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

2003

Product No. 2003-Q0317-001

January 2003

National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

From the Director:

I am pleased to present the National Drug Threat Assessment 2003. Prepared annually by the 

National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) in partnership with federal, state, and local agencies, this 

report is designed to provide policymakers and law enforcement personnel at all levels with 

information for their use in formulating counterdrug policy, establishing law enforcement priorities, 

and allocating resources.

The National Drug Threat Assessment merges foreign and domestic counterdrug intelligence and 

information on domestic drug trends in a single report. It integrates the most recently available 

reporting from national-level law enforcement and intelligence agencies with the most current national 

substance abuse indicator data from public health agencies to accurately and reliably depict the current 

domestic drug situation. The report also draws on information from nearly 2,900 state and local law 

enforcement agencies that responded to our National Drug Threat Survey 2002 as well as from more 

than a thousand personal interviews with law enforcement and public health officials.

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

assessment would not have been possible. The assistance they provided and the detailed information 

they contributed have been invaluable in the production of this assessment. 

I encourage you to review the National Drug Threat Assessment 2003 and provide feedback on the 

enclosed Reader Comment Card. I appreciate your assistance and look forward to collaborating on 

future projects.

Michael T. Horn

January 2003

National Drug Intelligence Center

v

National Drug

Threat Assessment 2003

Executive Summary

The trafficking and abuse of illicit drugs and diverted pharmaceuticals pose a serious 

threat to the United States because of the adverse effects of drug abuse on the lives of 

millions of Americans and the substantial resources consumed in combating illicit drugs 

at the federal, state, and local levels. In 2001 an estimated 28.4 million people aged 12 

and older reported using an illicit drug within the past year; an estimated 3.2 million 

people were dependent on or abusers of illicit drugs. America’s drug users spent nearly 

$64 billion on illicit drugs in 2000, and the total cost of drug trafficking and drug-related 

crime to American society in that year exceeded $160 billion. 

The level of threat posed by individual drugs varies from region to region. Nationally, however, reporting from federal, state, and local law enforcement and public health 

agencies indicates that cocaine, methamphetamine, marijuana, heroin, and MDMA are 

the greatest concerns. Augmenting this reporting are results of NDIC’s 2002 survey, 

which reveal that 33.1 percent of state and local law enforcement agencies nationwide 

identify their greatest drug threat as cocaine (both powder and crack), followed by methamphetamine (31.0%), marijuana (20.4%), heroin (7.9%), diverted pharmaceuticals 

(2.7%), and MDMA (2.0%). Although a lesser threat overall, other dangerous drugs 

such as GHB and GHB analogs, ketamine, LSD, and psilocybin are a considerable

concern, particularly because of their appeal to adolescents and young adults. 

Cocaine. Cocaine is a principal drug threat to the United States. Both powder 

cocaine and crack are prevalent throughout the country, and overall availability is stable 

at high levels. All DEA Field Divisions and HIDTAs, as well as most Pulse Check 

sources, report that powder cocaine and crack are readily or widely available, and most 

describe cocaine as the greatest drug threat to their areas. Statistical reporting regarding 

cocaine-related federal investigations, arrests, and seizures did not change appreciably 

from 2000 to 2001. 

The demand for powder cocaine and crack is relatively stable at high levels, and

possibly rising slightly among adults. Estimated cocaine production increased in 2001; 

however, estimates suggest that only about 28 percent of the export-quality cocaine

prepared for shipment to world markets was smuggled into the United States, primarily 

through the Mexico–Central America corridor. Cocaine is transported via commercial 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

vi

and private vehicles, rail traffic, buses, pedestrians, as well as commercial and private aircraft. 

The distribution of powder cocaine and crack is 

pervasive throughout the country, and the market 

for both forms of the drug appears to be stable 

overall. All DEA Field Divisions and HIDTAs 

report that powder cocaine is widely distributed 

in their areas, and most report that crack cocaine 

also is widely distributed in inner cities, particularly in lower income areas. Primary market areas 

for cocaine include Atlanta, Chicago, Houston, 

Los Angeles, Miami, and New York. 

Methamphetamine. Methamphetamine is a 

principal drug threat to the United States. Reporting from law enforcement and public health agencies indicates that methamphetamine availability 

is widespread in the western and central United 

States and is increasing in the eastern half of the 

country, albeit slowly. Despite overall increasing 

availability and an increase in methamphetamine 

seized, data regarding methamphetamine-related 

federal investigations and arrests show decreases 

in 2001. These decreases likely are due to a shift 

by DEA to investigate fewer but higher priority 

methamphetamine targets.

The level of methamphetamine use in the 

United States is rising among adults and holding 

relatively steady among adolescents. Law 

enforcement and interagency reporting, as well as 

laboratory seizure data, suggests that production 

in the United States and Mexico increased 

slightly over the past year. Interagency reporting 

also indicates that methamphetamine production 

in Southeast Asia increased in 2001; however, 

only a small percentage of that produced in 

Southeast Asia is intended for distribution in the 

United States. The transportation of domestically 

produced methamphetamine from laboratories 

and stash houses to markets throughout the country occurs primarily by private vehicle, while 

methamphetamine produced in foreign source 

areas is smuggled into the United States overland 

primarily in private vehicles and via mail services. 

The distribution of methamphetamine is expanding slowly, particularly in areas of the Great 

Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, and Southeast regions. 

Mexican distributors are predominant in western 

states as well as in the Great Lakes and Southeast 

regions. The primary market areas for methamphetamine are Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Diego, 

San Francisco, and the Central States (Arkansas, 

Iowa, and Missouri).

Marijuana. Marijuana is a leading drug 

threat to the country. It is the most readily available and widely used illicit drug in the United 

States, and its prevalence has contributed to both 

an acceptance of marijuana use among some 

adults and adolescents and a perception that the 

drug is not harmful. Reporting from law enforcement and public health agencies, as well as federal investigation, arrest, and seizure data, 

indicates marijuana availability changed little 

over the past year. 

Some national substance abuse indicators 

suggest that marijuana use may rise despite relatively stable levels of use since the late 1990s. 

The number of past year users increased significantly in 2001, and national-level prevalence 

studies show some decreases in the perception of 

risk regarding marijuana use. Available data suggest that marijuana production is high both in the 

United States and in foreign source areas. Transport of marijuana from source areas to markets 

occurs via many methods but primarily overland in 

commercial and private vehicles. Distribution of 

marijuana appears to be stable, and a wide range 

of criminal groups, gangs, and independent dealers distribute the drug throughout the country. 

Primary market areas for marijuana include Central Arizona (Phoenix and Tucson), Chicago, Los 

Angeles, Miami, New York, and Seattle. 

Heroin. Heroin is a significant drug threat to 

the United States. Reporting from law enforcement and public health agencies indicates that the 

availability of heroin is widespread and that it is 

increasing, particularly in New England and in 

areas of the Mid-Atlantic. South American heroin 

is most prevalent in the eastern half of the country, while Mexican heroin is dominant in the 

western United States. 
National Drug Intelligence Center

vii

Despite reports of increasing availability, 

overall demand for heroin appears to be relatively 

stable and possibly declining among adolescents. 

Worldwide heroin production decreased significantly between 2000 and 2001; however, production in the principal sources of heroin to U.S. 

markets, Mexico and Colombia, may have 

increased. Heroin is smuggled into the country by 

private vehicle across the U.S.–Mexico border, by 

couriers on commercial flights, and by maritime 

conveyances, including cruise ships. Heroin generally is distributed in metropolitan areas; nonetheless, distribution of the drug has spread to 

smaller communities, largely facilitated by independent distributors who travel to large cities to 

purchase midlevel quantities for distribution in 

their home communities. The primary heroin 

market areas are Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, 

and New York. 

MDMA. The trafficking and abuse of 

MDMA pose a significant threat to the United 

States. MDMA is widely available in every 

region of the country, principally in large metropolitan areas but increasingly in smaller cities and 

towns. Reporting from law enforcement and public health agencies indicates that MDMA is now 

considered a mainstream drug in many areas. It—

like other drugs—is widely available in nightclubs and schools, at parties and shopping malls, 

and on street corners and is often sold with other 

drugs such as crack cocaine, methamphetamine, 

and heroin. 

The demand for MDMA appears to be 

increasing among both adults and adolescents; 

however, data from national-level prevalence 

studies indicate that the rate of increase has 

slowed. MDMA produced in several countries is 

available in U.S. markets, but the Netherlands and 

Belgium continue to be the source of most of the 

MDMA in the United States. Domestic MDMA 

production remains limited. MDMA transported 

from Europe is smuggled into the United States 

by couriers on commercial flights and, to a lesser 

extent, via mail services, either directly from 

European source countries or via transit countries, including France, Germany, Spain, Canada, 

Mexico, Panama, and various Caribbean island 

nations. Most MDMA distribution occurs in large 

cities and their suburbs; however, much of the 

increased distribution is occurring in midsize cities with large college populations. The primary 

market areas for MDMA are Los Angeles, 

Miami, and New York. 

Other Dangerous Drugs. Other dangerous 

drugs, which include club drugs such as GHB 

(and GHB analogs), ketamine, and Rohypnol as 

well as hallucinogens such as LSD, PCP, and 

psilocybin, pose a relatively low threat in comparison with other illicit drugs. The availability 

and use of other dangerous drugs overall appear 

to be stable; however, the increasing availability 

of some of these drugs—such as GHB, ketamine, 

and PCP—is raising concerns among law 

enforcement and drug treatment providers. Other 

dangerous drugs are present in every region of the 

country but are most prevalent in metropolitan 

areas, where they are used primarily by adolescents and young adults.

Many national substance abuse indicators do 

not measure use of club drugs; however, available 

data indicate that use of GHB and Rohypnol are 

relatively stable and that use of ketamine may be 

trending upward. GHB is produced illegally in 

domestic and foreign laboratories, Rohypnol is 

produced commercially outside the United States, 

and ketamine is produced commercially in the 

United States and in foreign countries. Transport 

of illegally produced or diverted club drugs is primarily via private vehicles. The primary venues 

for these drugs remain raves and dance clubs.

The level of hallucinogen use and the number 

of emergency department mentions and treatment 

admissions consequent to that use are relatively 

low. In fact, the use of hallucinogens in general 

appears to have peaked in the mid-1990s and has 

since decreased through 2001. Use of LSD is 

trending downward among adults and adolescents, use of PCP is very low among both groups 

and may be declining among youth, and data for 

lifetime use of psilocybin indicate relative stability at low levels. Production of LSD and PCP and 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

viii

cultivation of psilocybin mushrooms are concentrated in the western United States, and transport 

of these hallucinogens occurs primarily via mail 

services and private vehicles.

Pharmaceuticals. Pharmaceutical controlled 

substances, which include narcotics, depressants, 

and stimulants, are a growing drug threat to the 

country. Pharmaceutical controlled substances are 

commonly diverted through fraudulent prescriptions, unscrupulous physicians and pharmacists, 

and theft. The number of armed robberies of pharmacies has increased substantially over the past 2 

years. These robberies have particularly targeted 

the Schedule II narcotic OxyContin, which commands a very high street value.

Diverted narcotics such as hydrocodone, oxycodone, and codeine are available in drug markets 

throughout the country, and this availability may 

be increasing. The overall demand for diverted 

narcotics is high and increasing, as are the consequences associated with their abuse.

Depressants, including benzodiazepines and 

barbiturates, are available and abused throughout 

the country to varying degrees. The abuse of 

depressants appears to be increasing, particularly 

for benzodiazepines. 

The availability of diverted stimulants is 

increasing in most areas of the country, largely 

because of sharp increases in stimulant prescriptions 

since 1990. And while reporting from law enforcement agencies indicates a rise in stimulant abuse, 

data from drug consequence studies show declines 

in emergency department mentions for stimulants.

Money Laundering. The trafficking and 

abuse of illicit drugs—from cocaine to diverted 

pharmaceuticals—generate enormous profits, and 

detecting and seizing the money and assets 

derived from drug trafficking is critical to U.S. 

counterdrug efforts. 

Colombian and Mexican drug trafficking 

organizations are the primary drug money launderers in the United States and earn billions of 

dollars in this country from their illicit drug transactions. Most drug transactions are conducted in 

cash and typically involve small denominations. 

Thus, drug trafficking organizations and criminal 

groups amass large volumes of bills that must be 

smuggled to a foreign destination or placed into 

the U.S. financial system. 

The bulk shipment of currency, as well as of 

monetary instruments such as money orders and 

checks, is a principal drug money laundering 

method used by traffickers operating in the 

United States. Traffickers also launder drug proceeds through money service businesses such as 

money remittance, money exchange, and check 

cashing firms, by commingling drug proceeds 

with funds generated at legitimate businesses, by 

purchasing real estate and vehicles, by exploiting 

the gaming industry, and by using underground 

banking systems.
National Drug Intelligence Center

ix

National Drug

Threat Assessment 2003

Scope and Methodology

The National Drug Threat Assessment 2003 is a comprehensive assessment of the 

threat posed to the United States by the trafficking and abuse of illicit drugs. The National 

Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) prepared the assessment through detailed analysis of the 

most recently available reporting from law enforcement, intelligence, and public health 

agencies. A critical component of this undertaking was information provided by nearly 

2,900 state and local law enforcement agencies through NDIC’s National Drug Threat Survey 2002. Approximately 2,400 of these agencies were part of a probability-based sample 

surveyed to provide nationally and regionally representative data. (Details on survey methodology are provided in Appendix A, page 73.) State and local law enforcement agencies 

also provided information through personal interviews with NDIC’s Field Program Specialists, a network of retired law enforcement professionals under contract with NDIC to 

promote information sharing among federal, state, and local counterdrug agencies. These 

agencies have been invaluable but are too many to mention individually.

This report addresses the trafficking and use of primary substances of abuse as well 

as the laundering of drug proceeds. Major substances of abuse are discussed in terms of 

their availability, demand, production and cultivation, transportation, and distribution. 

Primary market areas for each drug are identified and addressed in the report (see Figure 

4, page xiv). Primary market areas for cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and MDMA 

were determined through analysis of public health data and law enforcement reporting 

regarding use in these areas and the extent to which wholesale quantities are distributed 

from these areas to other markets. Primary market areas for marijuana were determined 

based on distribution alone.

• Availability. To evaluate drug availability, analysts considered quantitative information on seizures, investigations, arrests, indictments, sentencing, drug purity or 

potency, and price. Qualitative data, such as 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 domestic demand for illegal drugs was based on 

accepted interagency estimates and data captured in national substance abuse indicators. 

Quantitative and qualitative information compared include the estimated number of 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

x

total users, prevalence of drug use among various age groups, admissions to treatment facilities, influence of drugs on crime and the penal 

system, emergency department information, 

and drug-related deaths. The differing methodologies applied by national substance abuse 

indicators, as well as their inherent limitations, 

were considered and addressed in assessing 

domestic drug demand. (Data from selected 

national substance abuse indicators are provided in Appendix B, page 79.)

• Production and Cultivation. To evaluate drug 

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 drug transportation, analysts assessed 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 drug distribution was almost entirely qualitative. Analysts 

considered the extent to which specific drugs 

are distributed nationally, regionally, and in primary market areas based on law enforcement 

reporting. Also considered were qualitative 

data pertaining to the involvement of organized 

criminal groups, including their involvement in 

wholesale, midlevel, and retail distribution.1

This report cites trademarked names such as 

OxyContin and Rohypnol in discussing the 

diversion and abuse of such substances. The use 

of any trademarked names in this assessment 

does not imply any criminal activity, criminal 

intent, or misdealing on the part of the companies 

that manufacture these drugs. All such citations 

are made for reference purposes only.

National Drug Threat Survey data used in this 

report do not imply there is only one drug threat 

per region or that only one drug is available per 

region. A percentage given for a region represents 

the proportion of state and local law enforcement 

agencies in that region that identified a particular 

drug as their greatest threat or as available at 

high, medium, or low levels. Regions reported in 

this assessment correspond to the nine

Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task 

Force (OCDETF) regions (see Figures 1–3 on 

pages xi, xii, and xiii).

1. In this assessment wholesale distribution refers to the level at which drugs are purchased directly from a source of supply and 

sold, typically, to midlevel distributors in pound, kilogram, or multi-unit quantities. Midlevel distribution refers to the level at which 

drugs are purchased directly from wholesalers in pound, kilogram, or multi-unit quantities and sold in smaller quantities to other 

midlevel distributors or to retail distributors. Retail distribution refers to the level at which drugs are sold directly to users.
National Drug Intelligence Center

xi Figure 1. 

ALASKA
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

xii

Percentages given represent the proportions of state and local law enforcement agencies nationwide that identified a particular drug as their greatest threat.Source: NDIC, National Drug Threat Survey 2002. 

 Figure 2. 

33.1% 31.0%

7.9%

20.4%

1.1% 2.0% 2.7%

33.1% 31.0%

7.9%

20.4%

1.1% 2.0% 2.7%

Cocaine Cocaine Heroin Meth Marijuana Marijuana ODD MDMA Pharmaceuticals Pharmaceuticals Cocaine Heroin Meth Marijuana ODD MDMA Pharmaceuticals

Greatest Drug Threat

Percentage of State & Local Agencies Reporting
National Drug Intelligence Center

xiii

Percentages given represent the proportions of state and local law enforcement agencies per region that identified a particular drug as available at high levels.Source: NDIC, National Drug Threat Survey 2002. 

 Figure 3. 

OCDETF Regions

Florida/CaribbeanGreat LakesMid-AtlanticNew EnglandNew York/New JerseyPacificSoutheastSouthwestWest Central

Pacific Pacific

West Central West Central

Southwest Southwest Southeast Southeast

Mid-Atlantic Mid-Atlantic

Great Lakes Great Lakes

New England New England New York/ New York/

New Jersey New Jersey

Florida/Caribbean Florida/Caribbean

Pacific

West Central

Southwest Southeast

Mid-Atlantic

Great Lakes

New England New York/

New Jersey

Florida/Caribbean

27.9%

18.7%

13.2%

52.5% 68.3% 80.6%

16.7%

2.1%

40.2%

84.0% 85.7%

7.8%

89.7%85.8%

17.3% 6.9%

45.7%

28.1% 82.3%

12.2%

22.4%

39.5%

0.8% 73.5%

27.3%

46.5%

40.9%

0.7% 75.0%

23.6%

24.1%

53.8%

11.0%80.5%

18.3%

1.4%

80.8%

44.3%

86.1%

15.3%

4.4%

75.2% 21.7% 81.0%

34.0%

27.9%

18.7%

13.2%

52.5%

68.3% 80.6%

16.7%

2.1%

40.2%

84.0% 85.7%

7.8%

89.7%85.8%

17.3% 6.9%

45.7%

28.1% 82.3%

12.2%

22.4%

39.5%

0.8% 73.5%

27.3%

46.5%

40.9%

0.7% 75.0%

23.6%

24.1%

53.8%

11.0%80.5%

18.3%

1.4%

80.8%

44.3%

86.1%

15.3%

4.4%

75.2% 21.7% 81.0%

34.0%

CocaineHeroinMethamphetamineMarijuanaMDMA

Regional Drug Availability

Percentage of State & Local Agencies Reporting High Availability
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

xiv

Primary market areas for cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and MDMA were determined through analysis of public health data and law enforcement reporting regardinguse in these areas and the extent to which wholesale quantities are distributed from these areas to other markets. Primary market areas for marijuana were determined basedon distribution alone.

