date Rape Drug Prohibition Act of 

1999” (Public Law 106-172), legislating GHB 

a Schedule I controlled substance and GBL 

a List I controlled chemical. This law became 

effective on March 12, 2000, and should 

significantly limit the availability of GBL.

Although available in both liquid and powdered forms, GHB is most frequently encountered 

in liquid form. GHB users conceal the drug in 

empty bottles of breath freshener, eye drops, 

water, and contact solution. They sometimes 

place the drug on candy, especially lollipops.

GBL and BD (1,4-butanediol) are chemicals 

used in industrial cleaners and are closely related 

to GHB. Both chemicals are precursors to GHB 

and both, when ingested alone, are metabolized 

into GHB. GBL and BD have been sold as dietary 

supplements and marketed under a variety of 

exaggerated health claims, from the treatment of 

insomnia to the reversal of baldness.

Ketamine

Ketamine, or ketamine hydrochloride, also 

known as “Special K,” “K,” “Vitamin K,” “ket,” or 

“kit-kat,” is a commercially produced prescription 

drug available only to medical practitioners. It is 

primarily a veterinary preoperative anesthetic, but it 

is neither manufactured nor approved for medical 

use in the United States. Ketamine is found most 

frequently in liquid form, but allowing it to 

evaporate can produce a white powder similar in 

appearance to cocaine. Liquid ketamine can be 

injected, applied to cigarettes and smoked, or 

ingested. Powdered ketamine can be snorted, 

smoked, or ingested. Ketamine’s effects, in either 

form, can last up to 2 hours and include hallucinations similar to those caused by PCP. Law 

enforcement agencies report that like GHB, 

ketamine has been used as a date rape drug. 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

54

Its popularity as a club drug has increased as raves 

and related activity have spread from large metropolitan areas to smaller cities and towns.

Law enforcement agencies nationwide 

document increases in the availability and use of 

ketamine that directly coincide with increases 

in local rave and dance club activity. Almost 10 

percent of the 412 agencies responding to the 

National Drug Threat Survey identify ketamine 

as readily available. Ten agencies note the 

appearance of ketamine in the past year. Several 

agencies report increases in the number of breakins at veterinary clinics to steal ketamine. 

National studies and law enforcement data 

provide few details on the trafficking and abuse 

of ketamine, but as with GHB, state and local law 

enforcement information indicates a correlation 

between the availability and use of ketamine and 

the presence of college and university students.

Rohypnol

Rohypnol, also known as “roofies,” “rophies,”

“ruffies,” “R2,” “roofenol,” “Roche,” “roachies,”

“La Rocha,” “rope,” and “rib,” is a powerful, 

commercially manufactured depressant containing 

flunitrazepam hydrochloride. It belongs to a family 

of drugs known collectively as benzodiazepines. 

Rohypnol is not licensed for sale nor approved for 

medical use in the United States. It is manufactured 

primarily in Europe and Latin America and is 

readily available and inexpensive in Mexico, the 

primary source area. Significant increases in Rohypnol use for San Diego and Imperial Counties probably are due to the counties’ proximity to Mexico. 

Rohypnol is about 10 times stronger than 

Valium and reportedly is one of the more 

commonly used date rape drugs. Like GHB and 

ketamine, it is undetectable in the drink of an 

unsuspecting victim, although the principal manufacturer of Rohypnol now adds a blue dye to aid 

detection. Rohypnol produces sedation, amnesia, 

and muscle relaxation within 30 minutes of 

ingestion and can cause blackouts that last 

from 8 to 24 hours. It is popular at raves and 

frequently is used with alcohol, which intensifies 

its effects.

Only 9 agencies of 412 responding to the 

National Drug Threat Survey identify Rohypnol 

as readily available in their areas. Many others note 

a decline in the availability and use of Rohypnol. 

Recent surges in the production, availability, and 

use of GHB seem to have prompted a decline in 

the availability and use of Rohypnol. Although 

past year Rohypnol use declined slightly among 

eighth graders from 1998 to 1999, lifetime and 

current use remained stable. The rate of use in all 

categories remained stable among tenth and 

twelfth graders.

Hallucinogens

Hallucinogens include a broad range of drugs 

that induce hallucinations. Among them are LSD, 

PCP, and psilocybin—a substance found in varieties 

of mushrooms that are frequently referred to as 

“magic mushrooms” or “psychedelic mushrooms.”

The popularity of hallucinogens seems to have 

grown, and many agencies attribute the resurgence 

to increased rave and dance club activity.

According to data from the 1999 NHSDA, 

approximately 25 million people aged 12 or 

older used hallucinogens sometime in their 

lifetime. Some 3 million reported past year 

hallucinogen use, and 1 million reported current 

use. Admissions for the abuse of hallucinogens 

remained constant from 1994 to 1997, accounting for only 0.2 percent of all TEDS admissions 

in each year, and dropped to 0.1 percent in 

1998.26 Those admitted for the abuse of hallucinogens were primarily white, male, and of high 

school and college age. Of admissions for hallucinogens, 51 percent were between the ages of 

15 and 19, and 23 percent were between 20 and 

24; 86 percent of admissions for hallucinogens 

used other drugs as well.
National Drug Intelligence Center

55

The PRIDE Survey shows an overall decline 

in hallucinogen use among junior and senior high 

school students, from 6.7 percent in the 1995–1996 

school year to 4.9 percent in the 1999–2000 

school year. Between the 1998–1999 and 1999–

2000 school years, past year hallucinogen use 

declined among all three groups surveyed by 

PRIDE (junior high school, senior high school, 

and twelfth graders alone). 

Independent producers and suppliers are the 

primary source of hallucinogens. Like club drugs, 

hallucinogens are distributed and used primarily 

by young adult Caucasians, which probably best 

explains the appearance of these drugs at raves.

LSD

LSD is a powerful synthetic hallucinogen 

produced primarily in California, though some 

reports suggest limited production in other 

areas. The potency of the LSD available today 

(20–80 micrograms) is considerably lower than 

the levels of the 1960s and 1970s (100–300 

micrograms). Production is time-consuming and 

complex, requiring some degree of expertise in 

chemistry. The primary precursor chemicals are 

either ergotamine tartrate or lysergic acid amide, 

both of which are controlled by federal regulations. The control of precursor chemicals undoubtedly limits widespread LSD production in the 

United States. 

Reports of increased availability and use of 

LSD are supported by national demand indicators. 

NHSDA data for 1999 indicate that approximately 

19 million individuals aged 12 or older reported 

lifetime LSD use, approximately 2 million 

reported past year use, and approximately 

500,000 reported current use.

According to MTF data, LSD use rose substantially among eighth, tenth, and twelfth graders 

between 1991 and 1997. Use has remained relatively stable since 1997 except for a decline in past 

month use by eighth graders between 1997 and 

1998. Although the rate of lifetime use for all three 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

56

grades in 1999 is lower than the high reported in 

1996, it remains well above 1992 levels, especially 

among tenth and twelfth graders. 

Despite reports of increased LSD use, DAWN 

emergency department mentions of LSD 

remained relatively stable between 1994 and 

1998, averaging just over 5,100 per year.

Information from federal, state, and local law 

enforcement agencies also documents significant 

increases in the availability and use of LSD nationwide. Over 200 of 412 agencies responding to the 

National Drug Threat Survey identify LSD as 

readily available. Many agencies associate 

increases in LSD availability with college students 

and increases in rave activity. LSD is available in 

more forms than ever before, most commonly in 

liquid, crystal, or gel form but also in blotter paper, 

microdots, gel tabs, sugar cubes, and liquid vials. 

As with club drugs, the primary distributors of 

LSD are young adult Caucasian males.

Most LSD users are young adults, usually 

college students, but a number of agencies report 

increases in LSD use by high school students. Law 

enforcement agencies also report the use of a wider 

variety of methods to administer and conceal the 

drug than at any time in the past, including the 

application of liquid LSD to candy and chewing 

gum and concealment in bottles of breath freshener.

Psilocybin

Psilocybin is the active ingredient in a number 

of mushrooms, but potency varies widely by 

species. Independent growers cultivate mushrooms 

indoors and frequently harvest those that grow wild. 

Doses normally range from 20 to 60 milligrams, and 

the effects generally last from 5 to 6 hours. 

Psilocybin mushrooms have undergone a 

resurgence in popularity that, like club drugs and 

other hallucinogens, can be attributed to young 

adults and the rave culture. Over 100 agencies 

that responded to the National Drug Threat 

Survey identify psilocybin mushrooms as readily 

available, and many note significant increases in 

availability and use in the past year. Many also 

note increased use among high school students.
National Drug Intelligence Center

57

Information from the NHSDA shows a significant increase in the estimated number of lifetime 

psilocybin users between 1997 (10,200) and 1998 

(12,321). The overall increase includes statistically 

significant increases in reported lifetime psilocybin 

use in the 18 to 25 and 35 and over age groups.

The average price for psilocybin is $150 an 

ounce, which apparently has lured newcomers to 

mushroom cultivation and distribution. The most 

frequently identified sources of mushrooms are 

Oregon, California, and Washington State, 

although agencies in Georgia, Mississippi, and 

Tennessee report collection of wild mushrooms or 

indoor cultivation. Almost every agency that identifies a source of mushrooms outside the state 

identifies the mail or parcel delivery services as the 

primary means of transportation.

PCP

PCP is a hallucinogen directly associated with 

street gangs, particularly in the Los Angeles area. 

PCP is relatively easy to manufacture and requires 

little knowledge of chemistry. Precursor chemicals 

are readily available and inexpensive. Street gangs 

primarily are associated with PCP production, distribution, and use, but there are reports of PCP being 

sold at raves and dance clubs. Over 10 percent of 

agencies responding to the National Drug Threat 

Survey identify PCP as readily available, but only 

the Austin (TX) Police Department notes substantial 

increases in availability.

Between 1997 and 1998, reported lifetime use 

of PCP among all respondents to the NHSDA 

increased from 3.0 percent to 3.5 percent. Lifetime 

use declined among respondents aged 12 to 17, but 

increased for all other age groups. According to 

TEDS, PCP was reported as a primary substance 

of abuse by only 0.1 percent of admissions for 

treatment in 1998. Almost two-thirds of admissions for PCP were male, 36 percent were black, 

29 percent were white, and 31 percent reported 

daily use of PCP.

Pharmaceuticals

The abuse of pharmaceuticals has not 

received as much publicity as the abuse of club 

drugs and other illegal drugs, but it is a significant 

and growing problem in many areas of the United 

States. Almost 200 of the 412 agencies that 

responded to the National Drug Threat Survey 

identify a problem with pharmaceutical abuse in 

their jurisdictions, and over half of those note dramatic increases in pharmaceutical diversion and 

abuse. Many agencies consider the problem very 

underrated and attribute it to the ease with which 

abusers can obtain prescription drugs over the Internet, by phone, and at drive-through pharmacies.

Among the pharmaceuticals most frequently 

identified by law enforcement agencies as abused 

in their areas, diazepam (Valium) and hydrocodone 

top the list. Others frequently mentioned as abused 

include Xanax, Vicodin, OxyContin, Lorcet, 

Dilaudid, Percocet, Soma, alprazolam, Darvocet, 

and morphine.

Prescription fraud, the sale of prescriptions 

by unscrupulous medical professionals, and 

outright theft are the most frequent means of 

obtaining or diverting pharmaceuticals for illegal 

use. A number of agencies identify increases in the 

incidents of schoolchildren selling prescription 

drugs, particularly Ritalin, to classmates. Several 

agencies note increases in the abuse of pharmaceuticals by heroin addicts and users of MDMA 

and other illegal drugs. The pharmaceuticals are 

taken to ease the effects of those other drugs. 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

58

Key Developments

The ODD situation continues to worsen, spurred 

by the expansion of the rave culture throughout the 

nation. Law enforcement agencies are clearly more 

concerned with club drugs, particularly MDMA and 

GHB, than other drugs in the ODD category, and 

their concern seems to be justified.

The Maine Drug Enforcement Agency, whose 

agents frequently speak to schoolchildren and 

their parents on drug abuse issues, reports that 

increasingly, students and parents ask more 

questions about MDMA, GHB, ketamine, and 

Rohypnol than any other subject.

The Los Angeles Police Department reports 

that the sale of MDMA, GHB, and ketamine, 

formerly restricted almost exclusively to raves, 

has moved to open-air street sales.

Many agencies note significant increases in 

MDMA investigations and seizures.

• The Phoenix Police Department reports 

tremendous increases in rave activity in the 

past year and notes recent investigations of 

several local MDMA laboratories. The 

department also reports that MDMA trafficking organizations are becoming more 

sophisticated and more organized.

• The Fairfax County (VA) Police Department 

reports that MDMA seizures increased from 

approximately 200 dosage units in 1998 to 

over 30,000 in 1999. The MDMA was shipped 

from New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. 

The department reports that at least two MDMA 

tablets reportedly contained heroin, which was 

later verified through specialized field tests.

• The DEA Field Divisions in Chicago, Miami, 

New York, and Philadelphia also report the 

availability of tablets allegedly containing both 

heroin and MDMA, but these reports have yet to 

be substantiated by laboratory testing. The combination tablets, known by the street names of 

“space,” “roll,” and “bean,” are reportedly 

identifiable by stamps—such as a three-pointed 

star or a Batman logo—used to signify the 

potency and content of MDMA, heroin, and 

sometimes cocaine or methamphetamine.

• Significant increases in the availability and 

use of MDMA and increases in investigations 

and seizures of MDMA were reported by 

law enforcement in Alabama, Connecticut, 

Delaware, Florida, Maryland, Minnesota, 

Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode 

Island, Texas, and Virginia.

Information from the DEA Chicago Field 

Division documents the appearance of PMA, a 

potent and potentially lethal amphetamine

analog, in the United States. The DEA documents 

other PMA seizures in Prince George County, 

Virginia, and Broward County, Florida. The 

highly publicized deaths of two teens in Chicago, 

who believed they were using MDMA, were 

attributed to PMA.

Traffickers in countries outside Western 

Europe may be developing the capability to 

produce MDMA. Analysts and Special Agents at 

DEA’s Special Operations Division warn that the 

recent seizure of two laboratories in China and 

one in Colombia, as well as large-scale methamphetamine production in Mexico, mark traffickers 

in these countries as potential sources of MDMA. 

The Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation reports the recent seizure of a major 

GHB laboratory in Cheyenne. The laboratory 

was capable of producing multiple pounds of 

GHB, based on the equipment and the amounts 

of precursors found.

Information generated by a multiagency 

investigation in Phoenix and subsequent analysis 

of seized documents by NDIC analysts has revealed 

the widespread use of the Internet to market 

GBL to GHB producers nationwide. Postseizure 

analysis shows that thousands of gallons of GBL 

were shipped from a single Internet distributor to 

over 1,000 potential GHB producers in 47 states. 
National Drug Intelligence Center

59

Many of the primary destinations for large shipments of the GBL were cities and towns with 

colleges and universities. Follow-up investigation 

revealed that some purchasers of GBL are 

convicted pedophiles.

Information provided by the Gainesville (FL) 

Police Department, Genesee County (MI) Sheriff’s 

Department, Lee County (MS) Sheriff’s Department, Maine Drug Enforcement Agency, 

Marietta/Cobb/Smyrna (GA) Organized Crime 

Unit, and Wyandot County (OH) Sheriff’s Office 

document the recent appearance of LSD gel 

tabs. The Gainesville Police Department reports 

recent seizures of thousands of gel tabs. Gel tabs 

may be gaining popularity because they are easy to 

administer and look less like an illegal drug. The 

availability of gel tabs indicates the use of new and 

possibly more sophisticated production methods.

Projections

The rave culture, which has spurred the introduction of a variety of drugs to a new group of 

users, will continue to grow and negatively affect 

teens and young adults throughout the nation. 

The widespread availability and use of drugs at 

raves will place greater demands on already 

overburdened law enforcement agencies and 

treatment facilities well into the future.

The demand for MDMA has not peaked as 

evidenced by major increases in the number of 

seizures and in the use of MDMA by high school 

students and young adults. As demand increases, 

MDMA use likely will expand beyond raves and 

dance clubs to other social settings.

Large-scale domestic MDMA production 

likely will remain impracticable because of the 

chemistry background required and regulations 

restricting the availability of precursors in the 

United States. Nevertheless, law enforcement 

agencies are likely to encounter increasing numbers 

of small-scale MDMA laboratories operated 

locally by independent producers attempting to 

skirt wholesale suppliers and midlevel distributors 

to maximize their profits.

Money Laundering 

Money laundering is inextricably linked to 

the illicit U.S. drug trade. The Office of National 

Drug Control Policy projects the street value of 

illicit drugs sold in the United States during 2000 

to exceed $62 billion.27 Controlled by violent drug 

traffickers, these revenues—greater than the gross 

national product of 150 nations—pose a serious 

threat to the economic integrity and security of the 

United States. Drug traffickers launder illicit 

profits and ultimately integrate the funds into the 

legitimate economy. Laundered drug proceeds 

are used to finance drug operations and other 

crimes, fund insurgency and terrorist organizations, 

and promote corruption. Consequently, U.S. 

anti-money laundering efforts are critical to 

destabilizing drug trafficking organizations and 

limiting their power.