 Figure 4. 

CocaineHeroinMethamphetamineMarijuanaMDMA

New York New York New York

Boston

Atlanta Atlanta

Miami

Houston

San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco

Seattle Seattle

Los Angeles os Angeles Los Angeles

San Diego an Diego San Diego Phoenix Phoenix Phoenix

Tucson

Houston

Chicago Chicago Chicago

Central

States

Central

States

Primary Market Areas
Table of Contents

National Drug Intelligence Center

xv

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

Scope and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

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

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

Demand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Mexico–Central America Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Caribbean Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Direct to the Continental United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Primary Market Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Key Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Methamphetamine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Demand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Domestic Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Foreign Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Transportation of Domestically Produced Methamphetamine . . . . . . .19

Transportation of Foreign-Produced Methamphetamine . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Primary Market Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Key Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Marijuana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Demand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

Primary Market Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Key Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Heroin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

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

Demand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

Production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

Transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

Mexican Heroin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

South American Heroin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

xvi

Southeast Asian Heroin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Southwest Asian Heroin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

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

Primary Market Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Key Developments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

MDMA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Primary Market Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Key Developments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Other Dangerous Drugs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Club Drugs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

GHB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Ketamine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Rohypnol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Hallucinogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

LSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

PCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Psilocybin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Pharmaceuticals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Narcotics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Depressants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Stimulants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Money Laundering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Appendix A: National Drug Threat Survey 2002 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Appendix B: Selected National Substance Abuse Indicators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
National Drug Intelligence Center

1

National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

Cocaine and Crack

Cocaine is a principal drug threat to the 

United States. Both powder cocaine and crack are 

prevalent throughout the country, and overall 

availability is stable at high levels. All Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA) Field Divisions, High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas 

(HIDTAs), as well as most Pulse Check sources, 

report that powder cocaine and crack are readily 

or widely available, and most describe cocaine as 

the greatest drug threat to their areas.1 National 

Drug Threat Survey (NDTS) data show that 33.1 

percent of state and local law enforcement agencies nationwide identify cocaine—both powder 

and crack—as their greatest drug threat. Statistical reporting regarding cocaine-related federal 

investigations, arrests, and seizures did not 

change appreciably from 2000 to 2001.

The demand for powder cocaine and crack is 

relatively stable at high levels and possibly rising 

slightly among adults. Estimated cocaine production increased in 2001; however, estimates suggest 

that only about 28 percent of the export-quality 

cocaine prepared for shipment to world markets 

was smuggled into the United States, primarily 

through the Mexico–Central America corridor. 

Cocaine is transported via commercial and private 

vehicles, rail traffic, buses, pedestrians, as well as 

commercial and private aircraft. The distribution 

of powder cocaine and crack is pervasive throughout the country, and the market for both forms of 

the drug appears to be stable overall. All DEA 

Field Divisions and HIDTAs report that powder 

cocaine is widely distributed in their areas, and 

most report that crack cocaine also is widely distributed in inner cities, particularly in lower 

income areas. Primary market areas for cocaine 

include Atlanta, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, 

Miami, and New York.

NDTS data indicate that 8.2 percent of state 

and local law enforcement agencies nationwide 

identify powder cocaine as their greatest drug 

threat.2 Regionally, more state and local law 

enforcement agencies in New England (15.5%), 

the Florida/Caribbean (12.9%), and the Great 

Lakes (11.1%) identify powder cocaine as the 

greatest threat than do those in the Mid-Atlantic 

(8.9%), New York/New Jersey (8.9%), Southwest 

(7.9%), and Southeast regions (6.4%). Powder 

cocaine was identified as the greatest threat by 

only 3.5 and 0.7 percent of agencies in the West 

Central and Pacific regions.3

NDTS data further reveal that 24.9 percent of 

state and local law enforcement agencies nationwide identify crack cocaine as their greatest drug 

threat. Regionally, more state and local law 

enforcement agencies in the Southeast (55.3%) 

and Florida/Caribbean (47.8%) identify crack 

cocaine as the greatest threat than do those in the 

Mid-Atlantic (27.0%), Great Lakes (25.9%), New 

York/New Jersey (20.6%), and Southwest regions 

(14.7%). Crack cocaine was identified as the 

greatest threat by 10.9, 8.5, and 2.7 percent of 

agencies in the New England, West Central, and 

Pacific regions, respectively.

1. The Office of National Drug Control Policy publishes Pulse Check, a report designed to present findings on drug use patterns and 

drug markets as reported by ethnographers, epidemiologists, treatment providers, and law enforcement officials. These Pulse Check 

sources focus on the drug abuse situation in 20 specific sites throughout the country.

2. NDTS data do not imply there is only one drug threat per region. A percentage given for a region represents the proportion of state 

and local law enforcement agencies in that region that identified a particular drug as their greatest threat.

3. Regions reported in this assessment correspond to the nine Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force regions. See 

Figure 1 on page xi.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

2

Contributing to the threat posed by cocaine, 

users of the drug experience many short- and longterm physical effects. Short-term effects include 

increased heart rate, blood pressure, and body temperature as well as tremors, vertigo, muscle 

twitches, and paranoia. Other consequences of 

cocaine use include chaotic heart rhythms, seizures, 

and strokes. Long-term use, especially via intranasal 

administration, may lead to loss of sense of smell, 

nosebleeds, throat irritation, and deterioration of the 

nasal septum, while prolonged use via ingestion can 

cause bowel gangrene resulting from decreased 

blood flow. The American Heart Association 

reports that long-term use also can cause aortic dissection (a tearing in the lining of, or rupturing of, the 

aorta), a condition that may result in death.

Violence and collateral criminal activity often 

are associated with the distribution and use of 

cocaine, crack cocaine in particular. Law enforcement reports that rivalries between distribution 

groups, especially gangs, account for most 

cocaine-related violence, much of which involves 

increases in homicides, armed robberies, and 

assaults when distributors of crack cocaine move 

into new market areas.4

Availability

Powder cocaine is readily available throughout the country, and availability appears to be stable overall—rising slightly in some areas and 

declining slightly in others. All DEA Field Divisions and HIDTAs, as well as most Pulse Check 

sources, report that powder cocaine is readily or 

widely available in their areas. 

According to NDTS data, 76.2 percent of 

state and local law enforcement agencies nationwide report that the availability of powder 

cocaine is high or medium, while 21.6 percent 

describe it as low.5 Agencies in the Mid-Atlantic 

(89.6%) and New England regions (85.9%) 

account for the greatest proportions reporting 

high or medium availability, while those in the 

West Central (68.9%) and Pacific regions (56.8%) 

account for the smallest.

The availability of crack cocaine appears to be 

stable overall. Reporting from DEA Field Divisions and HIDTAs suggests that crack is readily 

available in major cities—although not at the high 

levels of the early 1990s—and is available to a 

lesser extent in many smaller cities and towns.

Crack is a derivative of powder cocaine and is 

produced primarily within the United States at 

or near distribution points. Crack cocaine is 

not smuggled into the United States.

NDTS data show that 67.1 percent of state 

and local law enforcement agencies nationwide 

describe the availability of crack cocaine as high 

or medium, while 27.2 percent describe it as low. 

Agencies in the Southeast (92.7%) and Florida/

Caribbean regions (87.1%) account for the greatest proportions reporting high or medium availability. Agencies in the West Central (44.7%) and 

Pacific regions (40.4%) again account for the 

smallest proportions.

The percentages of OCDETF investigations 

and indictments for powder cocaine and crack 

were higher than for any other drug. Of 1,334 

OCDETF investigations initiated in fiscal year 

(FY) 2001, 65.1 percent involved powder 

cocaine and 25.3 percent involved crack cocaine. 

Also, of 3,787 OCDETF drug indictments 

obtained in FY2001, 33.6 percent referenced 

4. Gangs are defined by the National Alliance of Gang Investigators Associations as groups or associations of three or more persons 

with a common identifying sign, symbol, or name, the members of which individually or collectively engage in criminal activity that 

creates an atmosphere of fear and intimidation.

5. NDTS data do not imply that only one drug is available per region. A percentage given for a region represents the proportion of 

state and local law enforcement agencies in that region that identified a particular drug as available at high, medium, or low levels.
National Drug Intelligence Center

3

powder cocaine as the primary drug and 29.8 

percent referenced crack.

The number of DEA arrests involving cocaine 

dropped from 15,767 in 2000 to 12,847 in 2001, 

accounting for approximately 40 and 34 percent, 

respectively, of all DEA arrests in those years. 

Data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission 

(USSC) show the percentages of federal drug sentences involving powder and crack cocaine were 

nearly unchanged from FY2000 to FY2001. During that period, federal drug sentences involving 

powder cocaine declined only slightly from 23 to 

22 percent, while those involving crack held 

steady at 21 percent.

Cocaine seizures between 2000 and 2001 were 

relatively stable as well. Data from the Federal-wide 

Drug Seizure System (FDSS) indicate that the 

amount of cocaine seized declined from 106,621 

kilograms in 2000 to 105,864 kilograms in 2001.6

DEA reports that cocaine prices throughout 

the country were low and stable in 2001. Nationally, the wholesale price for a kilogram of powder 

cocaine ranged from $10,000 to $36,000, while 

price ranges for ounce and gram quantities ranged 

from $400 to $1,800 and from $20 to $200, 

respectively. In 2001 the average nationwide 

purity of powder cocaine was 69 percent for kilogram quantities and 56 percent for gram quantities. Prices for crack cocaine ranged nationally 

from $3 to $50 per rock (1/10 g to 1/2 g), with 

prices generally ranging from $10 to $20.

Demand

The demand for powder and crack cocaine is 

relatively stable at high levels and possibly rising 

slightly among adults. National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) data show that 

among all users (12 and older) the rate of past year 

use (use at least once in the preceding 365 days) 

increased significantly for powder cocaine from 

1.5 percent in 2000 to 1.9 percent in 2001.7 Past 

year use of crack cocaine also increased from 0.3 

to 0.5 percent during the same period.

National-level prevalence studies indicate rising cocaine use among adults. NHSDA data show 

that the rate of past year cocaine use among 

young adults aged 18–25 increased significantly 

between 2000 and 2001 from 4.4 to 5.7 percent 

for powder cocaine and from 0.7 to 0.9 percent 

for crack. For adults aged 26–34 past year use was 

relatively stable but rose slightly for both powder 

cocaine (2.1% to 2.7%) and crack (0.4% to 0.6%). 

Past year use rates also rose slightly for adults aged 

35 and older between 2000 and 2001 from 0.7 to 

0.9 percent for powder cocaine and 0.2 to 0.3 percent for crack cocaine.

Data from the Monitoring the Future (MTF) 

survey show that cocaine use among adults was 

statistically unchanged between 2000 and 2001.8

For MTF respondents aged 19–28 past year use of 

powder cocaine rose from 4.8 percent in 2000 to 

5.3 percent in 2001, while past year crack use 

rose slightly from 1.2 to 1.3 percent; however, 

neither change is statistically significant. Among 

college students aged 19–22, MTF data show that 

past year use of powder cocaine held at 4.1 percent in both 2000 and 2001 and that past year use 

of crack cocaine in 2001 was at 0.9 percent for 

the third consecutive year.

6. The FDSS contains information on drug seizures made by the DEA, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Customs Service, U.S. 

Border Patrol, and U.S. Coast Guard. Seizures by other federal agencies are recorded in the FDSS if custody of the drug evidence is 

transferred to one of those agencies listed.

7. The NHSDA, a project of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration since 1971, is the primary source of 

information on the use of illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco by the civilian, noninstitutionalized population in the United States.

8. MTF is an ongoing study of the behaviors, attitudes, and values of students and young adults. Funded by the National Institute on 

Drug Abuse, MTF annually surveys eighth, tenth, and twelfth graders in public and private schools in the coterminous United States 

and a subsample of college students and adults from previous graduating classes who participated in the survey as seniors.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

4

National-level prevalence studies indicate that 

adolescent cocaine use appears to be stable to 

declining overall. According to NHSDA data, 1.5 

percent of those aged 12–17 reported past year 

cocaine use in 2001 compared with 1.7 percent in 

2000. In 2001 past year use of crack was reported 

at 0.4 percent for the third consecutive year.

MTF data show relative stability in past year 

use of cocaine among students. In 2001 and 2002 

past year use rates for powder cocaine were 1.9 

and 1.8 percent, respectively, for eighth graders 

and 3.0 and 3.4 percent for tenth graders; rates for 

twelfth graders were 4.4 percent in both years. In 

those years rates of past year use for crack cocaine 

were mostly stable for eighth (1.7% and 1.6%) 

and twelfth graders (2.1% to 2.3%) but increased 

significantly for tenth graders (1.8% to 2.3%).

Data from the Parents’ Resource Institute for 

Drug Education (PRIDE) show stability in 

cocaine use for younger students and sharp 

declines among older students.9

 Between the 

2000–2001 and 2001–2002 school years, past year 

cocaine use held steady for junior high students at 

2.1 percent. Past year use decreased significantly, 

however, for both senior high students (5.5% to 

5.1%) and twelfth graders (7.9% to 7.1%).

National studies that track the attitudes of 

adolescents toward drug use show little change 

between 2000 and 2001 regarding cocaine. 

According to the Partnership Attitude Tracking 

Study (PATS), the percentage of seventh through 

twelfth graders who agreed there was great risk 

in using powder cocaine or crack regularly held 

steady between 2000 and 2001 at 82 percent.10

The percentage who saw great risk in trying 

powder cocaine or crack once or twice 

increased—but just slightly—from 47 percent in 

2000 to 48 percent in 2001. MTF data indicate 

that students’ perceptions of powder and crack 

cocaine use were statistically unchanged from 

2001 to 2002. In 2002 the proportions of students perceiving great risk in trying powder 

cocaine once or twice were 43.2, 51.3, and 49.5 

percent for eighth, tenth, and twelfth graders, 

respectively. The proportions of students perceiving 

great risk in trying crack cocaine once or twice were 

47.4, 57.4, and 50.8 percent for eighth, tenth, and 

twelfth graders.

The most recent data available regarding the 

consequences of cocaine use reveal rising emergency department (ED) mentions and declining 

treatment admissions. Data from the Drug Abuse 

Warning Network (DAWN) show that the estimated number of cocaine-related ED mentions 

increased significantly from 174,881 in 2000 to 

193,034 in 2001.11

Data from the Treatment Episode Data Set 

(TEDS) show that the number of admissions to 

publicly funded treatment facilities for cocaine 

use (smoked and nonsmoked) declined from 

244,051 in 1998 to 228,206 in 1999, the latest 

year for which such data are available.12 The proportion of admissions for which cocaine was the 

primary substance of abuse declined as well from 

15.1 percent in 1998 to 14.4 percent in 1999. 

Almost three-quarters (73%) of all cocaine-related 

admissions in 1999 were attributed to crack, or 

smoked, cocaine. TEDS data also reveal the use 

of cocaine in combination with other illegal 

drugs. Marijuana, methamphetamine, and heroin 

were the secondary drugs of abuse most often mentioned in 1999 TEDS admissions for which cocaine 

was identified as the primary substance of abuse.

9. The PRIDE Survey is the country’s largest independent study of adolescent drug use and other behaviors. It presents substance

abuse information on sixth through twelfth graders derived from data collected between August and June of the school year. 

10.The PATS tracks trends in drug use and drug-related attitudes that drive drug consumption trends. It is the largest ongoing 

research study of drug-related behaviors and attitudes of children, teens, and adults.

11.DAWN measures the consequences of drug use through hospital emergency departments. Hospitals eligible for DAWN are 

nonfederal, short-stay, general hospitals in the coterminous United States that have a 24-hour emergency department. DAWN ED data 

include information on ED episodes that are induced by or related to the use of an illegal drug or the nonmedical use of a legal drug. 

12.TEDS provides data on the demographic and substance abuse characteristics of admissions to publicly funded substance abuse 

treatment programs that report to individual state administrative data systems. 
National Drug Intelligence Center

5

One common trend reported in both DAWN 

ED and TEDS data is the rising average age of 

cocaine users. DAWN ED data show significant 

increases between 2000 and 2001 in ED cocaine 

mentions for patients aged 35 and older (+14.4%) 

and for patients aged 55 and older (+19.7%). 

TEDS data further indicate that in 1999 most 

cocaine-related treatment admissions were in the 

35–39 age category, when in 1998 most cocainerelated treatment admissions were in the 30–34 

age category. The typical admission to publicly 

funded treatment facilities in 1999 for nonsmoked cocaine use was male (66%), Caucasian 

(49%), and between 35 and 39 years old (22%); 

the typical admission for smoked cocaine use 

was male (58%), African American (58%), and 

between 35 and 39 years old (26%).

Data from the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program show that past year use of 

powder cocaine was reported by 12.5 percent of 

adult male arrestees in 2001, down from 13.4 percent in 2000.13 Past year use of crack cocaine was 

reported by 18.9 percent of adult male arrestees in 

2001, up from 17.5 percent in 2000. In 2001 the 

median percentage of males testing positive for 

cocaine (both powder and crack) was 29.1 percent; 

only marijuana was detected more often (42.7%).

Production

Cocaine production increased sharply 

between 2000 and 2001. Interagency estimates 

indicate that potential cocaine production—

occurring primarily in Colombia, Peru, and 

Bolivia—increased from 805 metric tons (100% 

pure) in 2000 to 930 metric tons (100% pure) in 

2001. Intensified eradication programs have contributed to declines in net coca cultivation since 

1995 in Peru (-71%) and Bolivia (-59%) but have 

failed to offset increases in Colombia, where net 

coca cultivation has increased 234 percent. At 

least three-quarters of the coca cultivated for

processing into cocaine is grown in Colombia, 

and Colombian drug trafficking organizations 

control most cocaine production.

According to the Interagency Assessment of 

Cocaine Movement (IACM), in 2001 an estimated 

823 metric tons of export-quality cocaine (average 

78% pure) were potentially available to depart 

South America for worldwide markets. The purity 

of export-quality cocaine is derived from DEA 

laboratory analysis of wholesale-level cocaine 

seized in the United States.

Transportation

Cocaine is transported to the United States via 

the Mexico–Central America corridor, via the 

Caribbean corridor, and directly from South 

America. The IACM reports that 521 metric tons 

of cocaine were detected departing South America moving toward the United States in 2001. An 

estimated 191 metric tons were seized or consumed en route, leaving an estimated 330 metric 

tons of cocaine available to U.S. markets in that 

year.Of that amount, most (72%) transited the 

Mexico–Central America corridor, 26 percent 

transited the Caribbean corridor, and 2 percent 

was transported directly to the United States (see 

Figure 5, next page). These percentages vary 

somewhat from transport activity in 2000, when 

approximately 66 percent of the cocaine transited 

the Mexico–Central America corridor, 31 percent 

transited the Caribbean corridor, and 3 percent 

was transported directly to the United States.