Money Laundering Hubs

The domestic money laundering threat is 

centered in the following areas: Chicago, Los 

Angeles, Miami, New York, San Juan (PR), 

and the Southwest Border. The National Money 

Laundering Strategy for 2000 identifies 

Los Angeles, New York/Northern New Jersey, 

San Juan, and the Southwest Border (specifically for cross-border currency smuggling) as 

High Intensity Money Laundering and Related 

Financial Crime Areas (HIFCAs). HIFCAs will 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

60

concentrate federal, state, and local law enforcement efforts to combat money laundering, whether 

based on drug trafficking or other crimes, in high 

intensity money laundering zones.

The Southwest Region’s proximity to Mexico 

significantly increases its potential as a drug 

money laundering area. Traffickers use the 

region’s major cities—Los Angeles, San Diego, 

Phoenix, Tucson, El Paso, and Houston—as hubs 

for laundering money and as transshipment points 

for drug proceeds destined for source countries, 

such as Mexico and Colombia. In Los Angeles, 

5,171 Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) in 

excess of $7.4 billion were filed in FY1998 and 

FY1999, the second highest number of filings in 

the United States after New York. Los Angeles 

had the highest number of outbound Reports of 

International Transportation of Currency or 

Monetary Instruments (CMIRs) and the second 

highest number of inbound CMIRs filed in 

FY1998 and FY1999. 

Suspicious Activity Report (SAR, U.S. 

Treasury Form 90-22.47): All financial institutions in the United States are required to 

make this report for various suspicious 

transactions including those totaling 

$5,000 or more that involve potential 

money laundering or other violations of the 

Bank Secrecy Act. 

Report of International Transportation 

of Currency or Monetary Instruments

(CMIR, U.S. Customs Form 4790): Report 

required for the physical transport of currency or bearer monetary instruments over 

$10,000 into or out of the United States. 

Currency Transaction Report (CTR, IRS 

Form 4789): Report required for cash 

transactions of more than $10,000 conducted at financial institutions.

Traffickers exploit the New York/New Jersey 

Region’s world-renowned business infrastructure, 

transportation facilities, and international financial institutions to launder money. The New York/

Northern New Jersey metropolitan area is the focal 

point for laundering drug money and represents the 

greatest challenge for anti-money laundering efforts. 

The New York/New Jersey HIDTA estimates that 

drug traffickers launder between $4 billion and $8 

billion annually in the New York/Northern New 

Jersey metropolitan area. In FY1998 and FY1999, 

more than 14,000 SARs in excess of $33.2 billion 

were filed in this area. During this time, New York 

surpassed all states with the highest aggregate 

dollar amounts reported for both Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs) and CMIRs.

The Florida/Caribbean Region’s seaports, 

airports, international banks, and proximity to 

drug source countries and Caribbean offshore 

financial havens make it susceptible to drug 

money laundering. This region serves as a 

transshipment point for drug proceeds from 

other U.S. cities. The major drug money laundering areas for this region are in south Florida 

and Puerto Rico. In Miami, 4,963 SARs in 

excess of $5.2 billion were filed in FY1998 and 

FY1999, the third highest number of filings in 

the United States. Miami had the highest number 

of inbound CMIR filings and the third highest 

number of outbound CMIR filings in FY1998 

and FY1999. 

In Puerto Rico, financial institutions filed 566 

SARs totaling $627.7 million in FY1998 and 

FY1999. However, San Juan banks filed only 45 

SARs totaling $2.4 million despite ranking ninth 

in the United States in volume of currency 

reported on inbound CMIRs and eighth in volume 

of currency reported on outbound CMIRs. San 

Juan ranks below only New York/New Jersey and 

Los Angeles for suspicious postal money order 

activity as identified by the U.S. Postal Inspection 

Service. The apparent discrepancy between the 

large volume of reported currency flowing into and 

out of San Juan and the relatively small number 

and value of reported suspicious activities will be 

a primary focus of the San Juan HIFCA.

Drug money laundering occurs in all major 

cities in the Great Lakes Region. The greatest 

threat exists in Chicago. With more than 300 U.S. 

banks, 40 foreign banks, and 5 major exchanges, 

Chicago is the most influential financial center in 

the region and is a transshipment point for drug 

proceeds. In FY1998 and FY1999, more than 
National Drug Intelligence Center

61

2,200 SARs in excess of $7.8 billion were filed 

by financial institutions in Chicago. Chicago ranks 

second in the nation in the aggregate dollar amount 

reported for inbound CMIRs at $10.2 billion for 

FY1998 and FY1999. 

Significant amounts of drug proceeds are also 

laundered in major metropolitan areas of the 

Mid-Atlantic (Baltimore, Philadelphia, and 

Washington, D.C.), New England (Boston), 

Pacific (San Francisco and Seattle), Southeast 

(Atlanta), and West Central (Denver) Regions. 

Drug traffickers exploit the financial, transportation, and communications infrastructures of these 

areas to launder proceeds generated in these cities’

sizeable drug markets and in surrounding areas.

Organizations

Mexican and Colombian drug trafficking organizations are the primary producers, transporters, 

and wholesalers of illegal drugs throughout the 

United States. These organizations earn billions of 

dollars from their drug trafficking activities and 

pose the greatest challenge to U.S. anti-money 

laundering efforts. Other drug traffickers that 

launder illicit proceeds in the United States include 

Asian, Cuban, Dominican, Haitian, Indian, Italian, 

Jamaican, Middle Eastern, Pakistani, Peruvian, 

Puerto Rican, Russian, and West African criminal 

groups as well as street gangs such as the Bloods, 

Crips, Gangster Disciples, and Latin Kings.

Mexican trafficking organizations constitute 

the greatest money laundering threat in the Great 

Lakes, Pacific, Southwest, and West Central 

Regions, and they maintain a presence in the other 

regions. Mexican organizations generate billions 

of dollars in drug proceeds from the sale of 

cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana. 

These organizations either launder their own funds 

or use independent Mexican money launderers. 

Mexican traffickers operating in the United States 

move large sums of drug proceeds back to Mexico primarily through the shipment of bulk cash 

and monetary instruments such as money orders 

and checks. In early 2000, federal and local law 

enforcement officers raided a stash house belonging 

to a Mexican drug trafficking organization 

located in southern California and seized $2.6 

million in drug proceeds that were destined for 

Mexico. Mexican organizations also extensively 

use money service businesses such as money 

remittance companies and exchange businesses to 

launder drug proceeds. 

Colombian trafficking organizations constitute 

the greatest money laundering threat in the New 

York/New Jersey, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, and 

Florida/Caribbean Regions. Colombian organizations also maintain a significant presence in the 

other regions. Colombian trafficking organizations 

launder their own proceeds, use other Colombian 

money launderers, or use money launderers from 

other ethnic criminal groups. For example, 

Colombian traffickers reportedly use Mexican bulk 

currency smugglers to transport money into Mexico 

and Asian-owned garment businesses in Los 

Angeles to launder money. Colombian drug trafficking organizations launder drug proceeds through 

various means such as smuggling bulk cash, using 

money service businesses, and using the Colombian 

Black Market Peso Exchange (BMPE). 

The Black Market Peso Exchange (BMPE) 

enables Colombian traffickers to exchange 

U.S. drug dollars for Colombian pesos and 

repatriate an estimated $5 billion in drug proceeds to Colombia annually. The BMPE also 

enables Colombian merchants to exchange 

pesos for U.S. dollars in order to purchase 

U.S. products. BMPE brokers, for a fee, 

match the Colombian traffickers’ need for 

pesos with Colombian merchants’ need for 

dollars. Traffickers use the pesos to finance 

drug operations in Colombia. Colombian 

merchants use the dollars to purchase 

goods from U.S. vendors. The Colombian 

merchants either smuggle the goods into 

Colombia or falsely invoice the shipments to 

avoid taxes and tariffs.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

62

Methods

Drug money launderers are increasingly 

transporting bulk quantities of currency to foreign 

destinations to avoid U.S. financial institution 

reporting requirements and law enforcement 

action. The laundering of drug proceeds through 

money service businesses remains a significant 

threat. Various other methods are used including 

structuring bank deposits and money order purchases (smurfing), commingling drug proceeds 

with proceeds from legitimate businesses, using 

parallel banking systems (BMPE) and trade-based 

schemes (precious metals and gems), and exploiting 

the securities and gaming industries.

The U.S. Department of Treasury Financial 

Crimes Enforcement Network defines smurfing 

as a money laundering placement technique in 

which the launderer divides large cash deposits into smaller amounts and attempts thereby 

to avoid CTR reporting requirements.

Bulk Currency and Monetary Instrument 

Smuggling. Smuggling bulk cash and monetary 

instruments, such as money orders and checks, is a 

principal drug money laundering method used in the 

United States. Bulk shipments of drug proceeds are 

smuggled out of the United States concealed in 

private vehicles, commercial trucks, and air and 

maritime cargo; carried by couriers traveling on 

commercial airlines, trains, and buses; and sent 

through parcel delivery and express mail services. 