13.The ADAM program measures the extent of drug use in the high-risk population of people who have been arrested. Data are 

collected through probability-based sampling, and information is derived from interviews and urinalysis obtained voluntarily and 

recorded confidentially. 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

6

Mexico–Central America Corridor

Cocaine is transported through the Mexico–

Central America corridor primarily via the eastern Pacific and western Caribbean maritime 

routes. Colombian drug trafficking organizations 

used the eastern Pacific route heavily in 2001: 

according to the IACM, more than half (52%) of 

all cocaine detected en route to the United States 

in that year transited the eastern Pacific. Traffickers using this route transport cocaine primarily by 

fishing vessels and go-fast boats from the west 

coast of Colombia to rendezvous points off the 

coast of Mexico. The cocaine is then moved 

ashore, usually in Mexico, on vessels controlled 

by Mexican drug trafficking organizations. The 

western Caribbean route accounted for approximately 19 percent of all cocaine detected en route 

to the United States in 2001. When using this 

route Colombian traffickers transport cocaine

primarily by go-fast boats from the north coast of 

Colombia through the western Caribbean to Central America or Mexico.

Once the cocaine is in Mexico, it is supplied 

to Mexican traffickers who use overland vehicles 

and small aircraft to transport the drug to the U.S. 

border. Cocaine is smuggled across the border via 

commercial and private vehicles, rail traffic, 

buses, pedestrians, and private aircraft.

Nearly 80 percent of the cocaine seized at 

ports of entry (POEs) along the U.S.–Mexico 

border in 2001 was seized at the Calexico (2,346 

kg) and San Ysidro (990 kg) POEs in California; 

the Nogales (1,399 kg) POE in Arizona; and the 

Laredo (1,032 kg), Hidalgo (597 kg), and El Paso 

(587 kg) POEs in Texas. Seizure data from the El 

Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) show that Calexico, 

San Ysidro, and Nogales also ranked among the 

top Southwest Border POEs in amounts of cocaine 

seized in 2000. California led the Southwest Border states in cocaine seized at POEs in 2000 

(3,388 kg) and 2001 (3,530 kg); however, cocaine 

seizures at Texas POEs increased significantly 

from 1,628 kg in 2000 to 3,362 kg in 2001. Texas 

led in cocaine seized between POEs with 255 and 

516 kilograms seized, respectively, in those years. 

Texas also accounted for the vast majority of the 

cocaine seized at checkpoints and through traffic 

stops in 2000 (7,366 kg) and 2001 (5,991 kg).

Cocaine smuggled into the United States 

through the California POEs of Calexico and San 

Ysidro most often is transported to Los Angeles 

for local consumption and for further transport to 

cocaine markets throughout the United States. 

Cocaine smuggled through the Nogales POE 

usually is destined for Central Arizona (Phoenix 

and Tucson), the primary market areas of Chicago and Los Angeles, and smaller markets 

throughout the Pacific, Southwest, and West 

Central regions. Cocaine smuggled into the 

United States through the Texas POEs of El 

Paso, Hidalgo, and Laredo typically is destined 

for Chicago, Dallas, Houston, and New York.

Caribbean Corridor

Colombian drug trafficking organizations and 

Bahamian, Dominican, Haitian, Jamaican, and 

Puerto Rican criminal groups transport cocaine to 

the United States through the Caribbean corridor 

often transiting Jamaica, Haiti, the Dominican 

Republic, and the Lesser Antilles in the eastern 

Caribbean. According to the IACM, criminal 

groups increased their use of Jamaica and Haiti as 

transshipment points for cocaine en route to U.S. 

and other world markets in 2001.

Colombian transporters use commercial and 

noncommercial sea and air transportation—often 

in combination—to transport cocaine to the 

United States through the Caribbean. Cocaine is 

transported primarily by maritime conveyances 

such as go-fast boats, containerized cargo, and 

 Figure 5. Cocaine Flows to the United States

Source: ONDCP, 2001 Annual Assessment of Cocaine Movement, March 2002.

North

Atlantic

Ocean

2% Direct to CONUS

72%

26%

MexicoCentral America

Corridor

Caribbean

Corridor

Gulf

of

Mexico

Pacific

Ocean

Boundary representations are not necessarily authoritative.
National Drug Intelligence Center

7

coastal freighters and by couriers on commercial 

flights. Dominican, Haitian, Jamaican, and other 

criminal groups often are employed to complete 

the final transportation phase, smuggling the 

cocaine into the United States through a number 

of POEs in the eastern United States.

The primary POEs for cocaine smuggled into 

the eastern United States by commercial maritime 

and air transportation are in Florida, New York, 

and Puerto Rico. EPIC seizure data for 2001 

show commercial maritime cocaine seizures of 

2,579 kilograms in Miami, 895 kilograms in Ft. 

Lauderdale, 336 kilograms in San Juan, and 314 

kilograms on Staten Island. The POEs at Miami 

and Ft. Lauderdale also led commercial maritime 

seizures in 2000 with 3,992 and 1,260 kilograms 

of cocaine seized, respectively, in that year. 

According to HIDTA reporting, cocaine is transported to these POEs primarily via containerized 

cargo, although shipments frequently are transported via coastal freighters to Miami and by fishing vessels to Puerto Rico. Cocaine also is 

transported via go-fast boats to Puerto Rico and 

other islands. 

POEs in Miami, New York, and Puerto Rico 

also report frequent seizures of cocaine from couriers on commercial flights, often traveling from 

South America but also from other countries. 

According to EPIC, commercial air cocaine seizures in 2000 and 2001 were highest in Miami 

(2,115 kg and 1,527 kg) and New York (571 kg 

and 814 kg). Seizures at POEs in Puerto Rico followed: the Aguadilla POE accounted for 456 kilograms of cocaine seized in 2000 and the San Juan 

POE for 264 kilograms in 2001. Cocaine smuggled through these POEs generally is destined for 

markets in the eastern half of the United States. 

Cocaine is transported from Miami to Atlanta, 

New York, and Philadelphia; from New York to 

Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, and 

Washington, D.C.; and from Puerto Rico to New 

York and Philadelphia.

Direct to the Continental United States

According to the International Narcotics 

Control Strategy Report (INCSR), Colombian 

traffickers smuggle cocaine from Colombia 

directly into major Atlantic and Gulf Coast POEs, 

primarily on commercial vessels or commercial 

flights. But as mentioned previously, this direct 

route accounted for only 2 percent of all cocaine 

transported to the United States in 2001. The 

INCSR further reports that the U.S.-sponsored 

Port Security Program appears to have significantly reduced not only commercial but also noncommercial maritime transportation of cocaine 

directly to the United States.

Distribution

The distribution of powder cocaine and crack 

occurs throughout the country, and the market for 

the drug appears to be stable overall. All DEA 

Field Divisions and HIDTAs report that powder 

cocaine is widely distributed in their areas, and 

most report that crack cocaine also is widely distributed in inner cities, particularly in lower 

income areas.

Mexican criminal groups control most wholesale cocaine distribution in the western United 

States, and their influence in eastern markets—

traditionally controlled by Colombian and 

Dominican criminal groups—appears to be growing. Every DEA Field Division in the Pacific, 

Southwest, and West Central regions reports that 

Mexican wholesale and midlevel distributors are 

predominant. Mexican distributors also control 

most wholesale cocaine distribution in Chicago 

and New Orleans and have become much more 

prominent in New York, often working directly 

with Colombian and Dominican groups in these 

cities. Colombian and Dominican criminal groups 

control wholesale cocaine distribution in the Florida/Caribbean, Southeast, Mid-Atlantic, New 

York/New Jersey, and New England regions. In the 

western United States only the DEA Houston and 

Los Angeles Field Divisions report a significant 

presence of Colombian wholesale distributors.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

8

A wide range of criminal groups and independent dealers distribute cocaine at the retail level. 

African American and Hispanic gangs control 

most retail distribution of powder cocaine 

throughout the country. Mexican criminal groups 

are prominent retail distributors of powder 

cocaine in the Pacific, West Central, Southwest, 

and Great Lakes regions, while retail distributors 

of Colombian, Dominican, and Puerto Rican origin are prominent in many eastern states. DEA 

and HIDTA reporting indicates that Hispanic 

independent retail distributors, who often receive 

supplies of powder cocaine from several different 

sources, are common in western states, particularly in the Pacific region. Caucasian independent 

distributors are pervasive in all regions and often 

are responsible for much of the midlevel and 

retail distribution of powder cocaine in suburban 

and rural areas.

African American and Hispanic gangs control 

most retail distribution of crack cocaine in every 

region of the country. Retail crack distribution 

typically occurs in inner-city, lower income housing units and sometimes at open-air drug markets, 

where it frequently is sold along with powder 

cocaine or other drugs such as heroin and, to a 

much lesser extent, MDMA.

Wholesale amounts of powder cocaine generally are distributed in 1-kilogram bricks sealed in 

plastic or cellophane. Retail amounts (1/8 g to 1 g) 

typically are packaged in small plastic bags, cellophane, glassine, or paper. Powder cocaine typically is converted to crack cocaine at or near 

distribution sites and is distributed in rocks (1/10 g 

to 1/2 g); retail packaging for crack is the same as 

for powder cocaine.

Primary Market Areas

Cocaine is distributed and used in every region 

of the country. Reporting from law enforcement 

and public health agencies indicates, however, that 

Atlanta, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, 

and New York are the primary market areas 

because of high levels of use and because they 

serve as centers for the national-level distribution 

of wholesale quantities of cocaine to other markets. Baltimore, Boston, Central Arizona (Phoenix 

and Tucson), Detroit, Newark, and Philadelphia 

are significant cocaine markets, but the levels of 

use within and distribution from these areas are 

not as great as in the primary market areas.

Atlanta. Atlanta is a primary market area for 

cocaine. Law enforcement reporting indicates a 

growing population of illicit drug users in the 

Atlanta area, most of whom use powder cocaine 

and crack. Moreover, the consequences of 

cocaine use are high or increasing. The Community Epidemiology Work Group (CEWG) reports 

that 70.3 percent of treatment admissions in 

Atlanta in 2000 involved powder cocaine (22.5%) 

or crack (47.8%).14 DAWN data show that the 

estimated number of cocaine-related ED mentions increased significantly (+42.7%) from 6,229 

mentions in 2000 to 8,891 mentions in 2001. 

Atlanta had the third highest rate of ED mentions 

among DAWN cities, behind Chicago and Philadelphia, at 244 per 100,000 population. DAWN 

mortality data for Atlanta show that cocaine was 

mentioned in 173 of 259 deaths involving drug 

abuse in 1999 and in 151 of 233 deaths in 2000.15

It was listed as the primary drug of abuse in 65 of 

82 single-drug deaths in 2000. According to 2000 

ADAM data, nearly half (49%) of adult male 

arrestees in Atlanta tested positive for cocaine, 

the most for any ADAM site in 2000.

DEA and HIDTA reports indicate that Mexican and, to a lesser extent, Colombian and Dominican distributors control wholesale distribution of 

cocaine in Atlanta. Cocaine is transported to 

Atlanta primarily from the U.S.–Mexico border 

(often via Houston) and Florida. Mexican criminal 

groups are the primary distributors of powder 

cocaine at the wholesale level in the Atlanta area, 

directly supplying African American and Hispanic 

14.CEWG is a drug abuse surveillance network established by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and composed of researchers 

representing 21 areas throughout the country. The CEWG provides current information regarding the nature and patterns of drug 

abuse, emerging trends, characteristics of vulnerable populations, and social and health consequences. 

15.DAWN mortality data include information on drug-induced and drug-related deaths identified and submitted by death 

investigation jurisdictions participating in DAWN.
National Drug Intelligence Center

9

gangs who control retail crack distribution. Law 

enforcement reporting and seizure data indicate 

that Atlanta-based wholesale and midlevel distributors supply cocaine to drug markets in the MidAtlantic and Southeast regions as well as in Texas. 

Chicago. The Chicago HIDTA reports that 

several tons of cocaine are transported to Chicago 

annually both for local consumption and for

further distribution to other markets throughout 

the Midwest. Consequent to that local consumption, the estimated number of ED cocaine mentions in Chicago rose from 14,879 in 2000 to 

16,202 in 2001. DAWN data also show an 

increase between 2000 and 2001 in the rate of ED 

mentions for cocaine from 246 to 277 per 

100,000—the most for any DAWN reporting city. 

DAWN mortality data for Chicago show that 

cocaine was mentioned in 456 of 878 deaths 

involving drug abuse in 1999 and in 499 of 869 

deaths in 2000. It was the drug of abuse in 120 of 

268 single-drug deaths in 2000, the most for any 

drug in Chicago. According to 2001 ADAM data, 

40.6 percent of adult male arrestees in Chicago 

tested positive for cocaine, second only to New 

York in that year.

DEA and HIDTA reports indicate that Mexican 

wholesale cocaine distributors are predominant in 

Chicago, although Colombian wholesale distributors are active as well. Most cocaine is transported 

to Chicago via tractor-trailers and private vehicles 

from Southwest Border POEs. Chicago-based 

street gangs such as Gangster Disciples, Latin 

Kings, and Vice Lords control most retail distribution of powder cocaine and crack in the city. These 

gangs sell powder cocaine and crack in open-air 

markets, public housing projects, private residences, and gang-controlled communities.

Law enforcement reporting and seizure data 

from EPIC indicate that Chicago-based wholesale 

distributors supply powder cocaine and crack to 

markets throughout the Great Lakes region and, 

occasionally, to some areas of the Mid-Atlantic, 

Southeast, and West Central regions.

Houston. Consequences likely occasioned 

by high levels of cocaine use (especially crack), 

and the distribution of multiple-ton quantities of 

cocaine to other U.S. drug markets, render 

Houston a primary market area. National-level 

drug data sources such as DAWN, CEWG, and 

Pulse Check do not report on Houston; however, 

the Texas Commission on Drug and Alcohol 

 Figure 6. 

Los Angeles Los Angeles

Houston Houston

Atlanta Atlanta

New York New York

Miami

Chicago Chicago

Los Angeles

Houston

Atlanta

New York

Miami

Chicago

Primary Market Areas: Cocaine
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

10

Abuse (TCADA) closely tracks statistics associated with the consequences of cocaine use in the 

state. According to TCADA, cocaine is the most 

abused drug in the Houston area. Crack cocaine 

was the primary drug of abuse mentioned in 1,628 

of 5,508 adult admissions to TCADA-funded 

treatment programs in Harris County (Houston 

area) in 2001, the most for any drug. Powder 

cocaine was the primary drug of abuse mentioned 

in 305 admissions. According to ADAM data, 

31.5 percent of males arrested in Houston in 2000 

tested positive for cocaine.

According to DEA and HIDTA reporting, 

cocaine is transported to Houston in multikilogram 

and ton quantities for local and national distribution. 

Mexican wholesale distributors transport the drug 

primarily overland via the U.S.–Mexico border, 

while Colombian wholesalers typically use couriers 

on commercial flights and commercial vessels arriving at ports in or near Houston to transport cocaine. 

Mexican, Colombian, Jamaican, and Dominican 

criminal groups, as well as local gangs, distribute 

cocaine at the retail level. DEA reports indicate that 

wholesale quantities of powder cocaine are distributed from Houston to regional markets, such as Dallas-Ft. Worth, and to other primary market areas, 

such as Atlanta, Chicago, and New York. In addition, EPIC seizure data show Houston as the origin 

of cocaine shipments to the Great Lakes and Southeast regions, to Miami, and to cities in Missouri, 

Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. Crack cocaine is 

distributed from Houston to regional markets in 

Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

Los Angeles. Information from DEA, 

HIDTA, and Pulse Check reporting indicates that 

the cocaine market in Los Angeles is large and 

stable. In addition, multiple tons of cocaine are 

distributed from the city to markets throughout 

the country. DAWN data show a rise in the estimated number of ED mentions for cocaine in Los 

Angeles from 9,094 in 2000 to 9,999 in 2001. The 

rate of ED mentions for cocaine also rose from 

105 to 117 per 100,000 population between 2000 

and 2001. DAWN mortality data for Los Angeles 

show that cocaine was mentioned in 544 of 1,887 

deaths involving drug abuse in 1999 and in 471 of 

1,192 deaths in 2000. Mortality data further note 

that cocaine was listed as the drug of abuse in 136 

of 295 single-drug deaths in 2000. 

Mexican wholesale distributors control most 

cocaine distribution in Los Angeles, although 

Colombian wholesale distributors are present as 

well. DEA and HIDTA reporting indicates that 

Mexican and Colombian wholesale and midlevel 

distributors supply cocaine to local Hispanic 

gangs (such as Mexican Mafia and 18th Street) 

and African American gangs (such as Bloods and 

Crips), who dominate street-level distribution of 

both powder cocaine and crack. Independent dealers distribute cocaine at the retail level as well. 

Gangs and independent dealers often sell powder 

cocaine, typically in multigram and ounce quantities, on street corners and in hotel rooms in urban 

and suburban neighborhoods.

Mexican and Colombian criminal groups distribute multiple tons of cocaine from Los Angeles 

to every region of the country including to other 

primary market areas such as Atlanta, Chicago, 

and New York.

Miami. Miami is among the largest cocaine 

markets in the country. HIDTA reporting indicates 

that cocaine is the greatest drug threat to the 

Miami area and that use of both powder cocaine 

and crack continues to rise. DAWN data indicate 

that the estimated number of ED mentions for 

cocaine rose from 4,383 in 2000 to 4,641 in 

2001. DAWN data also show that from 2000 to 

2001 the rate of ED cocaine mentions held 

steady at 225 per 100,000. DAWN mortality data 

indicate that cocaine was mentioned in 130 of 

167 deaths involving drug abuse in Miami in 

1999 and in 151 of 216 deaths in 2000. It also 

was listed as the drug of abuse in 25 of 27 singledrug deaths in 2000. According to 2000 ADAM 

data, 43.5 percent of adult male arrestees in 

Miami tested positive for cocaine.

Colombian wholesale distributors control 

most cocaine distribution in Miami, although Haitian wholesale distributors are prominent as well. 

Colombian and Haitian midlevel distributors supply powder cocaine to local retail distributors, primarily Haitian, Jamaican, and Mexican criminal 

groups and African American and Hispanic gangs. 
National Drug Intelligence Center

11

Haitian and Jamaican criminal groups and African 

American and Hispanic gangs control retail distribution of crack cocaine in Miami. Caucasian independent dealers also distribute crack but to a

lesser extent.

Multiple tons of powder cocaine are distributed 

from Miami to markets in the Great Lakes, MidAtlantic, New England, New York/New Jersey, and 

Southeast regions including to the primary market 

areas of Atlanta, Chicago, and New York.

New York. New York remains a primary market area for cocaine, despite some indications that 

the consequences of cocaine use are declining. 

The estimated number of DAWN ED mentions 

for cocaine, both powder and crack, decreased 

from 14,250 in 2000 to 13,898 in 2001; the rate of 

ED mentions per 100,000 population was 166 in 

both years. According to DAWN mortality data, 

cocaine was mentioned in 394 of 729 deaths 

involving drug abuse in New York in 1999 and in 

492 of 924 deaths in 2000, when it was listed as 

the drug of abuse in 196 of 284 single-drug 

deaths. ADAM reports that 44.6 percent of adult 

male arrestees in New York tested positive for 

cocaine in 2001, still the highest percentage for 

any ADAM site in that year, despite decreasing 

from 46.0 percent in 2000.