In August 2000, the U.S. Customs Service seized 

$11.4 million in a 6-week period as part of 

“Operation Powerplay,” which focused primarily 

on drug-related outbound currency smuggling. 

Mexico is the primary destination for drug proceeds smuggled from the United States; the funds 

are often deposited at Mexican financial institutions, 

including casas de cambio (exchange houses) and 

banks. Private vehicles and commercial trucks are 

the most used conveyances for transporting 

currency across the Southwest Border. In April 

1999, $9.9 million worth of suspected drug 

proceeds were seized from a tractor-trailer during a 

traffic stop in Texas. The money was being transported from Chicago to El Paso and most likely 

was destined for Mexico.

Significant amounts of drug proceeds are 

smuggled from the United States to other foreign 

countries and offshore havens. Colombia, the 

Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Haiti, Israel, 

Jamaica, Lebanon, Panama, as well as offshore 

financial havens such as the Bahamas and Cayman 

Islands, are common destinations for drug proceeds smuggled from the United States. 

Money Service Businesses. Money service 

businesses such as money remittance, money 

exchange, and check cashing firms have been 

implicated in several drug investigations for 

accepting and transferring drug proceeds on 

behalf of trafficking organizations. The number 

of money service businesses has increased 

throughout the United States particularly in 

Atlanta, Chicago, Philadelphia, and the Southwest Region.28

Money remittance businesses accept cash or 

negotiable instruments and wire transfer these 

funds to designated recipients, often outside the 

United States. These businesses transfer 

millions of dollars in drug profits to Mexico, 

Colombia, the Dominican Republic, and other 

destinations. Federal investigations have shown 

that corrupt remittance company owners and 

employees structure transactions. They accept 

currency over the $10,000 reporting threshold 

required under the Bank Secrecy Act and avoid 

filing a CTR by issuing false receipts, making it 

appear as though numerous individuals conducted 

transactions under $10,000. Some remittance 

company owners and employees also knowingly 

permit individuals to make frequent structured 

transactions using false names and telephone 

numbers.
National Drug Intelligence Center

63

Money exchange businesses and check cashing 

firms are often used to launder drug proceeds. 

Various U.S. law enforcement agencies have noted 

the significance of Mexican casas de cambio in the 

laundering process. These money exchange businesses in Mexico conducted suspicious wire 

transfers to U.S. bank accounts totaling billions 

of dollars in 1999. Some of these transfers were 

to U.S. bank accounts opened in the names of 

nonexistent casas de cambio. In Los Angeles, 

three top executives of a publicly traded check 

cashing firm headquartered in Sacramento 

pleaded guilty to drug money laundering charges 

in 1999. The amounts laundered exceeded $3 

million over a 2-year period.

Parallel Banking. Parallel or underground 

banking systems such as the Colombian BMPE, 

the Chinese Underground Banking System 

(CUBS), and the South Asia-based Hawala/

Hundi system are used to launder drug proceeds 

to source countries. Drug traffickers use these 

systems because they offer anonymity and are 

generally less expensive and more efficient, for 

their purposes, than the official banking system. 

Similar to BMPE brokers, CUBS and Hawala/

Hundi agents accept drug dollars from traffickers 

in the United States and make these funds available, 

in foreign currencies, to the traffickers or their 

representatives overseas. These transactions 

require an agent located in the United States as 

well as an agent located in the country where the 

funds are paid. The transfers are merely bookkeeping entries between agents whose accounts 

are settled through a bulk transfer of cash or a 

wire transfer through the official banking system.

Securities. The securities industry is susceptible 

to drug money laundering because it offers 

services comparable to the banking industry 

without the same degree of regulation. Securities 

dealers and brokers generally serve an elite 

clientele and may facilitate requests for services 

without practicing due diligence. An example of 

the securities industry being used to launder 

money occurred in 1999. Traffickers contacted 

undercover law enforcement agents posing as 

securities brokers to pick up and place drug 

proceeds into the financial system. The agents 

were then instructed to transfer the funds to the 

accounts of a major stock brokerage firm.29

Gaming Industry. The gaming industry in the 

United States remains vulnerable to drug money 

laundering. One technique used to launder drug 

proceeds through casinos involves structuring cash 

purchases of casino chips or tokens to avoid 

reporting requirements and subsequently redeeming 

the chips for checks drawn on, or wire transfers 

from, casino bank accounts. Corrupt casino 

employees have also facilitated drug money 

laundering activities. In June 1998, four casino 

employees working at three casinos were arrested 

and charged with laundering $400,000 for 

undercover agents whom they believed to be 

drug traffickers.30

Other significant drug money laundering 

threats persist throughout the United States. 

Techniques such as structuring bank deposits 

and money order purchases, commingling drug 

proceeds with those generated at legitimate 

businesses, and purchasing real estate and vehicles 

are still used extensively by drug money launderers. 

Drug traffickers continue to recruit lawyers and 

accountants to launder illicit drug proceeds. 

“Payable through” accounts—accounts opened 

by foreign banks at U.S. financial institutions—

allow several hundred account holders to anonymously share one account number and have been 

exploited by drug money launderers in the past. 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

64

Key Developments

Mexico is playing an increasingly significant 

role in the laundering of U.S. drug proceeds. The 

amount of bulk cash and monetary instruments 

smuggled across the Southwest Border for placement into the Mexican financial system and the 

amount of drug proceeds transiting through Mexico 

have increased drastically in recent years. 

• U.S. Customs estimates that $30 billion in 

drug proceeds were smuggled into Mexico 

in FY1999.

• Mexican drug trafficking organizations move 

multimillion-dollar amounts of U.S. currency 

from Chicago and the Midwest to the Southwest Border and Mexico, according to the 

Chicago HIDTA.

According to the U.S. Department of Treasury 

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), 

dollar-denominated, nonnegotiable monetary 

instruments are also being transported from the 

United States to Mexico. Nonnegotiable monetary instruments include bank checks, traveler’s 

checks, or money orders made payable to the 

order of a named person that either have not been 

endorsed or do not bear restrictive endorsements. 

Cross-border transportation of nonnegotiable 

monetary instruments reduces the risk associated 

with transporting bulk cash, and nonnegotiable 

monetary instruments, unlike regular monetary 

instruments, are not subject to CMIR reporting 

requirements.

SARs filed by U.S. financial institutions 

indicate that drug proceeds are increasingly 

being cycled through Mexico directly back to 

the United States, instead of transiting Mexico 

en route to Colombia or other Central and South 

American destinations. 

• FinCEN analysis of recent suspicious wire 

transfer activity shows an average of $1 billion 

per month of large wire transactions ($1.5 

million or more per transaction) moving from 

Mexican money exchange houses and other 

financial institutions to U.S. payees. 

• The Federal Reserve Bank in Miami has 

observed an increase in the amount of money 

transferred from Mexico to Miami and on to 

other domestic locations such as New York 

and Houston, according to the South Florida 

HIDTA.

Projections

Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, San 

Juan, and the Southwest Border will remain the 

principal domestic money laundering hubs. 

Mexican drug trafficking organizations will continue to use Los Angeles and the Southwest Border 

as transshipment points for drug proceeds destined 

for Mexico. Colombian and Caribbean drug trafficking organizations will continue to launder drug 

proceeds in Miami and San Juan. New York and 

Chicago, major distribution centers, will continue 

to be used extensively by various traffickers for 

drug money laundering activities.

Mexican and Colombian organizations will 

dominate U.S. drug money laundering in the near 

term. However, if the Colombian organizations 

become exclusively bulk wholesale suppliers of 

cocaine and heroin and further distance themselves 

from U.S. transactions, Mexican and Caribbean 

organizations likely will increase their transportation and distribution activities in the United States. 

The profits generated from increased trafficking 

activity will necessitate an increase in Mexican 

and Caribbean organizations’ laundering activities. 
National Drug Intelligence Center

65

Bulk currency and monetary instrument 

smuggling will remain a prominent drug money 

laundering method used in the United States. 

Legislative efforts and law enforcement initiatives 

focusing on the financial services industry will contribute to increased outbound smuggling activities. 

If Mexican and Caribbean organizations increase 

their money laundering activities, they will continue 

to rely on, and most likely increase, their use of bulk 

currency and monetary instrument smuggling. 

The laundering of drug proceeds through money 

service businesses will remain a significant threat as 

evidenced by the increasing number of suspect 

money remittance firms operating in Atlanta, 

Chicago, Philadelphia, and the Southwest Region. 

The volume of suspicious wire transfer activity from 

Mexican money exchange businesses to U.S. bank 

accounts is another indication of the continued use 

of these businesses to launder drug proceeds. 

As regulatory and enforcement actions make 

it more difficult to launder money, drug traffickers 

will devise new methods and use emerging technologies. Internet funds transfer programs and 

payment technologies such as electronic cash, 

smart cards, and electronic purses may eliminate 

the need for money launderers to store large 

amounts of cash, structure financial transactions 

to avoid Bank Secrecy Act reporting, or ship bulk 

currency to foreign destinations.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

66

This page intentionally left blank.
National Drug Intelligence Center

67

Notes

1. The terms Mexican drug trafficking organization or Mexican organization used in this assessment refer to criminal 

organizations that consist of Mexican nationals as well as those that consist of Mexican Americans.

2. The nine regions reported in this assessment correspond to those of the U.S. Department of Justice Organized Crime 

Drug Enforcement Task Forces: New England, New York/New Jersey, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, Florida/Caribbean, Great 

Lakes, West Central, Southwest, and Pacific.

3. The Federal-wide Drug Seizure System (FDSS) contains information on drug seizures made by the Drug Enforcement 

Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Customs Service, U.S. Border Patrol, and U.S. Coast Guard. Seizures by other federal agencies are included in FDSS if custody of the drug evidence is transferred to one of the agencies 

listed above.

4. Price and purity information used throughout this report is from the Drug Enforcement Administration except where 

noted otherwise.

5. The 2000 Interagency Assessment of Cocaine Movement places average potential cocaine production at 870 metric tons 

per year and worldwide demand at approximately 600 metric tons. 

6. The National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) is the only survey that regularly estimates drug use among 

members of the U.S. civilian, noninstitutionalized population aged 12 or older. 

Lifetime use is defined as using a drug at least once in a user’s life; past year use, using a drug at least once in the preceding 365 days; current use, using a drug at least once in the preceding 30 days.

7. Established by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the Treatment Episode 

Data Set (TEDS) comprises data on treatment admissions that are routinely collected by states to monitor their individual substance abuse treatment systems. TEDS consists of a minimum data set of 19 items collected by nearly all states 

and a supplemental data set of 15 items collected by some states. The minimum data set consists of demographic information, route of administration, ethnicity, and age.

8. The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program, a modified version of the Drug Use Forecasting Program 

established by the National Institute of Justice, was initiated in 1997. ADAM involves two components: a questionnaire 

administered by a trained interviewer to an arrestee in a booking facility within 48 hours of arrest, and a urine sample 

collected from the arrestee that is used to corroborate claims about recent drug use. Currently, data are collected at 35 

ADAM sites.

9. The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) was established by SAMHSA to measure drug use through hospital emergency departments. Hospitals eligible for DAWN are nonfederal, short-stay, general hospitals that have a 24-hour emergency department in the coterminous United States. DAWN emergency department data include information on 

emergency department episodes that are induced by or related to the use of an illegal drug or the nonmedical use of a 

legal drug. DAWN medical examiner data include information on drug abuse deaths and the drugs mentioned in connection with the deaths reported by 141 participating medical examiners in 42 metropolitan areas.

10. DAWN medical examiner data for 1998 show large increases in mentions of cocaine in Phoenix (+78%), Salt Lake City 

(+75%), Atlanta (+75%), Kansas City (+53%), Washington, DC (+49%), Portland (+39%), and Boston (+36%). Large 

decreases were reported for Minneapolis (-51%), Norfolk (-37%), Providence (-24%), and San Diego (-23%).

11. The Monitoring the Future (MTF) Study is an ongoing study of the behaviors, attitudes, and values of students and 

young adults in the United States. MTF annually surveys a representative sample of eighth-, tenth-, and twelfth-grade 

students in public and private schools in the coterminous United States and a subsample of college students and young 

adults from previous graduating classes who participated in the survey as seniors.

12. The Parents’ Resource Institute on Drug Education (PRIDE) Survey represents data on substance abuse from sixththrough twelfth-grade students collected between August and June of the school year. The survey is designated by federal law as a measurement of the effectiveness of the National Drug Control Strategy.

13. Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (tenth ed.) defines Caucasian as “of or relating to the white race as defined by 

law specifically as composed of persons of European, North African, or southwest Asian ancestry.”
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

68

14. The Houston County Sheriff’s Office is located in Warner-Robins, Georgia, between Interstates 16 and 75. Interstate 75 

is a major route for cocaine transported out of Florida to Atlanta; Interstate 16 is used to transport cocaine from Savannah 

to Atlanta.

15. Developed by the DEA Office of Diversion Control, in cooperation with the United Nations International Narcotics 

Control Board, the Letter of Non-Objection Program promotes cooperation from the source countries of the precursor 

chemicals ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. China, India, the Czech Republic, and Mexico agreed to the program, 

which states that all requests for significant quantities of these chemicals are subject to pre-export notification procedures, and that export of these chemicals is subject to positive affirmation by the importing country that there is no 

objection to the transaction.

16. In 1998, federal courts handed down 1,802 sentences for heroin-related crimes, 9.0% of all sentences. In 1999, heroinrelated sentences declined to 1,797, or 8.0% of all sentences.

17. The Domestic Monitor Program (DMP) is the DEA’s heroin purchase program. The program is designed to identify the 

purity, price, and source of origin of retail-level heroin available in 23 major metropolitan areas of the United States.

18. In 1992, over 77 percent of individuals admitted for treatment were injecting heroin, while less than 20 percent were 

snorting.

19. The ADAM Program does not distinguish heroin from other opiates, including codeine and morphine.

20. In DAWN medical examiner data for 1998, heroin/morphine ranked first in medical examiner cases in Baltimore 

(73%), Portland (72%), Salt Lake City (70%), Seattle (62%), Boston (55%), Philadelphia (54%), Norfolk (53%), San 

Francisco (52%), San Diego (49%), Phoenix (45%), Los Angeles (39%), and Las Vegas (39%). Heroin/morphine 

ranked second in Newark (53%), Chicago (50%), New York (48%), Providence (43%), Washington, DC (41%), Cleveland (41%), Detroit (36%), Denver (32%), and Minneapolis (29%). 

DAWN medical examiner data also show large increases and decreases at a number of sites. The largest increases in 

heroin/morphine mentions were reported in Kansas City (+130%), Phoenix (+64%), Oklahoma City (+63%), Atlanta 

(+53%), New Orleans (+38%), Miami (+32%), Las Vegas (27%), and Salt Lake City (+22%). The largest decreases 

were reported in Buffalo (-44%), Cleveland (-28%), and Philadelphia (-28%).

21. The term ditchweed is commonly used to describe wild marijuana. Hydro is a general term used to describe high-grade 

marijuana grown in hydroponic operations.

22. These states do not necessarily have the most cannabis; they may have the most or the most effective eradication 

programs.

23. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the term club drugs refers to drugs used by young adults at all-night 

parties, dance clubs, or raves. Club drugs include MDMA, GHB, Rohypnol, ketamine, and LSD.

24. The use of trademarked names, such as Rohypnol and Valium, in this assessment does not imply any criminal activity 

on the part of the companies that manufacture these drugs. 

25. National monitoring indicators do not yet include information on GHB, but the MTF Study has added questions on 

GHB for the 2000 study. 

26. TEDS reporting on hallucinogens includes LSD, DMT (dimethyltryptamine), STP (4 methyl 2,5 dimethoxyamphetamine, or synthetic mescaline), psilocybin, mescaline, and peyote. 

27. This figure is based on estimates of the quantity, purity, and price of cocaine, crack, heroin, methamphetamine, and 

marijuana as measured by the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

28. The National Money Laundering Strategy for 2000 stipulates that money service businesses will be required to register 

with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and file SARs by the end of 2001 and that industry compliance guidelines will be provided.

29. The National Money Laundering Strategy for 2000 stipulates that FinCEN issue a proposed rule and draft form for suspicious 

activity reporting, along with industry compliance guidelines, for securities brokers and dealers by the end of 2000.