Colombian and Dominican wholesalers control most cocaine distribution in New York, 

although Mexican wholesale distributors are 

becoming more prominent. Colombian, Dominican, Mexican, and Puerto Rican criminals are the 

principal midlevel cocaine distributors, and they 

supply retail distributors who typically are African American and Hispanic gangs. African American, Jamaican, and Puerto Rican criminals 

control most retail distribution of crack cocaine in 

the city.

New York-based wholesale and midlevel 

cocaine distributors supply powder cocaine to markets throughout the Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, 

New England, New York/New Jersey, and Southeast regions including to the primary market areas 

of Atlanta and Chicago. 

Key Developments

According to DEA’s Cocaine Signature Program, the average purity of wholesale cocaine 

departing South America for the United States 

declined from 86 percent in 1998 to 78 percent in 

2001. Several factors can influence wholesale 

purity. The Attorney General’s Cocaine Availability Working Group reports, however, that the 

most plausible are a shortage of the chemical solvents and oxidizers used to refine cocaine (such 

as potassium permanganate) and efforts to stretch 

cocaine supplies to meet growing demand in markets in Central and South America and Europe. 

The decline in overall wholesale cocaine purity 

may be affecting the purity of retail cocaine. DEA 

reports that retail purity levels also have declined 

from 69 percent in 1998 to 56 percent in 2001.

Transportation of cocaine via couriers on 

commercial flights to and within the United 

States declined sharply in 2001, according to law 

enforcement reporting. In addition, reporting 

indicates that cocaine transportation within the 

United States via couriers on trains and bus lines 

decreased in 2001 and that traffickers are increasingly using commercial and private vehicles to 

transport cocaine in larger shipments. Law 

enforcement agencies cite increased security at 

airports, rail stations, and bus terminals as the 

most likely cause for the shift.

Mexican wholesale cocaine distributors have 

become more active in the New York/New Jersey 

region. DEA and HIDTA reporting indicates that 

Mexican criminal groups routinely work with 

Colombian and Dominican wholesale cocaine 

distributors directly to supply cocaine from the 

Southwest Border area to midlevel distributors in 

the New York/New Jersey region. In fact, the 

New York/New Jersey HIDTA reports that most 

cocaine consumed in the New York area is transported via the Southwest Border area by Mexican 

criminal groups but is distributed by primarily 

Colombian distribution groups.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

12

Projections

Cocaine availability and use have been relatively stable, and cocaine will remain a principal 

drug threat to the country.

As cocaine markets expand in Central and 

South America and in Europe, the average purity 

of wholesale cocaine transported to U.S. markets 

will remain lower than the purity levels of the 

mid-1990s. Continued increases in cocaine production in Colombia, however, and the potential 

for production levels to increase in Peru and 

Bolivia may offset the increased demand 

brought on by market expansion, allowing purity 

levels to stabilize.
National Drug Intelligence Center

13

National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

Methamphetamine 

Methamphetamine is a principal drug threat 

to the United States. Reporting from law 

enforcement and public health agencies indicates that methamphetamine availability is 

widespread in the western and central United 

States and is increasing in the eastern half of the 

country, albeit slowly in some areas. Despite 

reports of increasing availability and an increase 

in methamphetamine seized, data regarding 

methamphetamine-related federal investigations 

and arrests show decreases in 2001. These 

decreases likely are due to a shift by DEA to 

investigate fewer but higher priority methamphetamine targets.

The level of methamphetamine use in the 

United States appears to be rising among adults 

and holding relatively steady among adolescents. 

Law enforcement and interagency reporting, as 

well as laboratory seizure data, suggests that production in the United States and Mexico 

increased slightly over the past year. Interagency 

reporting also indicates that methamphetamine 

production in Southeast Asia increased in 2001; 

however, only a small percentage of that produced in Southeast Asia is intended for distribution in the United States. The transportation of 

domestically produced methamphetamine from 

laboratories and stash houses to markets throughout the country occurs primarily by private vehicle, while methamphetamine produced in foreign 

source areas is smuggled into the United States 

overland primarily in private vehicles and via 

mail services. The distribution of methamphetamine is expanding slowly, particularly in areas 

of the Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, and Southeast 

regions. Mexican distributors are predominant in 

western states as well as in the Great Lakes and 

Southeast regions. The primary market areas for 

methamphetamine are Los Angeles, Phoenix, 

San Diego, San Francisco, and the Central States 

(Arkansas, Iowa, and Missouri).

NDTS data show that 31.0 percent of state and 

local law enforcement agencies nationwide identify methamphetamine as their principal drug 

threat. Regionally, more state and local law 

enforcement agencies in the Pacific (83.6%), West 

Central (73.9%), and Southwest regions (52.9%) 

identify methamphetamine as the greatest threat 

than do their counterparts in the Southeast 

(22.9%) and Great Lakes (20.5%). Methamphetamine was identified as the greatest threat by only 

7.0, 3.8, 0.8, and 0.0 percent of agencies in the 

Florida/Caribbean, Mid-Atlantic, New York/New 

Jersey, and New England regions, respectively.

Methamphetamine causes profound physiological effects, and ingesting even small amounts 

of the drug can have dangerous consequences. 

Methamphetamine users often experience 

increased respiration, heart rate, blood pressure, 

and body temperature as well as insomnia, tremors, and convulsions. Increased heart rate and 

blood pressure can cause strokes that, along with 

prolonged high body temperature and convulsions, may result in death. Long-term methamphetamine use may result in depression and motor 

and cognitive impairment. Intravenous users of 

methamphetamine put themselves at increased 

risk for needle-borne viruses such as HIV and 

hepatitis B and C.

In states where methamphetamine production 

is prevalent, the environmental cost is severe. 

Chemicals from dumpsites contaminate water 

supplies, kill livestock, destroy national forest 

lands, and render areas uninhabitable. In California alone the cleanup of more than 2,000 methamphetamine laboratories and dumpsites cost 

nearly $5.5 million during 2001. Moreover, 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

14

methamphetamine laboratory fires or explosions 

have destroyed buildings and homes, injuring 

occupants and endangering neighboring residents 

and buildings.

Availability

The availability of methamphetamine is high in 

most areas of the Pacific, Southwest, and West Central regions and in many areas of the Great Lakes 

and Southeast regions. In the Florida/Caribbean 

region methamphetamine is available primarily in 

northern and central Florida. While methamphetamine availability is low in the Mid-Atlantic, 

New England, and New York/New Jersey regions, 

the drug is being encountered with greater frequency. Methamphetamine is available in powder, tablet, and “ice” forms. Powder dmethamphetamine is the most commonly available type in the United States, although others are 

produced and abused (see text box).

Types of Methamphetamine

l-methamphetamine (levo-methamphetamine) is produced commercially and is the 

active ingredient in an over-the-counter product sold in the United States. It does not 

have substantial addictive qualities.

dl-methamphetamine (dextro-levo-methamphetamine) is clandestinely produced 

using the P2P method, the preferred methamphetamine production method in the late 

1970s and early 1980s (see Methamphetamine Production Methods, page 17). 

Although limited, production and use of dlmethamphetamine, which is less potent than 

d-methamphetamine, have reemerged.

d-methamphetamine (dextro-methamphetamine) is clandestinely produced using 

ephedrine/pseudoephedrine reduction methods (see page 17). D-methamphetamine is 

highly addictive and is the most potent, 

widely abused form of methamphetamine. 

Ice methamphetamine, commonly called 

glass because of its appearance, is a colorless, odorless, large-crystal form of d-methamphetamine. Ice is most often produced by 

slowly recrystallizing powder methamphetamine from a solvent such as methanol, ethanol, isopropanol, or acetone. Ice typically

is smoked.

Reporting from all DEA Field Divisions, 

HIDTAs, and Pulse Check sites in the Pacific, 

Southwest, and West Central regions indicates 

that methamphetamine is readily or widely available. DEA Field Divisions and HIDTAs in the 

Great Lakes region indicate high and increasing 

availability in many rural areas—particularly in 

Ohio, Indiana, and portions of Minnesota—but 

also note moderate or low availability of methamphetamine in Chicago and Detroit. The Chicago 

HIDTA reports that methamphetamine availability and use are expected to increase in counties 

surrounding Chicago, but the drug has not yet had 

a significant impact within the city. DEA and 

HIDTA reporting for the Florida/Caribbean and 

Southeast regions specifies moderate increases in 

the availability of both Mexico-produced and 

domestic methamphetamine, particularly in Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee. Availability is low 

but slowly and steadily increasing in the MidAtlantic, New England, and New York/New Jersey regions, particularly in Manchester (NH), 

Newark, New York, Portland (ME), and Washington, D.C., according to DEA, HIDTA, and Pulse 

Check reporting.

NDTS data indicate that 58.8 percent of state 

and local law enforcement agencies nationwide 

describe the availability of methamphetamine as 

high or medium, while 30.6 percent describe it as 

low. Regional data are indicative of the eastward 

expansion of methamphetamine from the western 

United States. Agencies in the Pacific (97.8%), West 

Central (93.1%), and Southwest regions (84.5%) 

account for the greatest proportions reporting high 

or medium availability of methamphetamine, followed by those in the Southeast (73.3%), Great 

Lakes (52.2%), Florida/Caribbean (47.8%), and 

Mid-Atlantic regions (30.1%). Agencies in the New 

England (9.3%) and New York/New Jersey regions 

(8.0%) account for the smallest proportions.
National Drug Intelligence Center

15

While certain data regarding methamphetamine-related federal investigations and arrests 

show decreases in 2001, these decreases likely are 

due to a shift by DEA to investigate fewer but 

higher priority methamphetamine targets. Overall, methamphetamine-related OCDETF investigations accounted for 18.2 percent of all drugrelated investigations in FY2001, down from 20.1 

percent in FY2000. During the same period, the 

overall proportion of methamphetamine-related 

OCDETF indictments increased slightly, from 

18.6 to 22.2 percent of all OCDETF indictments. 

Of all methamphetamine-related OCDETF investigations in FY2001, 68 percent occurred in the 

Pacific, Southwest, and West Central regions.

Federal sentences incurred for methamphetamine-related offenses accounted for 14.2 percent of all federal drug sentences in FY2001, 

nearly unchanged from 14.3 percent in FY2000. 

The number of DEA arrests for methamphetaminerelated offenses also decreased from 7,700 in 2000 

to 6,557 in 2001.

The amount of methamphetamine seized in 

the United States increased in 2001, however. 

FDSS data show that methamphetamine seizures 

increased from 3,470 kilograms in 2000 to 3,782 

kilograms in 2001. California and Texas led the 

country in total kilograms seized with 2,154 and 

481 kilograms, respectively, and the two states 

combined accounted for nearly 70 percent of all 

methamphetamine seized in 2001.

DEA reports that in 2001 the price of methamphetamine ranged nationally from $3,500 to 

$23,000 per pound, $350 to $2,200 per ounce, and 

$20 to $300 per gram. The average purity of the 

methamphetamine seized by DEA increased from 

35.3 percent in 2000 to 40.1 percent in 2001.

Demand

The level of methamphetamine use in the 

United States appears to be rising among adults 

and holding relatively steady among adolescents. 

The NHSDA indicates a rise in the number of all 

methamphetamine users (12 and older) reporting 

past year use between 2000 and 2001, from 1.0 

million to 1.3 million.

Among adults, use of methamphetamine 

appears to be rising. NHSDA data show that past 

year methamphetamine use increased significantly from 1.2 percent in 2000 to 1.7 percent in 

2001 among young adults aged 18–25. While 

rates of use are lower among older adults, 

NHSDA data show that these too rose, although 

not significantly. In 2000 and 2001 the rate of 

past year methamphetamine use was 0.5 and 0.7 

percent, respectively, for adults aged 26–34 and 

0.2 and 0.3 percent for those aged 35 and older. 

MTF data appear to indicate similar upward 

trends among young adults; however, none of the 

changes between 2000 and 2001 were statistically 

significant. MTF reports that among college

students (19–22) past year methamphetamine use 

rose from 1.6 percent in 2000 to 2.4 percent in 

2001. Among all young adult respondents (19–28) 

past year methamphetamine use rose from 2.5 

percent in 2000 to 2.8 percent in 2001.

Among adolescents, methamphetamine use 

appears to be relatively stable overall, according to 

data from most national-level prevalence studies 

(PRIDE does not track methamphetamine use). 

NHSDA data show past year methamphetamine 

use among adolescents aged 12–17 held steady at 

0.8 percent in both 2000 and 2001. In 1999 past 

year methamphetamine use for adolescents was 

0.7 percent.

MTF data reveal that past year methamphetamine use was stable from 2001 to 2002. In those 

years rates were 2.8 and 2.2 percent, respectively, 

for eighth graders, 3.7 and 3.9 percent for tenth 

graders, and 3.9 and 3.6 percent for twelfth graders. 

PATS reporting indicates a slight decrease in 

the rate of past year methamphetamine use among 

teens from 8 percent in 2000 to 7 percent in 2001. 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

16

According to PATS, teens’ attitudes toward methamphetamine use are stable. In both 2000 and 

2001, 78 percent of teens agreed there is great risk 

in using methamphetamine regularly, and 47 percent agreed there is great risk in trying the drug 

once or twice.

The adverse consequences of methamphetamine use are increasing, according to nationallevel consequence studies. DAWN data indicate a 

rise in the estimated number of ED mentions for 

methamphetamine from 2000 (13,505) to 2001 

(14,923). Most ED methamphetamine mentions 

were reported in five cities in the Pacific and 

Southwest regions: Los Angeles (1,517), San 

Diego (673), San Francisco (611), Phoenix (604), 

and Seattle (395). The only significant changes in 

the number of mentions were in Los Angeles 

(+10.3%) and Seattle (-26.9%).

TEDS data indicate an increase in admissions to publicly funded treatment facilities for 

methamphetamine use between 1994 (33,407) 

and 1999 (57,834). A notable rise in the rate of 

admissions for which methamphetamine was the 

primary substance of abuse occurred between 

1994 and 1999, when the rate increased from 22 

admissions per 100,000 population to 32 per 

100,000. TEDS data also indicate that methamphetamine-related treatment admissions, which 

once were reported almost exclusively in the 

Pacific and Southwest regions, are increasing 

throughout the Great Lakes, Southeast, and West 

Central regions. The typical treatment admission 

for methamphetamine is Caucasian (79%), male 

(53%), and between the ages of 25 and 34 (42%). 

In 1999 the most popular route of administration 

was smoking (35%), followed by injection 

(29%) and inhalation (25%).

ADAM data indicate that 13.0 percent of 

adult male arrestees reported past year use of 

methamphetamine in 2001. These past year users 

reported an average frequency of use of 6.7 days 

in the past month. Past year methamphetamine 

data for 2000 are unavailable.

Production

Methamphetamine production is increasing 

both in the United States and in the foreign source 

areas that supply U.S. markets. All DEA Field 

Divisions except one (Caribbean) report that 

methamphetamine is produced in their areas, and 

most (19 of 21) describe production as either stable or increasing. Almost three-quarters (24 of 

32) of the HIDTAs also report the presence of 

methamphetamine laboratories in their areas. 

Moreover, data from EPIC’s National Clandestine Laboratory Seizure System (NCLSS) show 

that the number of laboratories seized in the 

United States increased from 6,777 in 1999, to 

6,940 in 2000, to 8,290 in 2001.

Methamphetamine production in Mexico—

the principal source area for foreign-produced 

methamphetamine available in the United 

States—and in Southeast Asia increased at least 

slightly in 2001, according to the INCSR and the 

United Nations International Narcotics Control 

Board. Most methamphetamine produced in Mexico is destined for U.S. drug markets; however, 

only a small percentage of that produced in 

Southeast Asia is intended for distribution in the 

United States.

Domestic Production

Methamphetamine production occurs 

throughout the country: methamphetamine laboratories were seized in 46 states in 2001. In western states Mexican criminal groups using the 

hydriodic acid/red phosphorus production method 

are predominant, while in the central United 

States Caucasian independent producers using the 

Birch method are common (see text box). Methamphetamine production is limited in eastern 

states, but when it occurs, the Birch method of 

production is typically used.
National Drug Intelligence Center

17

Methamphetamine Production Methods

Ephedrine/Pseudoephedrine Reduction:

Hydriodic acid/red phosphorus. The principal 

chemicals are ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, hydriodic acid, and red phosphorus. 

This method can yield multipound quantities 

of high quality d-methamphetamine and 

often is associated with Mexican drug trafficking organizations.

Iodine/red phosphorus. The principal chemicals are ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, 

iodine, and red phosphorus. The required 

hydriodic acid in this variation of the hydriodic acid/red phosphorus method is produced by the reaction of iodine in water with 

red phosphorus. This method yields high 

quality d-methamphetamine.

Iodine/hypophosphorous acid. The principal 

chemicals are ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, 

iodine, and hypophosphorous acid. The 

required hydriodic acid in this variation of the 

hydriodic acid/red phosphorus method is produced by the reaction of iodine in water with 

hypophosphorous acid. Known as the “Hypo” 

method, this method results in a high yield of 

d-methamphetamine.

Birch. The principal chemicals are ephedrine 

or pseudoephedrine, anhydrous ammonia, 

and sodium or lithium metal. Also known as 

the “Nazi” method, this method typically 

yields ounce quantities of high quality dmethamphetamine and often is used by 

independent producers.

Phenyl-2-Propanone:

P2P. The principal chemicals are phenyl-2-

propanone, aluminum, methylamine, and 

mercuric acid. This method yields lower 

quality dl-methamphetamine and has been 

associated with outlaw motorcycle gangs.

In the western United States clandestine 

methamphetamine production is extensive and 

often takes place in “superlabs” that have the 

capacity to produce 10 or more pounds of

methamphetamine in one production cycle.

Of 8,290 clandestine laboratories seized in 2001, 

almost half (4,139) were located in the Pacific and 

Southwest regions. Moreover, of 303 superlabs 

seized in the United States in 2001, more than 90 

percent (283) were in these two regions. Available intelligence indicates that California laboratories alone produce more methamphetamine than 

all other domestic laboratories combined. In addition, the number of California superlabs appears 

to be increasing, and most now have the capacity 

to produce 20 or more pounds of methamphetamine in one production cycle. NCLSS data show 

that the number of superlabs seized in California 

increased from 127 in 2000 to 238 in 2001.

A large number of methamphetamine laboratories—4,090—were seized during 2001 in the 

West Central, Great Lakes, and Southeast regions, 

but only 20 were superlabs. Production yields for 

laboratories in these regions are far lower than for 

those in the western United States because most 

laboratories seized in the West Central, Great 

Lakes, and Southeast regions (nearly 60% in 

2001) are small capacity Birch laboratories. This 

is especially true in Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, 

Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri, where Birch laboratories accounted for nearly 70 percent of methamphetamine laboratories seized.

Methamphetamine production in the Florida/

Caribbean, Mid-Atlantic, New England, and New 

York/New Jersey regions is limited—only 61 laboratories were seized in 2001—and consists generally of small capacity laboratories. There were 

no seizures of methamphetamine superlabs in any 

of these regions in 2001. Furthermore, the P2P 

production method, once commonly used to produce large quantities of methamphetamine in the 

eastern United States—particularly in the Philadelphia and southern New Jersey area—now 

appears to be one of the least common methods 

used. Of 19 P2P methamphetamine laboratories 

seized in 2001, one was located in Pennsylvania 

and one in New Jersey.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

18

Foreign Production

Methamphetamine is produced throughout the 

world; however, Mexico and, to a much lesser 

extent, Southeast Asia are the principal sources of 

foreign-produced methamphetamine to U.S. markets. Only a small percentage of the methamphetamine produced in Southeast Asia is intended for 

U.S. markets. Although there are no conclusive 

estimates as to how much methamphetamine is 

produced in foreign source areas, law enforcement reporting, as well as reporting from the 

United Nations and U.S. Department of State, 

indicates that production appears to be increasing.

Methamphetamine produced in Mexico 

accounts for most of the foreign-produced methamphetamine available in the United States, and 

according to DEA, despite growing demand for the 

drug in Mexico most of the methamphetamine produced in that country appears to be intended for 

U.S. markets. DEA reporting also indicates an 

apparent increase in methamphetamine laboratories 

near the U.S. border: the number of laboratories 

seized in Baja California Norte rose sharply from 

just 2 in 2000 to 24 in 2001. According to EPIC 

seizure data, however, the amount of Mexican 

methamphetamine seized along the U.S.–Mexico 

border decreased from 1,254 kilograms in 2000 to 

1,174 kilograms in 2001. INCSR data show that 

the amount of methamphetamine seized in Mexico 

decreased between 2000 and 2001 following significant increases in previous years. The amount of 

methamphetamine seized in Mexico increased 

from 96 kilograms in 1998, to 358 kilograms in 

Precursor Chemicals

Methamphetamine producers depend on a constant supply of chemicals to maintain consistent production levels. Precursor chemicals such as ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenyl-2-propanone 

and essential chemicals such as hydriodic acid, anhydrous ammonia, and lithium metal often are 

diverted from legitimate use for clandestine use in methamphetamine production.

Ephedrine is sometimes acquired through the diversion of bulk shipments from chemical supply companies in Asia. This method of precursor chemical acquisition is not as common today as it has been 

in the past, however.

Mexican criminal groups that produce large amounts of methamphetamine in the United States 

often rely on Central Asian and Middle Eastern (Armenian, Jordanian, Lebanese, Syrian, and 

Yemeni) criminal groups based in Canada and the United States to supply them with bulk quantities 

of pseudoephedrine tablets. These criminal groups transport pseudoephedrine tablets primarily by 

private trucks from Canada to California often via Buffalo, Detroit, Chicago, and Las Vegas. Outlaw 

motorcycle gangs based in Canada smuggle pseudoephedrine into the United States, and Mexican 

criminal groups smuggle both ephedrine and pseudoephedrine into the country from Mexico, 

although not at levels comparable to the Central Asian and Middle Eastern criminal groups.

Independent producers who typically produce small amounts of methamphetamine via the Birch 

method acquire pseudoephedrine from over-the-counter cold and allergy medicines. They often 

acquire such medicines, as well as combination ephedrine drug products, from pharmacies, grocery 

stores, and retail outlets not traditionally recognized as over-the-counter drug retailers. Such retail 

outlets include convenience stores, gas stations, and liquor stores. Independent methamphetamine 

producers who use the precursor chemical P2P acquire it illegally from chemical supply companies.

Essential chemicals are acquired in several ways. Hydriodic acid often is acquired illegally from 

chemical supply companies or stolen from industrial businesses, although law enforcement reporting indicates increased smuggling of hydriodic acid from Mexico into the United States. Anhydrous 

ammonia, a liquid fertilizer, usually is stolen from farms or acquired illegally from farm supply stores. 

Lithium metal often is extracted from lithium batteries and, increasingly, from electronic flow meters 

at gas and oil wells.
National Drug Intelligence Center

19

1999, to 555 kilograms in 2000 before falling to 

396 kilograms in 2001.

Traffickers operating laboratories in Southeast 

Asian countries, Burma in particular, produce 

methamphetamine in large quantities; the drug 

usually is pressed into tablets referred to as 

“yaba.” The INCSR estimates that laboratories in 

Burma produce approximately 800 million methamphetamine tablets each year and that production may be increasing. The number of tablets 

seized in Burma increased from 26.7 million in 

2000 to 32.4 million in 2001, while the number of 

methamphetamine laboratories seized remained 

relatively stable: two were seized in 2000 and 

three in 2001. According to DEA, the United Wa 

State Army, a Burmese criminal group, is responsible for the majority of methamphetamine tablets 

produced. Most of these tablets are consumed in 

Southeast Asia; however, some are reaching U.S. 

markets, primarily in California and Hawaii.

DEA reporting indicates that Vietnamese, Filipino and, to a lesser extent, Japanese, Korean, 

and Thai criminal groups smuggle Southeast 

Asia-produced ice methamphetamine into the 

United States, particularly to Hawaii.

Transportation

Methamphetamine is transported from 

domestic and foreign production sites via many 

conveyances and routes. Wholesale quantities of 

domestically produced methamphetamine are 

transported via commercial and private vehicles 

as well as mail services from laboratories, staging 

areas, and stash houses to U.S. drug markets primarily by Mexican traffickers but also by independent—mostly Caucasian—producers. 

Mexican and Caucasian criminal groups smuggle 

Mexico-produced methamphetamine into the 

United States primarily via private vehicles, while 

Southeast Asian criminal groups smuggle methamphetamine produced in Southeast Asia via 

mail services.

Transportation of Domestically Produced 

Methamphetamine

Methamphetamine produced domestically by 

Mexican criminal groups is transported to markets throughout the country by these same groups 

and, to a lesser extent, by Caucasian independent 

transporters and outlaw motorcycle gangs. Of 21 

DEA Field Divisions, 15 identify the principal 

methamphetamine transporters in their areas as 

Mexican. Furthermore, DEA reporting indicates 

that the Pacific and Southwest regions are the primary sources of domestically produced methamphetamine to U.S. markets.

Caucasian independent transporters and outlaw motorcycle gangs control the transportation of 

the methamphetamine that they produce, primarily 

supplying markets in the eastern United States by 

way of private vehicles and mail services. For 

instance, the DEA Newark Field Division identifies outlaw motorcycle gangs as principal transporters of methamphetamine into its area, and the 

DEA Boston Field Division identifies Caucasian 

independent groups and outlaw motorcycle gangs 

as principal transporters in its area.

Methamphetamine Packaging

Wholesale and midlevel quantities of methamphetamine typically are packaged for 

transport in 1-pound compressed bricks 

wrapped in aluminum foil, duct tape, paper, 

or heat-sealed plastic wrap. Bricks often are 

placed in large plastic bags and plastic storage bins during transportation. Methamphetamine bricks sometimes are wrapped with 

scented dryer sheets or covered with grease, 

coffee, detergent, or salve to mask the scent 

of the drug.

Transportation of Foreign-Produced 

Methamphetamine

Methamphetamine produced in Mexico is 

smuggled into the United States at various 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

20

points along the U.S.–Mexico border primarily 

by Mexican criminal groups using private vehicles, tractor-trailers, and couriers on foot. Caucasian transporters and outlaw motorcycle 

gangs—Bandidos in particular—also smuggle 

Mexico-produced methamphetamine into the 

United States, but to a much lesser extent than 

Mexican criminal groups.

Most of the Mexico-produced methamphetamine destined for U.S. drug markets is smuggled 

into the United States through and between POEs 

along the California–Mexico border. EPIC seizure 

data show that the POEs at San Ysidro (289 kg), 

Calexico (153 kg), and Otay Mesa (112 kg) 

accounted for more than 70 percent of the methamphetamine seized at POEs along the U.S.–Mexico 

border in 2001. From these three POEs, transporters 

supply Mexico-produced methamphetamine to the 

primary market areas of Los Angeles, Phoenix, San 

Diego, San Francisco, and the Central States as well 

as to smaller markets throughout the country.

Mexico-produced methamphetamine also is 

smuggled into the United States through and 

between POEs along the Texas–Mexico border. 

EPIC seizure data show that the POEs at Laredo 

(40 kg), Pharr (39 kg), and El Paso (37 kg) 

accounted for approximately 15 percent of the 

methamphetamine seized along the U.S.–Mexico 

border in 2001. Mexican transporters supply 

methamphetamine smuggled through these POEs 

to markets in the Southeast, Southwest, and West 

Central regions.

Arizona POEs accounted for approximately 

11 percent of methamphetamine seized at POEs 

along the U.S.–Mexico border in 2001. Nogales 

may be emerging as a key POE for Mexico-produced methamphetamine. The amount of methamphetamine seized at Nogales increased from 

29 kilograms in 2000 to 56 kilograms in 2001. 

Methamphetamine smuggled through the 

Nogales POE typically is stored in towns near the 

POE or in Tucson before being transported to the 

primary market areas of Phoenix and Los Angeles and to markets in the Great Lakes, Southeast, 

Southwest, and West Central regions.

A relatively small amount of methamphetamine tablets (yaba) produced in Southeast Asia 

is smuggled into the United States for distribution 

in localized markets primarily in northern California. Methamphetamine tablets usually are 

transported to the United States by mail services 

from Southeast Asia to mail facilities in Hawaii 

and California, primarily Honolulu, Los Angeles, 

and Oakland. DEA reports that the number of 

methamphetamine tablets seized at mail facilities 

in Hawaii and California has fluctuated sharply 

from 39,917 in 1999, to 301,697 in 2000, to 

32,280 in 2001. The methamphetamine tablets 

often are combined with shipments of licit or 

illicit goods. For instance, the Central Valley 

HIDTA reports that methamphetamine tablets 

have been smuggled to Fairfield and San Jose, 

California, secreted in shipments of legitimate 

products and in shipments of opium. The tablets 

were destined for distribution in central and 

northern California.

According to law enforcement reporting and 

the INCSR, ice methamphetamine produced in 

Southeast Asia is smuggled to Hawaii by Filipino, 

Japanese, Korean, Thai, and Vietnamese criminal 

groups primarily for local distribution. Nonetheless the DEA Newark Field Division reports that 

ice methamphetamine from the Philippines is 

available in its area, although the route and 

method of shipment used to transport the drug 

into the area are unknown.
National Drug Intelligence Center

21

Distribution

Methamphetamine distribution is most pervasive in the Pacific, Southwest, and West Central 

regions. Distribution is expanding in the Great 

Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, and Southeast regions, 

albeit slowly. In the New England and New York/

New Jersey regions distribution of methamphetamine is very limited, and there has been little 

indication of any significant increase in distribution over the past year.

Mexican criminal groups control most 

midlevel and retail methamphetamine distribution 

in the Pacific, Southwest, and West Central 

regions as well as much of the distribution in the 

Great Lakes and Southeast regions. Mexican 

midlevel distributors sometimes supply methamphetamine to outlaw motorcycle gangs and Hispanic gangs for retail distribution throughout the 

country. Caucasian independent distributors are 

active throughout the country, particularly in the 

Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, and Southeast regions 

and in the West Central states of Arkansas, Iowa, 

Kansas, and Missouri, where methamphetamine 

produced in small laboratories is distributed to a 

limited number of local customers. Outlaw 

motorcycle gangs distribute methamphetamine 

throughout the country, and DEA reporting indicates that they distribute the drug in many areas of 

the Great Lakes region and are principal methamphetamine distributors in the New England and 

New York/New Jersey regions. Asian methamphetamine distributors (Filipino, Japanese, 

Korean, Thai, and Vietnamese) are active in the 

Pacific region, although Mexican criminal groups 

trafficking in ice methamphetamine have supplanted Asian criminal groups as the dominant 

distributors of this drug in Hawaii.

Retail distribution occurs through street sales 

and in private homes, motels, restaurants, bars, 

and dance clubs. Distributors often use pagers and 

cellular telephones to facilitate retail sales. Retail 

methamphetamine often is packaged in small 

glassine bags, vials, waxed paper, or foil. It is sold 

in gram or multigram quantities, or as “eight ball” 

(1/8 oz) and “teener”(1/16 oz) quantities.

Canada-Produced Methamphetamine

in the United States

There are no conclusive estimates of methamphetamine production in Canada; however, both the 

Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and the United Nations International Narcotics Control 

Board report that production in Canada appears to be increasing. The RCMP reports increased seizures of methamphetamine laboratories, primarily in western Canada. In addition, DEA and state 

and local law enforcement agencies along the U.S.–Canada border report that Canada-produced 

methamphetamine is smuggled into the United States for distribution, although amounts seized 

have been negligible.

No DEA Field Division identifies Canada as a significant source of methamphetamine, and only the 

Central Valley HIDTA and the DEA Buffalo Resident Office report seizures of Canada-produced 

methamphetamine. EPIC seizure data indicate that the Blaine (140 g), Dunseith (50 g), and Everett 

(140 g) POEs in Washington and the POE at Pembina, North Dakota (5 kg), accounted for all the 

methamphetamine seized along the U.S.–Canada border in 2001. While seizures have occurred at 

these POEs and the Detroit POE since 1999, they do not appear to occur with any consistency or 

involve any significant amounts. HIDTA reporting suggests that when methamphetamine is smuggled from Canada into the United States, the most common transportation method used is mail 

services. Those principally involved in the transport of Canada-produced methamphetamine are 

outlaw motorcycle gangs, particularly Hells Angels.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

22

Primary Market Areas

Reporting from law enforcement and public 

health agencies indicates that Los Angeles, Phoenix, San Diego, and San Francisco are primary 

market areas for methamphetamine. Reporting 

typically reveals very high levels of use and distribution in these cities as well as national-level distribution from these cities to markets throughout 

the country. The Central States of Arkansas, Iowa, 

and Missouri, collectively, are a primary market 

area for methamphetamine as well. This area does 

not meet the typical definition of a primary market 

area—some of the consequence data for the Central States are not particularly high, nor is the 

extent of methamphetamine distribution from the 

area at a national level. Nonetheless the extent of 

methamphetamine distribution in the Central 

States and the proliferation of small-capacity 

methamphetamine laboratories within the area 

render the Central States a primary market.

Los Angeles. Los Angeles appears to be the 

largest methamphetamine market in the country. 

DAWN data show the estimated number of methamphetamine-related ED mentions for Los Angeles increased significantly between 2000 and 

2001 from 1,375 to 1,517—more than twice the 

number of mentions for the next closest DAWN 

reporting city (San Diego). Los Angeles recorded 

the fourth highest rate of ED mentions for methamphetamine with 18 per 100,000 population in 

2001; the rate in 2000 was 16 per 100,000. 

DAWN mortality data for Los Angeles show that 

methamphetamine was mentioned in 147 of 1,887 

deaths involving drug abuse in 1999 and in 155 of 

1,192 deaths in 2000. It was listed as the drug of 

abuse in 12 of 295 single-drug deaths in 2000. 

Pulse Check reports that methamphetamine is 

widely available in Los Angeles and that use is 

stable, while CEWG reports that primary treatment admissions for methamphetamine increased 

25 percent between 1999 and 2000.

The DEA Los Angeles Field Division and the 

Los Angeles HIDTA report that U.S.-based Mexican criminal groups control wholesale and midlevel 

methamphetamine distribution in the area. Mexican 

criminal groups transport methamphetamine to Los 

Angeles from their laboratories in Mexico and 

southern California primarily via private vehicles 

and commercial trucks. Mexican midlevel distributors supply independent distributors and Hispanic 

 Figure 7. 

Arkansas Arkansas rkansas

Missouri Missouri issouri

CENTRAL CENTRAL

STATES

CENTRAL

STATES

Iowa

San Francisco San Francisco an Francisco

Los Angeles Los Angeles os Angeles

San Diego San Diego an Diego Phoenix Phoenix

Primary Market Areas: Methamphetamine
National Drug Intelligence Center

23

gangs. Asian gangs distribute limited amounts of 

ice methamphetamine in Los Angeles, primarily 

within the Asian community.

Methamphetamine is distributed from Los 

Angeles to the primary market areas of Phoenix and 

San Francisco as well as to markets in the Pacific, 

West Central, Southwest, and Southeast regions.

Phoenix. Phoenix is a primary market area for 

methamphetamine. The DEA Phoenix Field Division estimates that methamphetamine is second 

only to marijuana as the most abused drug in the 

Phoenix area. Phoenix ranked fourth among 

DAWN reporting cities in the estimated number of 

ED mentions for methamphetamine in 2001 with 

604; the city ranked third in 2000 with 600 mentions. DAWN data further indicate that the estimated rate of ED mentions for methamphetamine 

in Phoenix decreased between 2000 and 2001 (29 

to 21 per 100,000). DAWN mortality data show 

that methamphetamine was mentioned in 94 of 

561 deaths involving drug abuse in 1999 and in 

109 of 587 deaths in 2000. Methamphetamine was 

listed as the drug of abuse in 6 of 62 single-drug 

deaths in Phoenix in 2000. ADAM reports that the 

proportion of adult male arrestees testing positive 

for methamphetamine in Phoenix rose from 17.0 

percent in 2000 to 25.3 percent in 2001.

Mexican wholesale and midlevel distributors 

control methamphetamine distribution in the 

Phoenix area. Mexican criminal groups typically 

use private vehicles to transport methamphetamine to the Phoenix area from laboratories in 

Mexico and, to a lesser extent, from domestic laboratories generally located in southern California. 

Hispanic gangs control most retail distribution of 

methamphetamine, although Caucasian independent distributors are prominent.

Methamphetamine is distributed in bulk quantities from Phoenix to markets in the Great Lakes, 

Southeast, Southwest, and West Central regions.

San Diego. The level of methamphetamine 

consumption in San Diego is high, and distribution in and from the city is significant. Among 

DAWN reporting cities, San Diego recorded the 

second highest estimated number of methamphetamine-related ED mentions in 2001 (673), down 

from 747 in 2000. DAWN reports that San Diego 

also recorded the second highest estimated rate of 

ED mentions for methamphetamine at 27 per 

100,000 population, down from 31 per 100,000 in 

2000. DAWN mortality data show that methamphetamine was mentioned in 88 of 354 deaths 

involving drug abuse in 1999 and in 112 of 360 

deaths in 2000. Methamphetamine was listed as 

the drug of abuse in 11 of 60 single-drug deaths in 

2000. According to CEWG reporting, methamphetamine was identified as the primary drug in 

33 percent of admissions to publicly funded treatment facilities in San Diego in 2000. ADAM 

reporting indicates that the percentage of adult 

male arrestees testing positive for methamphetamine rose from 25.0 percent in 2000 to 27.9 percent in 2001.

DEA reports indicate that methamphetamine 

distribution is widespread and pervasive throughout San Diego. Mexican wholesale distributors 

transport multikilogram quantities of methamphetamine from laboratories in Mexico and 

southern California to San Diego primarily via 

private vehicles. They also control methamphetamine distribution within the city, supplying 

Mexican midlevel distributors who in turn supply 

Hispanic gangs as well as Caucasian and Hispanic independent retail distributors.

Methamphetamine is distributed from San 

Diego to the primary market areas of Los Angeles, Phoenix, and San Francisco and to smaller 

markets in every region of the country.