30. The National Money Laundering Strategy for 2000 stipulates that FinCEN issue a final rule for the reporting of suspicious activity by casinos and card clubs by the end of 2000.
National Drug Intelligence Center

69

Sources

National and International

American Embassy, Mexico

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Youth Risk Behavior Survey

Central Intelligence Agency

Crime and Narcotics Center

Criminal Intelligence Service Canada

Defense Intelligence Agency

Drug Enforcement Administration

Atlanta Field Division

Boston Field Division

Caribbean Field Division

Chicago Field Division

Dallas Field Division

Denver Field Division

Detroit Field Division

Domestic Monitor Program 

El Paso Field Division

El Paso Intelligence Center

Houston Field Division

Los Angeles Field Division

Miami Field Division

New Orleans Field Division

New York Field Division

Newark Field Division

Office of Diversion Control

Philadelphia Field Division

Phoenix Field Division

San Diego Field Division

San Francisco Field Division

Seattle Field Division

Special Operations Division

St. Louis Field Division

Washington DC Field Division

East Coast Gang Investigators Association

Executive Office for United States Attorneys

U.S. Attorneys’ Offices

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Albany Field Office

Albuquerque Field Office

Anchorage Field Office

Atlanta Field Office

Baltimore Field Office

Birmingham Field Office

Boston Field Office

Buffalo Field Office

Charlotte Field Office

Chicago Field Office

Cincinnati Field Office

Cleveland Field Office

Columbia Field Office

Dallas Field Office

Denver Field Office

Detroit Field Office

El Paso Field Office

Honolulu Field Office

Houston Field Office

Indianapolis Field Office

Jackson Field Office

Jacksonville Field Office

Kansas City Field Office

Knoxville Field Office
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

70

Las Vegas Field Office

Little Rock Field Office

Los Angeles Field Office

Louisville Field Office

Memphis Field Office

Milwaukee Field Office

Minneapolis Field Office

Mobile Field Office

Newark Field Office

New Haven Field Office

New Orleans Field Office

New York Field Office

Norfolk Field Office

North Miami Beach Field Office

Oklahoma City Field Office

Omaha Field Office

Philadelphia Field Office

Phoenix Field Office

Pittsburgh Field Office

Portland Field Office

Richmond Field Office

Sacramento Field Office

St. Louis Field Office

Salt Lake City Field Office

San Antonio Field Office

San Diego Field Office

San Francisco Field Office

San Juan Field Office

Seattle Field Office

Springfield Field Office

Tampa Field Office

Strategic Intelligence and Analysis Unit

Washington DC Field Office

Federal Bureau of Prisons

Sacramento Intelligence Unit

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas 

Appalachia

Atlanta

Central Florida

Central Valley California

Chicago

Gulf Coast

Hawaii

Houston

Lake County

Los Angeles

Midwest

Milwaukee

New England

New York/New Jersey

North Texas

Northern California

Northwest

Ohio

Oregon

Philadelphia/Camden

Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands

Rocky Mountain

South Florida

South Florida Investigative Support Center

Southeastern Michigan

Southwest Border

(Arizona Alliance Planning Committee, 

California Border Alliance Group, New 

Mexico, South Texas, and West Texas 

partnerships)

Washington/Baltimore

Immigration and Naturalization Service

International Outlaw Motorcycle Gang Investigators Association

Mid-Atlantic/Great Lakes Organized Crime Law Enforcement Network

Narcotic Information Network

National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors

National Institutes of Health
National Drug Intelligence Center

71

National Institute of Justice

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute on Drug Abuse

Community Epidemiology Work Group

National Alliance of Gang Investigators Associations

Northwest Gang Investigators Association

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces

Parents’ Resource Institute on Drug Education 

Rocky Mountain Information Network

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Drug Abuse Warning Network

National Household Survey on Drug Abuse 

Treatment Episode Data Set

Toronto Police Department

U.S. Border Patrol

Special Coordination Center

U.S. Bureau of the Census

U.S. Coast Guard

9th District

14th District

17th District

Atlantic Command

U.S. Conference of Mayors

U.S. Customs Service

Office of Information and Technology

Air and Marine Interdiction Coordination Center

U.S. Department of Defense

Joint Interagency Task Force-West

Joint Task Force-6

U.S. Department of State

U.S. Forest Service

U.S. General Accounting Office

U.S. Sentencing Commission

Western States Information Network
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

72

State

National Drug Threat Survey respondents are listed in bold.

Alabama

Alabama Bureau of Investigation

Birmingham Police Department

Dallas County Sheriff’s Department

Houston County Sheriff’s Department

Huntsville Police Department

Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department

Mobile County Sheriff’s Office

Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department

Montgomery Police Department

Perry County Sheriff’s Department

Prichard Police Department

Tuscaloosa Police Department

Alaska

Alaska National Guard

Anchorage Police Department

Fairbanks Police Department

Arizona

Arizona Department of Public Safety

Arizona State Gang Task Force

Chandler Police Department

Graham County Sheriff’s Office

La Paz County Sheriff’s Department

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office

Northern Arizona Street Crimes Task Force

Phoenix Police Department

Pima County Sheriff’s Department

Tucson Police Department

Arkansas

Arkansas Crime Information Center

Calhoun County Sheriff’s Department

Fayetteville Police Department

Fort Smith Police Department

Little Rock Police Department

Pine Bluff Police Department

Prairie County Sheriff’s Department

California

Alameda County Sheriff’s Department

Alpine County Sheriff’s Department

Bay Area Narcotics Information Network

California Department of Alcohol and Drug 

Programs

California Department of Corrections

California Department of Finance

California Department of Justice

California Drug Endangered Children

Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement

Bureau of Investigation

California Health and Human Services Agency

Chula Vista Police Department

El Cajon Police Department

Fresno County Sheriff’s Department

Fresno Police Department

Imperial County Narcotic Task Force

Long Beach Police Department

Los Angeles Clearinghouse

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department

Los Angeles Police Department

Modoc County Sheriff’s Office

Multiagency Gang Enforcement Consortium

Riverside County Sheriff’s Department

Riverside Police Department

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department

Sacramento Police Department

San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department

San Diego County Integrated Narcotics Task Force

San Diego County Regional Narcotics 

Information Network

San Diego County Sheriff’s Department

San Diego Police Department

San Diego State University

San Francisco Police Department

San Mateo Narcotics Task Force

Santa Clara County Specialized Enforcement Team

Sierra County Sheriff’s Department

Southern Alameda County Narcotics Task Force

Stanislaus Drug Enforcement Agency

Stockton Police Department

Unified Narcotic Enforcement Team
National Drug Intelligence Center

73

Colorado

Aurora Police Department

Colorado Department of Human Services

Colorado Office of the Attorney General

Colorado Springs Police Department

Colorado State Patrol

Denver Police Department

El Paso County Sheriff’s Office

Ft. Collins Police Department

Jackson County Sheriff’s Office

Mineral County Sheriff’s Office

Connecticut

Bridgeport Police Department

Connecticut Department of Mental Health and 

Addiction Services

Connecticut State Police

Statewide Narcotics Task Force

Hartford Police Department

Delaware

Clayton Police Department

Delaware State Police

Dover Police Department

Milford Police Department

New Castle County Police Department

District of Columbia

Metropolitan Police Department

Florida

Alachua County Sheriff’s Office

Blue Lightning Strike Force

Broward County Sheriff’s Office

Escambia County Sheriff’s Office

Florida Attorney General’s Office

Florida Department of Law Enforcement

Florida Office of Drug Control

Florida State Medical Examiners Commission

Fort Lauderdale Police Department

Gainesville Police Department

Hialeah Police Department

Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office

Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office

Miami Police Department

Orange County Sheriff’s Office

Pensacola Police Department

St. Petersburg Police Department

Tallahassee Police Department

Tampa Police Department

Georgia

Atlanta Police Department

Gainesville Police Department

Georgia Bureau of Investigation

Glascock County Sheriff’s Department

Houston County Sheriff’s Department

Liberty County Sheriff’s Department/Multi 

Agency Crack Enforcement Drug Task Force

Marietta/Cobb/Smyrna Organized Crime Unit

Marietta Police Department

Guam

Attorney General of Guam

Hawaii

Hawaii Police Department

Honolulu Police Department

Kauai Police Department

Maui Police Department

Idaho

Ada County Sheriff’s Office

Bannock County Sheriff’s Department

Boise Police Department

Camas County Sheriff’s Department

Idaho County Sheriff’s Office

Idaho Criminal Investigation Bureau

Idaho Department of Health and Welfare

Idaho Department of Law Enforcement

Idaho Falls Police Department

Idaho National Guard

Idaho State Police

Idaho Statistical Analysis Center

Lewiston County Sheriff’s Office
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

74

Illinois

Alton Police Department

Aurora Police Department

Brown County Sheriff’s Department

Calhoun County Sheriff’s Department

Chicago Police Department

Decatur Police Department

Grundy County Sheriff’s Office

Hardin County Sheriff’s Department

Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority

Illinois Department of Human Services

Illinois Department of Public Health

Illinois Office of Alcohol and Substance Abuse

Illinois State Police

Kane County Sheriff’s Office

Macon County Sheriff’s Department

Madison County Sheriff’s Department

Putnam County Sheriff’s Department

Rockford Police Department

Springfield Police Department

Winnebago County Sheriff’s Department

Indiana

Allen County Sheriff’s Department

Benton County Sheriff’s Department

Bloomington Prosecutor’s Office

Delaware County Sheriff’s Department

Evansville Police Department

Fort Wayne Police Department

Gary Police Department

Indiana Department of Health Epidemiology 

Resource Center

Indiana Prevention Resource Center

Indiana State Police

Indianapolis Police Department

Marion County Sheriff’s Department

Monroe County Prosecutor’s Office

Muncie/Delaware County Drug Task Force

Muncie Police Department

South Bend Police Department

South Central Narcotics Task Force

St. Joseph County Sheriff’s Department

Terra Haute Police Department

Vanderburgh County Sheriff’s Office

Vigo County Drug Task Force

Warren County Sheriff’s Department

Iowa

Audubon County Sheriff’s Department

Cedar Rapids Police Department

Des Moines Police Department

Governor’s Alliance on Substance Abuse

Iowa City Police Department

Iowa Department of Public Health

Iowa Department of Public Safety

Iowa Division of Narcotic Enforcement

Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department

Polk County Sheriff’s Office

Scott County Sheriff’s Department

Sioux County Sheriff’s Office

Waterloo Police Department

Kansas

Johnson County Sheriff’s Department

Kansas City Police Department

Sedgwick County Sheriff’s Department

Wallace County Sheriff’s Department

Wichita Police Department

Kentucky

Bowling Green Police Department

Covington Police Department

Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts

Kentucky Criminal Justice Council

Kentucky Division of Mental Health

Kentucky State Police

Lexington-Fayette Division of Police

Lexington Police Department

Louisville and Jefferson County Crime Commission

Owensboro Police Department

Louisiana

Caddo Parish Sheriff’s Office

Calcasieu Parish Sheriff’s Department

East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff’s Department

Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office

Lafayette Metro Narcotics

Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals

Monroe Police Department

New Orleans Police Department
National Drug Intelligence Center

75

Plaquemines Parish Sheriff’s Office

Red River Parish Sheriff’s Office

Shreveport Police Department

West Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Department

Maine

Bangor Police Department

Lewiston Police Department

Lincoln County Sheriff’s Department

Maine Department of Education

Maine Department of Human Services

Maine Department of Public Safety

Maine Drug Enforcement Agency

Maine Office of Substance Abuse

Maine Task Force on Substance Abuse

Maryland

Allegany County Sheriff’s Office

Baltimore County Police Department

Baltimore Police Department

Caroline County Sheriff’s Office

Frederick County Sheriff’s Office

Maryland Alcohol and Drug Abuse Administration

Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene

Maryland Medical Examiner’s Office

Maryland State Police

Drug Enforcement Command

Montgomery County Police Department

Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office

Prince George’s County Police Department

Massachusetts

Boston Police Department

Health and Addictions Research, Inc.

Lawrence Police Department

Lowell Police Department

Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office

Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Food 

and Drugs Laboratory

Massachusetts Department of State Police

Massachusetts National Guard

Massachusetts Poison Control System

Massachusetts District Attorney Office for Suffolk 

County

Springfield Police Department

Worcester Police Department

Michigan

Central Michigan Enforcement Team

Detroit Police Department

Flint Police Department

Genesee County Sheriff’s Department

Grand Rapids Police Department

Kalamazoo Valley Enforcement Team

Kent County Sheriff’s Department

Keweenaw County Sheriff’s Department

Michigan Department of Community Health

Michigan Department of Education

Michigan State Police

Montmorency County Sheriff’s Department

Oscoda County Sheriff’s Department

Minnesota

Bloomington Police Department

Duluth Police Department

Maplewood Police Department

Minneapolis Police Department

Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension

Minnesota Department of Children, Families and 

Learning

Minnesota Department of Public Safety

Minnesota Gang Strike Force

Minnesota Multi-Jurisdictional Narcotics Task Force

Minnesota Office of Drug Policy and Violence 

Prevention

Olmstead County Sheriff’s Office

Plymouth Police Department

Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department

St. Paul Police Department

Wright County Sheriff’s Office

Mississippi

Central Delta Drug Task Force

Greenville Police Department

Jackson Police Department

Lee County Sheriff’s Department

Lee County Vice Narcotics Task Force

Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics

North Mississippi Narcotics Unit/Tupelo Police 

Department
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

76

Missouri

Florissant Police Department

Hannibal Police Department

Independence Police Department

Jackson County Drug Task Force

Kansas City Police Department

Missouri Department of Health

Missouri Department of Mental Health

Missouri Department of Public Safety

Missouri Highway Patrol

Office of Attorney General 

Perry County Sheriff’s Department

Southwest Missouri Drug Task Force

Springfield Police Department

St. Charles County Sheriff’s Department

St. Louis County Police Department

St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department

Wayne County Sheriff’s Department

Montana

Cascade County Sheriff’s Department

Great Falls Police Department

Havre Police Department

Missoula Police Department

Montana Board of Crime Control

Montana Department of Justice

Montana Department of Public Health and Human 

Services

Petroleum County Sheriff’s Department

Nebraska

Douglas County Sheriff’s Department

Nebraska Commission on Law Enforcement and 

Criminal Justice

Nebraska Health and Human Service System

Nebraska Office of the Attorney General

Omaha Police Department

Scotts Bluff County Sheriff’s Department 

Wing Task Force

Nevada

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Nevada National Guard

Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles and Public 

Safety

Nevada Division of Investigation

Washoe County Sheriff’s Office

New Hampshire

Concord Police Department

Manchester Police Department

Nashua Police Department

New Hampshire Attorney General Drug Task Force

New Hampshire Department of Safety

New Hampshire State Police

New Jersey

Essex County Sheriff’s Department

New Jersey Department of Health and Senior 

Services

New Jersey National Guard

Newark Police Department

Warren County Prosecutor’s Office/Narcotics 

Task Force

New Mexico

Albuquerque Police Department

Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Department

Catron County Sheriff’s Department

Harding County Sheriff’s Department

Las Cruces Police Department

New Mexico Gang Task Force

Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Department

New York

Erie County Sheriff’s Office

Freeport Police Department

Hempstead Police Department

Lewis County Sheriff’s Department

Monroe County Sheriff’s Office

Mount Vernon Police Department

Nassau County Police Department

New Rochelle Police Department

New York City Poison Center

New York Division of Criminal Justice Services
National Drug Intelligence Center

77

New York Office of Alcoholism and Substance 

Abuse Services

New York Police Department

Office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor for the 

City of New York

Onondaga County Sheriff’s Office

Putnam County Sheriff’s Department

Rochester Police Department

Schenectady Police Department

Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department

Westchester County Department of Public 

Safety

Yonkers Police Department

North Carolina

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department

Durham County Sheriff’s Office

Gastonia Police Department

Graham County Sheriff’s Department

Guilford County Sheriff’s Department

Hyde County Sheriff’s Department

Metropolitan Enforcement Group/Asheville 

Police Department

Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department

North Carolina Drug Task Force

North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation

Raleigh Police Department

Tyrrell County Sheriff’s Department

University of North Carolina-Charlotte

Winston-Salem Police Department

North Dakota

Bismarck Police Department

Burleigh County Sheriff’s Department

Cass County Sheriff’s Department

Fargo Police Department

Grand Forks County Sheriff’s Department

North Dakota Bureau of Criminal 

Investigation

North Dakota Office of the Attorney General

Northern Mariana Islands

Attorney General of the Northern Mariana 

Islands

Ohio

Carroll County Sheriff’s Department

Cincinnati Police Division

Cleveland Police Department

Columbus Division of Police

Dayton Police Department

Erie County Drug Task Force

Franklin County Sheriff’s Office

Hamilton County Sheriff’s Office

Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and 

Investigation

Ohio Department of Alcohol and Drug Addiction 

Services

Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services

Ohio State Highway Patrol

Paulding County Sheriff’s Department

Summit County Sheriff’s Office

Toledo Police Department

US 23 Pipeline Drug Task Force

Vinton County Sheriff’s Department

Wyandot County Sheriff’s Office

Oklahoma

Broken Arrow Police Department

Cleveland County Sheriff’s Office

Coal County Sheriff’s Department

Comanche County Sheriff’s Department

Custer County Sheriff’s Office

Johnston County Sheriff’s Department

Oregon

Bend Police Department

Blue Mountain Narcotics Enforcement Team

Central Oregon Drug Enforcement

Clatsop County Interagency Narcotics Team

Columbia Enforcement Narcotic Team

Coos Bay Police Department

Douglas Interagency Narcotics Team

Eugene Police Department

Jackson County Interagency Narcotics Team

Josephine County Interagency Narcotics Team

Klamath County Interagency Drug Team

Lane Interagency Narcotics Team

Malheur County Narcotics Task Force

Mid-Columbia Narcotics Task Force
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