San Francisco. San Francisco is among the 

largest methamphetamine markets in the United 

States. DAWN data show a slight increase in the 

estimated number of methamphetamine-related 

ED mentions in San Francisco between 2000 

(591) and 2001 (611), when the city ranked third 

among DAWN reporting cities. The estimated 

rate of ED mentions increased as well, from 36 to 

39 per 100,000 population—the highest rate 

among all DAWN reporting cities. DAWN mortality data indicate that methamphetamine was 

mentioned in 58 of 361 deaths involving drug 

abuse in 1999 and in 45 of 286 deaths in 2000. It 

was listed as the drug of abuse in 4 of 45 singledrug deaths in 2000.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

24

The DEA San Francisco Field Division 

reports that Mexican wholesale and midlevel distributors control methamphetamine distribution in 

the San Francisco area. Mexican criminal groups 

transport wholesale quantities of methamphetamine to San Francisco from laboratories in Mexico, southern California, and the local area, 

primarily via private vehicles. Mexican and Hispanic criminal groups control much of the retail 

distribution as well; however, DEA reporting 

indicates that outlaw motorcycle gangs and Caucasian independent distributors, who often also 

produce small quantities of methamphetamine, 

are prominent in retail distribution.

Wholesale amounts of methamphetamine are 

distributed from San Francisco to several market 

areas throughout the country. Methamphetamine 

often is transported throughout the country from 

San Francisco via private vehicles. To a lesser 

extent couriers carry methamphetamine on

commercial flights directly from San Francisco to 

markets in the eastern half of the country and in 

Hawaii. Methamphetamine also is mailed from 

San Francisco to midlevel and retail distributors 

throughout the United States.

Central States. The Central States of Arkansas, Iowa, and Missouri, collectively, are a primary market area for methamphetamine. Much of 

the methamphetamine problem in this area is 

rural and thus typically is not reflected in consequence data, which normally are collected for 

metropolitan areas. There is a high level of 

demand for the drug in the area, however, as indicated by the widespread distribution of the drug 

and the proliferation of small-capacity methamphetamine laboratories within the area.

St. Louis, the only DAWN reporting city 

within the Central States for ED mentions, ranked 

eighth among all DAWN cities with an estimated 

115 ED methamphetamine mentions in 2001, 

down from 162 in 2000. DAWN mortality data 

for St. Louis show that methamphetamine was 

mentioned in 9 of 276 deaths involving drug 

abuse in 1999 and in 9 of 244 deaths in 2000. 

DAWN mortality data for Kansas City show that 

methamphetamine was mentioned in 13 of 237 

deaths involving drug abuse in 1999 and in 6 of 

222 deaths in 2000. According to TEDS data for 

1999, the Central States were among the top 10 

states regarding the number of methamphetamine-related admissions to publicly funded 

treatment facilities with Missouri ranking fourth 

(3,147), Iowa ranking fifth (2,840), and Arkansas 

ranking ninth (2,050). Des Moines and Kansas 

City are the only ADAM sites located in the Central States, and according to 2001 data, 22.0 percent of adult male arrestees in Des Moines tested 

positive for methamphetamine, ranking the city 

sixth among 33 ADAM sites. Furthermore, Des 

Moines ranked fifth in the percentage of adult 

male arrestees who reported using methamphetamine within the past year (32.4%). In Kansas 

City 1.0 percent of adult male arrestees tested 

positive for methamphetamine, and 15.0 reported 

using the drug in the past year.

DEA, HIDTA, and state and local law 

enforcement reporting indicates methamphetamine is widely distributed and abused throughout the Central States. Mexican traffickers 

transport methamphetamine to the area from 

Mexico and the Southwest and Pacific regions via 

private vehicles and, to a lesser extent, commercial air and mail services; they also control 

wholesale distribution of the drug. These Mexican wholesale distributors typically supply methamphetamine to Caucasian midlevel distributors, 

often through front businesses. The midlevel distributors in turn supply primarily Caucasian retail 

distributors, who typically sell the drug in private 

residences, hotel rooms, bars, and parking lots. 

Many Caucasian independent methamphetamine 

producers in the area also distribute small 

amounts of the drug to friends and associates for 

their use.

Outlaw motorcycle gangs also transport 

methamphetamine from the western United 

States to the Central States where they distribute 

the drug. According to the Midwest HIDTA, 

street gangs such as Latin Kings and Black Gangster Disciples appear to be increasingly involved 

in retail methamphetamine sales within the primary market area.
National Drug Intelligence Center

25

Key Developments

Reporting from federal and state law enforcement agencies indicates that the use of toxic 

hypophosphorous acid in place of red phosphorus 

as an essential chemical when producing methamphetamine has increased since 1999. According to NCLSS data, 12 hypophosphorous 

methamphetamine laboratories were seized in 

1999 and 77 were seized in 2000. In 2001, 79 

hypophosphorous methamphetamine laboratories 

were seized in 16 states in the New England, 

Pacific, Southeast, Southwest, and West Central 

regions; nearly half (37) were seized in Colorado. 

Hypophosphorous acid is corrosive, harmful if 

inhaled, and more prone to cause fires than red 

phosphorus during methamphetamine production. 

Hypophosphorous acid has commercial applications and is sold legally, primarily over the Internet, in solutions or as a salt.

The availability of ice methamphetamine,

a highly pure and very addictive form of

methamphetamine, is increasing throughout the 

United States. Once limited primarily to Guam, 

Hawaii, and some areas of California, ice methamphetamine is now available in several regions of 

the country, although usually in limited amounts.

Reporting from the U.S. Forest Service 

(USFS) indicates that the amount of methamphetamine seized on National Forest System (NFS) 

lands is increasing. Despite an overall reduction 

in the number of laboratories and dumpsites 

seized between 2000 and 2001 (488 to 344), the 

amount of methamphetamine seized increased 

from 93 to 154 pounds (42 kg to 70 kg). This 

increase in the quantity seized likely is due to the 

presence of larger capacity laboratories on such 

lands. Most of the methamphetamine laboratories 

and dumpsites seized on NFS lands (58%) were 

in Missouri’s Mark Twain National Forest.

Projections

Mexican criminal groups will attain greater 

control of wholesale and midlevel methamphetamine distribution in eastern states. Mexican criminal groups are now the predominant wholesale 

distributors of methamphetamine in many areas of 

the Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, and Southeast 

regions, and they are prominent in several large 

eastern cities.

The threat posed by methamphetamine will 

increase over the next year. Such an increase is 

indicated by the rising availability of methamphetamine in drug markets in eastern states, the 

growing number of states reporting the presence 

of superlabs, rising purity levels, and an apparent 

increase in the presence of ice methamphetamine. 

Despite the rising threat, methamphetamine is not 

likely to surpass the overall threat posed to the 

United States by powder cocaine and crack in the 

near term.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

26

This page intentionally left blank.
National Drug Intelligence Center

27

National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

Marijuana

Marijuana is a leading drug threat to the country. It is the most readily available and widely 

used illicit drug in the United States, and its prevalence has contributed to both an acceptance of 

marijuana use among some adults and adolescents and a perception that the drug is not harmful. Reporting from law enforcement and public 

health agencies, as well as federal investigation, 

arrest, and seizure data, indicates marijuana availability changed little over the past year.

Some national substance abuse indicators suggest that marijuana use may rise despite relatively 

stable levels of use since the late 1990s. The number of past year users increased significantly in 

2001, and national-level prevalence studies show 

decreases in the perception of risk regarding marijuana use. Available data suggest that marijuana 

production is high both in the United States and in 

foreign source areas. Transport of marijuana from 

source areas to markets occurs via many methods 

but primarily overland in commercial and private 

vehicles. Distribution of marijuana appears to be 

stable, and a wide range of criminal groups, gangs, 

and independent dealers distribute the drug 

throughout the country. Primary market areas for 

marijuana include Central Arizona, Chicago, Los 

Angeles, Miami, New York, and Seattle.

NDTS data show that 20.4 percent of state 

and local law enforcement agencies nationwide 

identify marijuana as their principal drug threat. 

Regionally, more state and local law enforcement 

agencies in the New York/New Jersey (40.9%), 

Great Lakes (29.6%), New England (27.3%), 

Mid-Atlantic (21.0%), and Southwest regions 

(19.7%) identify marijuana as the greatest threat 

than do those in the Florida/Caribbean (10.9%), 

West Central (9.9%), Southeast (9.3%), and 

Pacific regions (7.8%).

Current medical and scientific evidence continues to demonstrate that marijuana has a high 

potential for abuse, and the current user population is more frequently exposed to higher potency 

marijuana than in previous years, which may 

increase the risk of dependence. Animal studies 

suggest that THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) 

causes physical dependence, and a withdrawal 

syndrome characterized by irritability, stomach 

pain, aggression, and anxiety has been associated 

with abstinence from long-term marijuana use in 

some people. According to the National Institute 

on Drug Abuse (NIDA), those who smoke marijuana regularly may develop long-term respiratory problems such as chronic coughing, 

bronchitis, and poor lung function. Short-term 

effects of marijuana use include memory and 

learning problems, difficulty in thinking and 

problem solving, distorted perception, and loss of 

coordination. A primary physical effect—

increased heart rate—can be exacerbated when 

marijuana is used in combination with other 

drugs, such as cocaine, a considerable concern 

given that approximately three-quarters of the ED 

episodes involving marijuana in 2001 involved at 

least one other drug.

Marijuana use typically is not associated with 

violence. The potential for violence usually is 

associated with cannabis cultivation in that many 

grow sites are secured with potentially lethal 

booby traps and protected by way of firearms. 

Recent reports of the theft of marijuana through 

home invasion robberies suggest that cultivators 

and distributors themselves are at risk of violence. 

Law enforcement reporting also suggests greater 

frequency of violence related to marijuana distribution, including kidnappings, shootings, and 

homicides often over unpaid drug debts.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

28

Availability

Marijuana is the most widely available illicit 

drug in the United States. Reporting from law 

enforcement and public health agencies, as well 

as investigation, arrest, and seizure data, indicates 

marijuana availability changed little over the past 

year. Prices are relatively stable, although they do 

range considerably from market to market, and 

the average overall potency of marijuana is rising.

NDTS data show that 96.9 percent of state 

and local law enforcement agencies nationwide 

describe the availability of marijuana as high or 

medium—just 1.8 percent describe it as low. 

From region to region, the proportions of agencies reporting high or medium availability were 

very similar and ranged only from 98.9 percent in 

the Mid-Atlantic region to 91.6 percent in the 

Florida/Caribbean.

Every DEA Field Division and HIDTA 

throughout the country reports that marijuana is 

available in its area. All DEA Field Divisions and 

HIDTAs report the availability both of marijuana 

produced in Mexico and of marijuana produced 

domestically. More than three-quarters (16 of 21) 

of DEA Field Divisions and three-quarters (24 of 

32) of HIDTAs specifically identify Mexico or the 

Southwest Border area as the primary source of 

the marijuana available in their areas. Reporting 

from three DEA Field Divisions (San Diego, San 

Francisco, and Seattle) and six HIDTAs (Appalachia, Central California, Los Angeles, Hawaii, 

Northern California, and Oregon) suggests that 

much of the marijuana available in their areas is 

grown locally. Other types of marijuana available 

according to DEA and HIDTA reporting include 

Canadian, identified in every region of the country; Jamaican, identified in the Florida/Caribbean, 

Great Lakes, New England, and New York/New 

Jersey regions; and Colombian, identified in the 

Florida/Caribbean, New England, and New York/

New Jersey regions.

Pulse Check reporting confirms the widespread, stable availability of marijuana throughout the country: 38 of 39 sources reported wide 

availability of marijuana. According to Pulse 

Check, the most available type of marijuana was 

domestically produced commercial-grade, followed by Mexico-produced commercial-grade, 

then sinsemilla (see text box). Few changes in 

marijuana availability were noted. Only sources 

in Boston, Columbia (SC), Denver, and Honolulu 

reported increases, while a decline in availability 

was reported only for Chicago.

Commercial-grade marijuana usually includes 

the leaves, stems, and seeds of the cannabis 

plant and thus is of lower potency, which can 

range between approximately 1 and 6 percent. 

Sinsemilla comprises just the buds and flowering tops of unpollinated female plants, where 

THC is most concentrated. The potency of 

sinsemilla can reach levels of more than 30 

percent THC but more often ranges between 

10 and 15 percent.

The proportion of OCDETF investigations 

involving marijuana, many of which likely are 

polydrug investigations, declined slightly from 

40.7 percent in FY2000 to 39.3 percent in 

FY2001. The proportion of OCDETF indictments 

in which marijuana was charged increased 

slightly during the same period from 17.4 to 18.8 

percent. The Southwest and Southeast regions 

accounted for the most marijuana-related investigations and indictments in both fiscal years.

The number of DEA arrests involving cannabis dropped from 8,109 in 2000 to 6,225 in 

2001, accounting for 20.9 and 18.9 percent, 

respectively, of all DEA arrests in those years. 

The number of federal sentences involving marijuana increased from 7,301 in FY2000 to 7,991 in 

FY2001, according to the USSC, accounting for 

31.2 and 32.8 percent, respectively, of federal 

sentences involving all drug types. Of federal sentences for marijuana in 2001, 97.1 percent were 

for drug trafficking; only 2.3 percent were for 

simple possession.
National Drug Intelligence Center

29

According to FDSS data, the amount of marijuana seized declined between 2000 and 2001 

from 1,236 metric tons to 1,215 metric tons. 

Texas, Arizona, California and, to a much lesser 

extent, New Mexico accounted for just over 90 

percent (1,104 of 1,215 mt) of the marijuana 

seized in 2001—Texas alone accounted for more 

than half.

Prices for marijuana have been relatively stable but are wide ranging because of variables 

such as potency, quantities purchased, purchase 

frequencies, buyer-seller relationships, and transportation costs. According to DEA, in 2001 a 

pound of marijuana sold from as low as $70 

(commercial-grade) to as high as $10,000 (sinsemilla); however, a typical national price range 

is $300 to $1,200 per pound for commercialgrade marijuana and $600 to $4,000 per pound 

for sinsemilla. Retail price ranges are approximately $5 to $50 per gram for commercial-grade 

and $40 to $100 per gram for sinsemilla.

The overall potency of marijuana rose 

between 2000 and 2001, according to data from 

the Potency Monitoring Project.16 Average 

potency increased for all marijuana types (4.88% 

to 5.32%) and specifically for commercial-grade 

marijuana (4.69% to 5.03%) between 2000 and 

2001, but decreased for sinsemilla (12.71% to 

9.55%) during the same period. The average concentration of THC in submitted samples of sinsemilla has fluctuated over the last decade, 

ranging from a low of 5.77 percent in 1993 to a 

high of 13.38 percent in 1999. Nonetheless 

reporting from the Potency Monitoring Project 

indicates an increase in the prevalence of higher 

potency marijuana in samples submitted for testing. Marijuana samples testing at or greater than 9 

percent THC accounted for 2.97 percent of samples submitted in 1992, 9.13 percent of samples 

submitted in 1997, and 15.29 percent of samples 

submitted in 2001.

Demand

Use of marijuana was relatively stable and 

exhibited slight declines from 1998 to 2000. Some 

national substance abuse indicators for 2001, 

however, suggest that marijuana use may rise.

The prevalence of marijuana use is reflected 

in 2001 data from the NHSDA, which show that 

nearly 21.1 million of an estimated 28.4 million 

past year illicit drug users aged 12 and older 

reported past year use of marijuana. These figures 

are up significantly from 2000 when 18.6 million 

of an estimated 24.5 million past year illicit drug 

users reported past year marijuana use. The 

NHSDA further indicates that 11.9 percent of 

past year marijuana users used on 300 or more 

days in 2001, translating to 2.5 million persons 

using marijuana on a daily or almost daily basis 

in that year. Moreover, 16.5 percent of past year 

users—3.5 million people—were classified as 

dependent on or abusers of marijuana.

Data from national-level prevalence studies 

show rising use of marijuana among adults. 

According to NHSDA data, the rates of past year 

use increased significantly between 2000 and 

2001 for persons aged 18–25 (23.7% to 26.7%) 

and 26–34 (10.3% to 11.9%). Past year marijuana 

use among those aged 35 and older also rose, 

although not significantly, from 3.8 to 4.1 percent.

MTF data, although relatively stable since the 

late 1990s, do show a general upward trend in 

marijuana use among adults. In 2001, 35.6 percent 

of college students (19–22) and 29.2 percent of 

young adults (19–28) reported past year marijuana 

use, while the rates were 34.0 and 27.9 percent, 

respectively, in 2000. The changes from 2000 to 

2001 are not statistically significant, however.

16.The Potency Monitoring Project, funded by NIDA and conducted at the University of Mississippi, analyzes samples of marijuana

seized by federal and state law enforcement agencies. 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

30

The most recent data regarding past year

adolescent use of marijuana are mixed. While 

NHSDA, a home-based survey, indicates that adolescent marijuana use has increased significantly 

since 2000, the school-based surveys MTF and 

PRIDE show stable to sharply decreasing use. 

The latest data available from NHSDA show that 

among those aged 12–17 the rate of past year marijuana use increased significantly from 13.4 percent in 2000 to 15.2 percent in 2001.

MTF data, on the other hand, indicate relatively stable to declining use of marijuana 

through 2002 among students. Between 2001 and 

2002, past year marijuana use fell for eighth 

(15.4% to 14.6%), tenth (32.7% to 30.3%), and 

twelfth graders (37.0% to 36.2%). According to 

MTF, there has been a modest decline in past year 

marijuana use since the latter 1990s, but the 

change in past year use for tenth graders from 

2001 to 2002 is the only statistically significant 

decrease in recent years.

The latest data from PRIDE, however, show 

significant decreases in marijuana use between 

the 2000–2001 and 2001–2002 school years for 

sixth through twelfth graders, particularly among 

older students. Past year use decreased for junior 

high students (9.3% to 8.3%) and dramatically so 

for senior high students (32.3% to 29.4%) and 

twelfth graders (39.0% to 35.7%). These are the 

lowest rates indicated by PRIDE since the 1993–

1994 school year for junior high students and 

since the 1994–1995 school year for senior high 

students and twelfth graders.

A few changes in the attitudes toward, and 

perceptions regarding, marijuana use among 

adults and youth may presage a rise in use as suggested by some substance abuse indicators. 

NHSDA data show significant decreases between 

2000 and 2001 in the perceived risk of smoking 

marijuana once or twice a week for those aged 

12–17 (56.0% to 53.5%), 18–25 (41.9% to 

37.8%), and 26 and older (58.9% to 56.0%). 

Marijuana and Youth

Marijuana is readily accessible to adolescents, contributing to its alleged role as a “gateway” to 

other illicit drug use. An initiate to drug use is more likely to start with a drug that is readily available 

and easily obtainable, and according to the 2001 NHSDA, 55.4 percent of adolescents aged 12–17 

reported marijuana was fairly or very easy to obtain, up from 54.1 percent in 2000. Also, 2002 MTF 

data indicate that 46.6 percent of eighth graders, 75.9 percent of tenth graders, and 87.2 percent of 

twelfth graders report that marijuana is fairly or very easy to obtain.

Not every young person who uses marijuana goes on to use other drugs, but according to NIDA, 

long-term studies of high school students and their drug use patterns indicate that very few young 

people who use other drugs do so without first trying marijuana. Age statistics appear to corroborate this progression. NHSDA data show the mean age at first use of marijuana is 17.5, while the 

mean age at first use for other drugs is as follows: stimulants, 18.5; hallucinogens, 18.6; cocaine, 

20.0; pain relievers, 20.8; and heroin, 22.3.

Furthermore, some young people initiate marijuana use at even lower ages. Data from the Youth 

Risk Behavior Surveillance System indicate, for example, that 10.2 percent of ninth- through twelfthgrade students in 2001 had tried marijuana before the age of 13. And the consequences of such 

early use are telling. More than half (57%) of 223,597 treatment admissions for marijuana/hashish 

in 1999 had first used the drug by the age of 14, and ED mentions for marijuana increased more 

than 150 percent among patients aged 12–17 between 1994 and 2001. Moreover, a 2002 report 

from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration found that 62 percent of 

adults aged 26 and older who initiated marijuana use before the age of 15 reported using cocaine 

at least once in their lifetime compared with 0.6 percent who never used marijuana.
National Drug Intelligence Center

31

Among MTF respondents, the perceived harmfulness of smoking marijuana regularly decreased 

significantly for twelfth graders between 2001 

and 2002 (57.4% to 53.0%) but was relatively stable for eighth (72.2% to 71.7%) and tenth graders 

(62.8% to 60.8%). PATS data also show a decline 

in the percentage of teens aged 12–17 reporting 

great risk in using marijuana regularly, from 60 

percent in 2000 to 58 percent in 2001.

The consequences of marijuana use have been 

rising since the early 1990s, even as use rates were 

stable or declining. Contributing considerably to 

the increases are use of marijuana in combination 

with other drugs and treatment referrals from the 

criminal justice system. The growing availability 

and use of higher potency marijuana likely has 

affected the number of emergency department

visits and treatment admissions as well.

DAWN data indicate that the estimated number of ED mentions for marijuana increased 14.6 

percent between 2000 (96,426) and 2001 

(110,512). The rate of marijuana ED mentions 

nationwide increased significantly as well from 39 

to 44 per 100,000 population. DAWN data for 

2001 further indicate that for the third year in succession “psychic effects” surpassed “dependence” 

as the motive for use in most ED episodes in which 

marijuana was mentioned. A significant increase 

between 2000 and 2001 was noted for “chronic 

effects” as a reason given for ED contact; however, 

the reason given in most ED episodes in which 

marijuana was mentioned in 2001—as in the 7 

preceding years—was an “unexpected reaction.” 

A contributing factor in these statistics is the use 

of marijuana in combination with other drugs. 

Only 24 percent of ED episodes involving marijuana involved marijuana alone.

The number of admissions to publicly funded 

treatment facilities for marijuana use increased 

steadily from 1994 (142,633) to 1998 (218,483) 

and continued to rise in 1999 (223,597). TEDS 

data indicate that the criminal justice system 

largely contributes to these numbers, accounting 

for more than half of marijuana treatment referrals in both 1998 (53.9%) and 1999 (57.1%). The 

number of marijuana treatment admissions specifically among those aged 12–17 also increased 

from 1994 (46,554) to 1998 (81,196) but then 

declined in 1999 (79,000). Criminal justice referrals accounted for more than half of adolescent 

marijuana admissions as well in both 1998 

(50.4%) and 1999 (53.6%). According to TEDS, 

the number of adolescent marijuana admissions 

increased from 1992 to 1995 for all referral 

sources, but while referrals from other sources 

stabilized or declined after 1995, criminal justice 

referrals have continued to rise.

Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit 

drug not only among the general population but 

also among adult male arrestees, according to 

ADAM data. Data for 2001 indicate that 54.6 percent of all male arrestees at ADAM sites reported 

past year marijuana use, more than for any other 

drug. In 2000 past year marijuana use was 

reported by 52.9 percent of adult male arrestees.

Production

Cannabis is cultivated throughout the United 

States at outdoor and indoor sites. NDTS data 

show that 74.7 percent of state and local law 

enforcement agencies nationwide report outdoor 

cultivation in their areas and that 73.8 percent 

report indoor cultivation. Marijuana produced 

from cannabis grown in foreign source areas is 

smuggled into the country as well. Available data 

appear to indicate that marijuana production is 

high both in the United States and in foreign 

source areas. Except for Mexico, however, estimates regarding production levels are not conclusive, primarily because of limitations in 

eradication and seizure data, the unknown extent 

of indoor cultivation, and unsubstantiated or outdated crop estimates. This uncertainty does not 

allow for an accurate estimate of the amount of 

marijuana available in U.S. markets.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

32

While eradication and seizure data are not a 

reliable indicator of cultivation levels, such data 

do provide a general idea as to the magnitude of 

marijuana production in the United States. DEA’s 

Domestic Cannabis Eradication and Suppression 

Program (DCE/SP), which maintains statistics for 

cannabis eradication efforts undertaken by federal, state, and local agencies under the auspices 

of DCE/SP, reports the eradication of 3,304,760 

cannabis plants in 2001 from both outdoor 

(3,068,632) and indoor (236,128) cultivation sites. 

In 2000 DCE/SP reported the eradication of 

2,814,903 cannabis plants from outdoor 

(2,597,798) and indoor (217,105) cultivation sites.

California appears to be the primary domestic 

source area for marijuana produced from both 

outdoor- and indoor-cultivated cannabis. In 2001 

California greatly exceeded all states in eradication of cannabis plants from outdoor (1,086,809) 

and indoor sites (113,009), according to the DCE/

SP. The USFS reports that 6 of the 10 leading 

national forests for plant eradication in 2001 were 

in California; San Diego County’s Cleveland 

National Forest alone accounted for more than 

half the cannabis plants eradicated from NFS 

lands in California. High-grade marijuana (typically sinsemilla) has been produced in the northern California counties of Humboldt, Mendocino, 

and Trinity for several years, and recent production in the area has been described as high regarding both yield and quality. Moreover, both the 

DEA Los Angeles and San Francisco Field Divisions report increases in the size and scope of 

indoor cultivation in their areas, noting the use of 

structures built exclusively for cultivation operations, some of which are concealed underground.

Kentucky and Tennessee, as well as Hawaii, 

are principal domestic source areas for marijuana 

produced primarily from outdoor cultivation. 

These states account for the highest outdoor eradication figures, excluding California, under the 

DCE/SP. Kentucky and Tennessee combined 

accounted for 891,755 cannabis plants eradicated 

from outdoor sites in 2001, and approximately 

three-quarters of the total plants eradicated in 

these states were eradicated from designated 

HIDTA counties. Hawaii accounted for 525,041 

cannabis plants eradicated from outdoor sites in 

2001, according to the DCE/SP. The Hawaii 

HIDTA reports that 70 to 80 percent of cultivation in Hawaii occurs on public lands and that the 

largest growing area is on the island of Hawaii.

Much of the outdoor cannabis cultivation in 

the United States occurs on public lands, where 

cultivators can take advantage of the remoteness 

of the areas as well as minimize the risk of asset 

forfeiture if apprehended. Consequently, NFS 

lands, as well as lands managed by the Department of the Interior (DOI), account for a considerable number of cannabis plants eradicated each 

year. The USFS reports eradicating 719,985 cannabis plants from NFS lands in 2001, and the 

DOI reports eradicating 125,428 cannabis plants 

in 2001. Cultivation on California NFS lands in 

particular appears to be rising: the number of 

plants eradicated in that state in both 2000 

(443,595) and 2001 (495,536) was more than 

double that for Kentucky (201,227 and 170,314), 

a more prolific state historically with regard to 

eradication. The size of cultivation sites on NFS 

lands continues to increase in California, where 

an average of 2,294 plants were cultivated per site 

in 2001, and continues to decrease in Kentucky, 

where the average was 40 plants per site.

Cultivators of domestic cannabis typically are 

residents of the area in which the cannabis is 

located. Cannabis cultivators, particularly those in 

northern California and Appalachia, often run 

family-based operations or form loose confederations with other cultivators and brokers, occasionally pooling resources to distribute the marijuana 

produced. Most outdoor cultivators in the United 

States are Caucasian independent growers; however, over the past few years Mexican drug trafficking organizations have increased their 

involvement in cultivation operations in the 

United States, particularly on federal- and

state-owned land.
National Drug Intelligence Center

33

Drought, aggressive eradication programs, 

increased law enforcement efforts, and the potential to cultivate better quality marijuana have led 

many cultivators to modify their outdoor operations by decreasing the number of plants grown 

per site and scattering smaller plots across wider 

areas, or to completely abandon outdoor sites for 

indoor operations. DEA Field Divisions in Dallas, 

Detroit, Miami, and New Orleans report 

decreases in outdoor cultivation. Conversely, the 

Gulf Coast HIDTA, although reporting a decline 

in local production in general, notes a shift toward 

outdoor cultivation specifically on public lands.

The extent of indoor cultivation in the United 

States is largely unknown, although eradication 

data and the frequency with which seizures of 

indoor grow operations occur suggest indoor cultivation is prevalent throughout the country. 

According to the DCE/SP, the states with the 

highest number of plants eradicated from indoor 

sites in 2001 are California (113,009), Washington (25,779), and Florida (15,151). DEA Field 

Divisions in Atlanta, Chicago, Miami, and St. 

Louis—in addition to those in Los Angeles and 

San Francisco mentioned previously—report 

increases in indoor cultivation, as do the Central 

Florida, North Florida, and Rocky Mountain 

HIDTAs. Law enforcement reporting indicates 

that Florida in particular appears to be the site not 

only of increasing indoor cultivation but also of 

increasingly organized growing operations, 

including the conversion of entire homes to 

indoor cannabis cultivation operations.

Mexico, Colombia, Canada, and Jamaica are 

considered the four primary source areas of foreign-produced marijuana available in the United 

States. According to DEA, Mexico is the source 

of most foreign-produced marijuana available in 

the United States. Mexico is also the only source 

area for which a statistically valid production estimate exists. In 2001 estimated net production of 

marijuana in Mexico was 7,400 metric tons, up 

from 7,000 metric tons in 2000. Northern Mexico 

accounted for almost 70 percent of the total crop 

in 2001.

Estimates of marijuana production in 

Colombia have been reported in the INCSR at 

4,150 metric tons annually since 1996; however, 

there are no current accepted interagency estimates of the amount of marijuana destined for 

the United States from Colombia. Cannabis 

eradication in that country is limited since 

resources are deployed against coca and opium 

cultivation, and the U.S. Government has not 

confirmed reported cannabis cultivation in 

Colombia for several years.

The RCMP has estimated marijuana production in Canada at 800 metric tons annually since 

1998. But considering reports of the profitability 

of cannabis cultivation in Canada and the expansion of operations throughout the country, indications are that the level of marijuana production in 

Canada will increase. The RCMP reports that the 

majority of cannabis cultivators are Canadian and 

operate independently but further notes the continued involvement of outlaw motorcycle gangs 

(primarily Hells Angels) and the growing dominance of Asian criminal groups (typically Vietnamese) in marijuana production. Cannabis 

cultivators in Canada appear to be moving their 

operations indoors. The increased prevalence of 

indoor cultivation magnifies the uncertainty in 

estimating marijuana production in Canada.

According to the INCSR, Jamaica is the largest source area of marijuana in the Caribbean, and 

the DEA Caribbean Field Division reports that 

production on the island is rising steadily. There 

is, however, no accurate estimate of the amount 

of cannabis currently under cultivation in that 

country. The only figure reported for 2001—the 

number of hectares eradicated (332)—is less than 

half that reported in 1997 (743), the last year for 

which a marijuana production estimate was 

reported. Potential yield was 214 metric tons in 

that year. Local farmers control cultivation sites 

in Jamaica, and drug traffickers pay the farmers to 

plant and harvest cannabis for distribution in the 

United States, Canada, and Europe.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

34

Transportation

Significant quantities of marijuana produced 

in foreign source areas are smuggled into the 

United States primarily via the U.S.–Mexico border, but a considerable amount of marijuana is 

smuggled into the country via the Caribbean and 

U.S.–Canada border as well. Marijuana produced 

in foreign and domestic source areas is transported to and throughout the country primarily 

overland but also via maritime ports, airports, and 

mail facilities. Quantities smuggled per shipment 

vary from just a few pounds to thousands, often 

depending on the transportation method used. 

Transporters of marijuana include drug trafficking 

organizations, criminal groups, outlaw motorcycle gangs, and independent smugglers of Hispanic, Caribbean, Asian, Caucasian, and African 

American origin.

Most of the foreign-produced marijuana in the 

United States either originates in or transits Mexico before being smuggled across the U.S.–Mexico 

border. Mexican drug trafficking organizations 

and criminal groups with extensive networks of 

associates within the United States control the 

smuggling of Mexican marijuana to this country. 

Methods of transportation are broad and primarily involve commercial and private vehicles 

crossing the border; tractor-trailers are used most 

often for shipments of 1,000 pounds or more, 

while shipments in private vehicles often range 

from 50 to 500 pounds. Commercial buses that 

provide cross-border service in the southwestern 

United States are used frequently for smaller 

shipments of 30 to 60 pounds. Other overland 

transport methods include rail, horse, and couriers on foot, such as backpackers who cross the 

border typically between POEs. Smugglers also 

use commercial and noncommercial vessels off 

Mexico’s Pacific and western Caribbean coasts as 

well as aircraft.

EPIC seizure data show that the POEs 

accounting for most of the marijuana seized along 

the U.S.–Mexico border in 2001 are El Paso 

(104,257 kg), San Ysidro (59,073 kg), Calexico 

(54,353 kg), Otay Mesa (53,203 kg), and Laredo 

(34,483 kg). The El Paso and San Ysidro POEs 

also led all Southwest Border POEs in 2000 with 

75,021 and 73,514 kilograms of marijuana seized, 

respectively, in that year. From POEs along the 

U.S.–Mexico border, large shipments of marijuana often are initially destined for metropolitan 

areas such as Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix, 

and Tucson, where traffickers store or break down 

wholesale quantities to midlevel and retail quantities. Primary market areas supplied with marijuana smuggled over the U.S.–Mexico border 

include Central Arizona, Chicago, Los Angeles, 

Miami, New York, and Seattle.

Smuggling Between POEs

Significant amounts of marijuana are smuggled across the U.S.–Mexico border between 

POEs. EPIC seizure data show marijuana

seizures of 248,033 kilograms in 2000 and 

264,456 kilograms in 2001. Texas and Arizona 

accounted for more than 90 percent of the 

marijuana seized between POEs in both years.

Smugglers also exploit public lands adjacent 

to the U.S.–Mexico border to move marijuana and other drugs into the country, 

according to the USFS. Of 92,400 pounds 

(nearly 42,000 kg) of processed marijuana 

seized on NFS lands in 2001, 88,229 

pounds, or approximately 40,000 kilograms—which the USFS attributes to border 

trafficking—were seized on the Coronado 

National Forest in Arizona.

Marijuana smuggled into the United States 

via POEs in the southeastern United States and 

along the East Coast is primarily from Colombia 

and Jamaica. According to FDSS data, Florida 

accounted for the fifth highest amount of marijuana seized in 2001 (behind the four Southwest 

Border states only) with 30 metric tons, while the 

South Atlantic/Caribbean accounted for the 

majority of marijuana (5.7 of 5.9 mt) seized at 

sea. Colombian drug trafficking organizations 
National Drug Intelligence Center

35

transport bulk shipments of marijuana from 

Colombia’s coastal regions to the United States 

either directly via commercial cargo ships or by 

way of transit countries, such as Mexico and 

Jamaica, via fishing vessels and go-fast boats. 

Traffickers based in Jamaica transport local and 

Colombian marijuana to the United States using 

couriers on commercial flights as well as commercial cargo ships and go-fast boats that often 

transit the Bahamas and other islands. Marijuana 

transported from Colombia and Jamaica has been 

reported as also transiting the Dominican Republic en route to the United States. The DEA Caribbean Field Division reports that marijuana 

seizures in the Dominican Republic increased 

significantly between 2000 and 2001.

EPIC seizure data show that commercial maritime seizures of marijuana at the Miami POE 

increased from 10,078 kilograms in 2000 to 

17,996 kilograms in 2001. The POE at Charleston, South Carolina, was among the leading POEs 

for commercial maritime seizures of marijuana in 

2000 and 2001, with 1,404 and 1,806 kilograms 

seized, respectively. Commercial air seizures of 

marijuana at the Miami POE decreased from 

1,142 kilograms in 2000 to 697 kilograms in 

2001; however, amounts seized from commercial 

air at the New York POE increased during that 

period, from 774 to 1,276 kilograms. Primary 

market areas supplied with marijuana smuggled 

via the Caribbean include Miami and New York.

Much of the marijuana produced in Canada 

supplies demand in that country. Nonetheless a 

sizable yet undetermined amount—much of 

which is higher potency marijuana—is smuggled 

into the United States. Those smuggling marijuana from Canada into the United States include 

outlaw motorcycle gangs such as Hells Angels 

and Bandidos; Asian criminal groups, particularly Vietnamese but also those of Indian and 

Pakistani origin; and independent smugglers 

including Caucasian Canadian or U.S. citizens 

and Native Americans. Most smuggling across 

the border is overland but the means vary greatly, 

from commercial and private vehicles to backpackers and snowmobiles. Private aircraft, fishing 

vessels and ferries, as well as mail services are 

used as well to transport marijuana from Canada 

to the United States.

EPIC seizure data show that the POEs at 

Blaine (1,705 kg) and Lynden (468 kg) in Washington accounted for the most marijuana seized at 

U.S.–Canada POEs in 2001. The Blaine POE has 

led all U.S.–Canada POEs in amounts seized for 

the past 3 years, while seizures at the Lynden POE 

have risen sharply from 71 kilograms seized in 

1999 and 393 kilograms in 2000. Seizures of marijuana along the U.S.–Canada border between 

POEs have fluctuated. The U.S. Border Patrol 

(USBP) reports seizures of 7,167 pounds (approximately 3,251 kg) in FY2000 and 4,495 pounds, 

or 2039 kilograms, in FY2001; FY2002 seizures 

through May totaled 6,835 pounds (approximately 

3,100 kg). Primary market areas supplied with 

marijuana smuggled across the U.S.–Canada border include Los Angeles, New York, and Seattle.

A large amount of domestic marijuana is 

intended for sale and use in the vicinity in which 

it is produced. Nonetheless some—especially that 

grown in high production areas—is intended for 

transport to other areas of the country, and an 

undetermined amount of domestic marijuana may 

be smuggled to other countries. Law enforcement 

reporting indicates that marijuana is transported 

from California to Hawaii and to cities throughout the continental United States; from Kentucky 

and Tennessee to the Great Lakes and Mid-Atlantic regions, California, and New York; and from 

Hawaii to the mainland, primarily California, as 

well as to Canada and Mexico.

Many of the same traffickers mentioned previously transport marijuana within the United 

States. Mexican drug trafficking organizations 

and criminal groups control the transportation not 

only of marijuana smuggled through POEs along 

the U.S.–Mexico border but also of marijuana 

produced at cultivation sites they control in California. Jamaican criminal groups transport marijuana supplied by Mexican traffickers (some of it 

hydroponic) from the southwestern United States 

to markets in the eastern half of the country. 