78

Multi Agency Drug Enforcement Response and 

Interdiction Team

Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office

Oregon Department of Human Services

Oregon National Guard

Oregon Office of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 

Programs

Oregon State Police

Pendleton Police Department

Polk Interagency Narcotics Team

Portland Airport Interagency Narcotics Team

Portland Police Bureau

Regional Organized Crime Narcotics Team

Salem Area Interagency Narcotics Team

South Coast Interagency Narcotics Team

Umatilla County Sheriff’s Office

Union County Sheriff’s Department

Valley Interagency Narcotics Team

Westside Interagency Narcotics Team

Yamhill County Interagency Narcotics Team

Puerto Rico

San Juan Drug Division

Pennsylvania

Allentown Police Department

Altoona Police Department

Beaver Falls Police Department

Bethlehem Police Department

Blair County Coroner’s Office

Cambria County Drug Task Force

Chester Police Department

East Stroudsburg Police Department

Erie Bureau of Police

Pennsylvania Attorney General Bureau of 

Narcotics Investigation

Harrisburg Bureau of Police

Indiana Borough Police

Johnstown Police Department

Lebanon Police Department

New Castle Police Department

Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and 

Delinquency

Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General

Pennsylvania State Police

Bureau of Drug Law Enforcement

Philadelphia Police Department

Pittsburgh Bureau of Police

Pottsville Police Department

Reading Police Department

Sharon Police Department

Wilkes-Barre Police Department

York Police Department

Rhode Island

Rhode Island Attorney General’s Office

Rhode Island State Police

Warwick Police Department

South Carolina

Columbia Police Department

Florence County Sheriff’s Office

Myrtle Beach Police Department

Richland County Sheriff’s Office

South Carolina Department of Alcohol and Drug 

Abuse Services

South Carolina Law Enforcement Division

Summerville Police Department

South Dakota

Rapid City Police Department

Sioux Falls Police Department

South Dakota Division of Criminal Investigation

South Dakota Office of the Attorney General

Tennessee

19th Judicial District Drug Task Force

Bartlett Police Department

Clarksville Police Department

Hamilton County Sheriff’s Department

Jackson Police Department

Knoxville Police Department

Lake County Sheriff’s Department

Major Crimes Unit Clarksville Police

Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department

Rutherford County Sheriff’s Department

Shelby County Sheriff’s Department

Tennessee Bureau of Investigation

Tennessee District Attorneys General Conference

Washington County Sheriff’s Office
National Drug Intelligence Center

79

Texas

24th and 25th Judicial District Narcotics Task 

Force

33d Judicial District Narcotics Team

63d Judicial District Narcotics Task Force

81st Judicial District Narcotics Task Force

216th Judicial District Narcotics Task Force

Agriplex Roadrunners Drug Task Force

Alamo Area Narcotics Task Force

Amarillo Police Department

Austin Police Department

Bi-State Narcotics Task Force

Cameron County Drug Enforcement Task 

Force

Capitol Area Narcotics Task Force

Central East Texas Narcotics Task Force

Central South Texas Narcotics Task Force

Central Texas Narcotics Task Force

Chambers County Narcotics Task Force

Combined Government Drug Crimes Task 

Force

Corpus Christi Police Department

Cross Timbers Task Force

Dallas Police Department

Deep East Texas Regional Narcotics Task 

Force

El Paso County Sheriff’s Department

El Paso Metro Narcotics Task Force

El Paso Police Department

Galveston County Narcotics Task Force

Galveston Police Department

Garland Police Department

Greater Dallas Council on Alcohol and Drug 

Addiction

Harris County Sheriff’s Department

Houston Drug Epidemiology Workgroup

Houston Police Department

Independence Narcotic Task Force

Jefferson County Narcotics Task Force

Jim Hogg County Sheriff’s Department

Kent County Sheriff’s Department

Laredo Multi Agency Narcotics Task Force

Loving County Sheriff’s Department

Lubbock Police Department

Lubbock Regional MH/MR Center

Lufkin Police Department

Mt. Pleasant Police Department

New Caney Independent School District Police 

Department

Northeast Area Drug Interdiction Task Force

Northeast Texas Narcotics Task Force

North Texas Regional Drug Task Force

Nueces County Sheriff’s Department

Odessa Police Department

Panhandle Regional Narcotics Enforcement 

Task Force

Plano Police Department

Port Arthur Police Department

Rio Concho Multi Agency Drug Enforcement 

Task Force

Rural Area Narcotics Task Force

San Antonio Police Department

South Central Texas Narcotics Task Force

South Plains Regional Narcotics Task Force

South Texas Narcotics Task Force

Tarrant County ACCESS for the Homeless

Tarrant County Sheriff’s Department

Trans Pecos Drug Task Force

Tri-County Narcotics Task Force

Texas Christian University

Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse

Texas Department of Health

Texas Department of Public Safety

Texas Narcotic Control Program

Texas National Guard

Victoria Police Department

West Texas Narcotic Enforcement Task Force

Westside Narcotics Task Force

Wichita Falls Police Department

Utah

Box Elder County Sheriff’s Department 

Utah County Sheriff’s Office

Utah Department of Human Services

Utah Department of Public Safety

Weber Morgan Narcotics Strike Force

Vermont

Burlington Police Department

Rutland County Sheriff’s Department

Vermont Department of Health

Vermont State Police
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

80

Virginia

City of Norton Sheriff’s Office

Danville Police Department

Emporia Police Department

Fairfax County Police Department

Highland County Sheriff’s Department

Lynchburg Police Department

Norfolk Police Department

Office of the Attorney General

Roanoke Police Department

Surry County Sheriff’s Office

Virginia Beach Police Department

Virginia Sheriffs’ Association

Virginia State Police

Washington

Bellevue Police Department

Bellingham Police Department

Benton County Sheriff’s Department

Clark-Skamania Narcotics Task Force

Columbia County Sheriff’s Office

Columbia River Drug Task Force

Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Narcotics Task Force

Eastside Narcotics Task Force

Franklin County Sheriff’s Department

Grays Harbor County Drug Task Force

Interagency Narcotics Task Force

King County Department of Public Safety

King County Sheriff’s Department

Lakewood Police Department

Longview Police Department

North Central Washington Narcotics Task Force

Northwest Regional Drug Task Force

Olympia Peninsula Narcotics Enforcement Team

Pierce County Sheriff’s Department

Poulsbo Police Department

Puyallup Police Department

Quad-Cities Drug Task Force

Richland Police Department

San Juan County Sheriff’s Department

Seattle/King County Department of Health

Seattle Police Department

Skagit County Interlocal Drug Enforcement Unit

Skamania County Sheriff’s Department

Snohomish County Regional Narcotics Task 

Force

Spokane County Sheriff’s Department

Spokane Police Department

Spokane Regional Drug Task Force

Sunnyside Police Department

Tacoma Police Department

Thurston County Narcotics Task Force

Thurston County Sheriff’s Department

Tri-City Metro Drug Task Force

Unified Narcotics Enforcement Team

Valley Narcotics Task Force

Vancouver Police Department

Walla Walla Police Department

Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police 

Chiefs

Washington Department of Corrections

Washington Department of Social and Health 

Services

Washington National Guard

Washington Office of Community, Trade, and 

Economic Development

Washington State Attorney General

Washington State Department of Health

Washington State Narcotics Investigators 

Association

West Sound Narcotics Enforcement Team

Whatcom County Sheriff’s Department

Yakima Police Department

West Virginia

Bridgeport Police Department

Central West Virginia Drug Task Force

Eastern Panhandle Drug and Violent Crime 

Task Force

Gilbert Police Department

Gilmer County Sheriff’s Department

Hancock-Brooke Drug Task Force

Harrison County Drug and Violent Crime Task 

Force

Huntington Drug and Violent Crime Task Force

Huntington Police Department

Lewis County Sheriff’s Department

Mon Valley Drug Task Force

Ohio Valley Drug and Violent Crime Task Force

Parkersburg Multi-Jurisdictional Task Force

Regional Unified Drug Enforcement Task Force

West Virginia Army National Guard

West Virginia Department of Military Affairs and 

Public Safety

West Virginia Drug and Alcohol Agency
National Drug Intelligence Center

81

West Virginia Prevention and Resource Center

West Virginia State Police

Wheeling Police Department

Wisconsin

Brown County Drug Task Force

Dunn County Sheriff’s Department

Forest County Sheriff’s Department

Florence County Sheriff’s Department

Iron County Sheriff’s Department

Janesville Police Department

Kenosha Police Department

Madison Police Department

Menominee County Sheriff’s Department

Milwaukee County Department of Human Services

Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Department

Milwaukee Police Department

West Central Drug Task Force

Wisconsin Department of Health and Family 

Services

Wisconsin Department of Narcotics Enforcement

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

Wisconsin Division of Narcotics Enforcement

Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau

Wisconsin Office of Justice Assistance

Wisconsin State Patrol

Wyoming

Cheyenne Police Department

Laramie County Sheriff’s Department

Sublette County Sheriff’s Department

Wyoming Department of Health

Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation

Wyoming Governor’s Advisory Board
National Drug Threat Assessment 2001–The Domestic Perspective

82

This page intentionally left blank.
319 WASHINGTON STREET • 5TH FLOOR • JOHNSTOWN, PA 15901-1622