Other marijuana transporters within the United 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

36

States include outlaw motorcycle gangs, Asian 

criminal groups, local independent growers and 

dealers, as well as those of Hispanic, Caribbean, 

and Caucasian origin—both as members of organized groups and as independent transporters.

The transport of marijuana in the United 

States occurs mostly overland in commercial and 

private vehicles, trains, and buses, although commercial and private aircraft and watercraft are 

used as well. The use of mail services appears to 

be routine and growing. Data from the U.S. 

Postal Service (USPS) indicate that marijuana is 

the drug most commonly seized from parcels, 

and reporting from several law enforcement 

agencies indicates growing use of this method. 

DEA and HIDTA reporting identifies mail services as one of the most common means to transport marijuana in Connecticut, Delaware, and the 

Baltimore-Washington, D.C., area. Shipments of 

marijuana transported through mail services typically range from 5 to 40 pounds per parcel.

During transport, the methods used to conceal 

wholesale and midlevel quantities of marijuana—

often compressed bricks wrapped in cellophane 

and tape—can range from elaborate, remotely triggered false compartments installed in vehicles to 

burlap sacks. Marijuana shipments of 1,000 pounds 

or more frequently are intermingled with legitimate 

goods such as furniture and produce and transported in cargo containers or refrigerated compartments. According to law enforcement reporting, 

multipound quantities have been transported in 

plastic- or canvas-wrapped bales (50–75 lb), in 

duffel or hockey bags (40–100 lb), and inside tires, 

television sets, and stereo speakers.

Distribution

Marijuana distribution appears to be stable 

throughout the country. The level of domestic production, including indoor cultivation, has ensured 

that the marijuana supply is steady year-round. 

Demand is also steady, and indications are that the 

demand for marijuana exceeds that for any other 

illicit drug. Because of such factors, drug traffickers—from large-scale polydrug organizations to 

independent dealers—appear to rely on marijuana 

as a stable commodity that generates considerable 

profits and that, in some cases, helps finance other 

drug operations.

Law enforcement reporting indicates that 

Mexican and Hispanic drug trafficking organizations and criminal groups are the dominant wholesale distributors of most foreign-produced 

marijuana in the United States. Many of these 

organizations and groups also distribute cocaine, 

methamphetamine, and heroin. Asian and Asian 

American criminal groups distribute wholesale 

and midlevel marijuana primarily in the Pacific 

region. Nationally, Caucasian, Mexican, and 

Jamaican distributors appear to be most active in 

midlevel distribution. Nonetheless Jamaican criminal groups are identified as primary wholesale 

distributors, particularly in the Florida/Caribbean 

and New York/New Jersey regions, and Caucasian 

independent dealers are the dominant wholesale 

and retail distributors of most domestic marijuana 

throughout the country.

Retail distribution typically reflects the demographics of a given area and involves a wide range 

of criminal groups, gangs, and independent dealers. Retail distributors of marijuana include criminal groups of Hispanic, Caribbean, Caucasian, and 

Asian origin; street gangs, such as Gangster Disciples and Latin Kings, as well as local gangs; and 

Caucasian, African American, Hispanic, Jamaican, and Native American independent dealers.

Typical packaging for marijuana consists of 

plastic bags, although these now are often heat- or 

vacuum-sealed, particularly when holding a 

pound or more. One-pound quantities also have 

been packaged in paper bags, oven-cooking bags, 

and vacuum-packed coffee cans. Smaller plastic 

resealable bags are used most often for retail-level 

quantities, but the use of small manila envelopes 

has been reported in the Florida/Caribbean and 

New York/New Jersey regions. Law enforcement 
National Drug Intelligence Center

37

reporting indicates that plastic bags and envelopes 

are sometimes marked with color coding or a 

grade level to denote the quality of the marijuana 

or with a logo specific to a particular dealer.

Primary Market Areas

Marijuana is widely reported as the most 

abused illicit drug by law enforcement and public 

health agencies. Use of marijuana is high and 

widespread and often occurs sequentially or concurrently with other illicit drugs; therefore for the 

purposes of this report, primary market areas have 

been determined based on the role they serve in the 

national-level distribution of wholesale quantities 

of marijuana. Primary market areas for marijuana 

include Central Arizona, Chicago, Los Angeles, 

Miami, New York, and Seattle. Other significant 

areas include Dallas, Houston, and San Diego.

Central Arizona. Any significant quantities 

of marijuana distributed within or from Central 

Arizona are produced in Mexico; domestic cultivation in the area is somewhat limited. Mexican 

drug trafficking organizations control wholesale 

distribution of marijuana in Central Arizona, 

although Jamaican traffickers are active as well. 

Mexican marijuana is transported to Phoenix and 

Tucson, where it typically is stored in lots of 500–

1,000 pounds until further distribution is 

arranged. The Arizona HIDTA reports that 

loosely affiliated transportation groups provide 

their services to the drug trafficking organizations 

to transport the marijuana from Phoenix and Tucson to markets in every region of the country. 

Transport to these markets occurs mostly via 

commercial and private vehicles, although the use 

of mail services is increasing. 

Midlevel and retail distributors, both independent dealers and members of organized networks, 

also travel to Central Arizona from areas throughout the United States to purchase marijuana for 

distribution in their home areas. Within Phoenix 

and Tucson, Mexican drug trafficking organizations control retail sales through a network of distribution cells, while gangs deal in gram to ounce 

quantities. Cellular telephones and pagers are 

commonly used at all levels of distribution to 

facilitate sales.

Chicago. Most of the marijuana available in 

Chicago is produced in Mexico; it is transported in 

bulk quantities, primarily in commercial vehicles, 

via southwestern states to the Chicago area. Law 

enforcement reporting suggests approximately 

half of the marijuana transported to Chicago is 

intended for distribution in other markets.

These markets are typically within the Great 

Lakes region and include Cincinnati, Detroit, 

Indianapolis, Milwaukee, and Minneapolis-St. 

Paul. Chicago also has been identified as the 

source of marijuana seized in 2001 in Alabama, 

Louisiana, and Massachusetts.

Mexican drug trafficking organizations are the 

primary transporters of marijuana to Chicago, 

although the DEA Chicago Field Division reports 

that local traffickers travel to the Southwest Border area and transport bulk shipments back to the 

Chicago area as well. Mexican drug trafficking 

organizations also are the primary wholesalers of 

the drug in the city, supplying midlevel distributors who typically are trusted associates of the 

organizations. These midlevel distributors supply 

street gangs such as Gangster Disciples, Latin 

Kings, and Vice Lords—the dominant retail distributors of marijuana in Chicago. Independent 

dealers, including members of local criminal 

groups and growers of locally produced marijuana, also distribute at the retail level. Marijuana 

retail sales in Chicago typically occur in lower 

income areas on street corners and in public housing developments; however, some sales are prearranged by cellular telephone or pager and take 

place in private homes or vehicles.

Los Angeles. Most of the marijuana in Los 

Angeles is produced in Mexico, smuggled across 

the U.S.–Mexico border, and stored in the metropolitan area before being distributed to markets in 

the United States. Marijuana is shipped from Los 

Angeles by vehicle, rail, aircraft, and mail services to cities in every region of the country.

In the Los Angeles area Mexican drug trafficking organizations and criminal groups are the 

primary wholesale distributors of Mexican marijuana. Local independent dealers are the primary 

wholesalers of domestic marijuana, particularly 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

38

that produced through indoor cultivation. Jamaican 

criminal groups continue to be a presence in the 

Los Angeles area and maintain ties with Mexican 

traffickers. Mexican drug trafficking organizations 

and criminal groups supply marijuana produced in 

Mexico and in California in wholesale quantities to 

other trafficking organizations and in retail quantities to African American and Hispanic street gangs. 

Independent dealers are the primary retail distributors of most marijuana produced domestically.

Miami. Marijuana from Colombia, Jamaica, 

and Mexico is smuggled into Miami for local, 

regional, and national distribution. Domestically 

produced marijuana also is distributed within 

Miami and from Miami to other U.S. drug markets. Law enforcement reporting identifies 

increases in the availability of Jamaican, domestic, and sinsemilla marijuana. Marijuana is distributed from Miami to the Florida/Caribbean, 

Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, New England, New 

York/New Jersey, Pacific, and Southeast regions.

Mexican and Jamaican distributors control 

the sale of wholesale quantities of marijuana in 

Miami. Local cultivators, who often are of 

Cuban origin and produce marijuana from indoor 

grow sites, distribute as well. Cellular telephones 

and pagers are used to facilitate retail distribution, 

which is increasingly shifting from sales in private 

homes to transactions involving prearranged 

locations and deliveries.

New York. Most types of foreign-produced 

marijuana, as well as domestically produced marijuana, are distributed within New York and from 

the city to other U.S. drug markets. Mexican and 

Jamaican criminal groups transport marijuana 

overland, by air, and by mail from California and 

the Southwest to the metropolitan area. Colombian and Jamaican traffickers use the same methods to transport marijuana to New York from 

Florida and the Southeast. The New York/New 

Jersey HIDTA reports that Mexican, Colombian, 

and Jamaican traffickers transport marijuana into 

New York by maritime means as well. Outlaw 

motorcycle gangs and Vietnamese criminal 

groups transport marijuana from Canada, typically overland and often through the St. Regis 

Mohawk/Akwesasne Indian Reservation. Most 

domestic marijuana available in the city is cultivated in other states or the upstate region of New 

York; indoor cultivation in the city is limited.

 Figure 8. 

Los Angeles Los Angeles

New York New York

Miami

Chicago Chicago

Los Angeles

CENTRAL

ARIZONA ARIZONA

CENTRAL 

ARIZONA

Tucson

Phoenix Phoenix

Seattle Seattle

New York

Miami

Chicago

Primary Market Areas: Marijuana
National Drug Intelligence Center

39

Although no single group controls distribution, Jamaican criminal groups are the most 

prominent distributors in the city, often maintaining control of the drug from transportation to 

retail sales. Individuals and groups with past or 

present associations with traditional organized 

crime are prominent in wholesale and midlevel 

marijuana distribution as well as the financing of a 

limited number of large-scale urban indoor grows. 

Mexican drug trafficking organizations are active 

in wholesale and midlevel distribution as well. 

Marijuana is distributed from New York to cities in 

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

Jersey, and Southeast regions. The New York/

New Jersey HIDTA reports that some criminal 

groups in New York supply marijuana to upstate 

distributors, and the DEA New York Field Division 

reports that Buffalo appears to be used as a storage 

location for marijuana smuggled into Canada.

Street gangs such as Bloods and Latin Kings 

are active in midlevel and retail distribution in 

various areas of the city. Local independent dealers are increasing their involvement in retail distribution and sell marijuana at open-air markets, 

indoors, and through call-and-deliver methods. 

Members of outlaw motorcycle gangs distribute 

at the retail level but primarily in outlying areas. 

Joints and blunts are common in New York, and 

retail sales sometimes involve packages of rolled 

joints. Other street-level quantities of marijuana 

are packaged in manila envelopes, aluminum foil, 

and small transparent bags.

Seattle. Marijuana is the most widely abused 

drug in Seattle, and reporting indicates that availability of the drug is increasing. Sinsemilla, produced locally and in Canada (often referred to as 

BC Bud), and commercial-grade marijuana, produced locally and in Mexico, are widely available 

in the area. Marijuana is distributed from the area 

on a national level. Seattle has been identified as 

the source of marijuana distributed in the Florida/

Caribbean, Great Lakes, Pacific, Southeast, and 

West Central regions as well as in Texas.

Local independent dealers, usually Caucasians, 

control the distribution of domestic marijuana, 

while Mexican polydrug trafficking organizations 

are the primary wholesalers of Mexican marijuana. 

Hells Angels members and Vietnamese criminal 

groups are involved principally in the distribution 

of Canada-produced marijuana. Asian American 

distributors are active in Seattle as well. Both independent dealers and organized distribution networks 

conduct retail sales. Retail marijuana distributors in 

Seattle typically do not sell other drugs.

Key Developments

Law enforcement reporting indicates growing 

involvement of large-scale trafficking organizations in cannabis cultivation. Drug trafficking 

organizations based in Mexico supply workers for, 

or otherwise maintain control of, cannabis cultivation sites in California, including on NFS lands, as 

well as in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Utah, and 

Arkansas. These organizations often control or 

coordinate the transportation and distribution of 

marijuana with other criminal groups. This trend 

is not limited to the United States. The RCMP and 

Europol report that organized crime is becoming 

increasingly involved in cannabis cultivation in 

Canada and in European Union countries.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

40

Projections

Efforts to ease the penalties associated with 

marijuana possession will continue. Eight 

states—Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, 

Maine, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington—have 

passed initiatives allowing the use of marijuana 

for claimed medical purposes, and one state 

(Hawaii) has enacted legislation. Efforts in 

Nevada during the 2002 election to decriminalize 

the possession of small amounts of marijuana (up 

to 3 oz) followed the passing of the state’s medical marijuana initiative in 2000. Arizona also had 

an initiative on the November 2002 ballot to 

reduce penalties for possession. Initiatives at the 

state and local levels to decriminalize or reduce 

penalties for the possession of small amounts of 

marijuana will continue to emerge, particularly in 

those states that have already passed medical initiatives. Despite the failure of these initiatives to 

pass in 2002, efforts to decriminalize or reduce 

penalties for possessing small amounts of marijuana will continue at the state and local levels, 

particularly in those states that have already 

passed medical marijuana initiatives.
National Drug Intelligence Center

41

National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

Heroin

Heroin is a significant drug threat to the 

United States. Reporting from law enforcement 

and public health agencies indicates that the 

availability of heroin is widespread and that it is 

increasing, particularly in New England and in 

areas of the Mid-Atlantic. South American heroin 

is most prevalent in the eastern half of the country, while Mexican heroin is dominant in the 

western United States.

Despite reports of increasing availability, 

overall demand for heroin appears to be relatively 

stable and possibly declining among adolescents. 

Worldwide heroin production decreased significantly between 2000 and 2001; however, production in the principal sources of heroin to U.S. 

markets, Mexico and Colombia, may have 

increased. Heroin is smuggled into the country by 

private vehicle across the U.S.–Mexico border, 

by couriers on commercial flights, and by maritime conveyances, including cruise ships. Heroin 

generally is distributed in metropolitan areas; 

nonetheless, distribution of the drug has spread to 

smaller communities, largely facilitated by independent distributors who travel to large cities to 

purchase midlevel quantities for distribution in 

their home communities. The primary heroin 

market areas are Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, 

and New York.

NDTS data show that 7.9 percent of state and 

local law enforcement agencies nationwide identify heroin as their greatest drug threat. Regionally, more state and local law enforcement 

agencies in the northeastern part of the country 

identify heroin as the greatest threat than do those 

in other parts of the country. According to NDTS 

data, heroin was identified as the greatest drug 

threat by 36.1 percent of state and local law 

enforcement agencies in New England, 26.3 percent of those in the Mid-Atlantic, and 19.1 percent of those in the New York/New Jersey region. 

In sharp contrast are the percentages for the six 

remaining OCDETF regions: Florida/Caribbean 

(3.4%), Great Lakes (3.3%), Southwest (2.4%), 

Pacific (1.7%), West Central (0.5%), and Southeast (0.0%).

Use of heroin, particularly chronic use, can be 

very physically damaging. NIDA reports that heroin users experience a range of physical effects 

that include excessive drowsiness, clouded mental functioning, slowed cardiac function, and 

depressed breathing. In addition, chronic heroin 

users may develop infection of the heart lining 

and valves, liver and kidney disease, pneumonia, 

and tuberculosis. Intravenous heroin users often 

develop scarred or collapsed veins, suffer from 

wound botulism, and are at increased risk for 

HIV, hepatitis B and C, and other diseases transferred through needle sharing.

Heroin users typically are not violent. While 

heroin users do sometimes participate in criminal 

activity to facilitate their use of the drug, they 

most often commit nonviolent crimes to fund 

their drug use. Violence sometimes is associated 

with heroin trafficking and distribution because of 

the criminal groups or gangs involved.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

42

Availability 

Heroin availability has increased over the past 

year. Availability is reported as widespread in 

some areas, primarily metropolitan areas, and 

increasing in others, particularly in New England 

and in areas of the Mid-Atlantic. While the 

amount of heroin seized has increased, heroinrelated investigations and indictments have 

remained relatively stable over the past few years.

NDTS data show that 33.0 percent of state and 

local law enforcement agencies nationwide report 

heroin availability is high or medium, while 52.3 

percent indicate availability is low. Agencies in 

the New England (75.1%) and New York/New 

Jersey regions (60.3%) account for the greatest 

proportions reporting high or medium availability. 

Agencies in the West Central (14.1%) and Southeast regions (6.0%) account for the smallest proportions reporting high or medium availability; in 

fact, 21.2 percent of West Central agencies and 

25.3 percent of Southeast agencies report that heroin is not available in their jurisdictions.

DEA and HIDTA reporting indicates that the 

type of heroin available varies regionally. In the 

western United States, Mexican black tar heroin 

is predominant. Other heroin types are present, 

however. Mexican brown powder heroin is available in many western states, although by no 

means to the extent of black tar, and Southeast 

and Southwest Asian heroin are available in some 

larger cities in the Pacific region. The availability 

of South American heroin in the western half of 

the country is very limited.

In the eastern United States, South American 

heroin is predominant. Nonetheless, heroin from 

Southeast and Southwest Asia is available, 

although to a lesser extent, in many East Coast 

markets such as Baltimore, Boston, Newark, New 

York, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C. Mexican black tar heroin is available in limited quantities in the eastern half of the country.

South America remains the predominant 

source area for heroin analyzed under DEA’s Heroin Signature Program. Data show that of the

heroin samples analyzed in 2001 most were South 

American (56%), followed by Mexican (30%), 

Southwest Asian (7%), and Southeast Asian 

(7%).17 A comparison of 2000 data reveals that 

South American heroin accounted for a similar 

percentage (59%) of the heroin analyzed in that 

year, while Mexican, Southwest Asian, and 

Southeast Asian heroin accounted for 17, 16, and 

8 percent, respectively.

Increased heroin availability is reflected in 

seizure data that show the amount of heroin 

seized by federal agencies has increased over the 

past 3 years. According to FDSS data, the amount 

of heroin reported seized increased from 1,152 

kilograms in 1999, to 1,674 kilograms in 2000, to 

2,492 kilograms in 2001. New York, Florida, and 

California accounted for more than 70 percent of 

the heroin seized in 2001.

While the amount of heroin seized has 

increased, OCDETF data indicate that heroinrelated investigations and indictments are relatively 

stable. OCDETF investigations involving heroin 

accounted for 22.3 percent of all OCDETF investigations in FY2001, up slightly from 20.2 percent in 

FY2000. OCDETF indictments for heroin-related 

offenses accounted for 7.2 percent of all OCDETF 

indictments in FY2001, down slightly from 8.0 

percent in FY2000. Indictments in the New York/

New Jersey, Mid-Atlantic, and Florida/Caribbean 

regions accounted for 65 percent of OCDETF 

indictments involving heroin in 2001.

The purity of retail-level heroin overall 

increased from 35.7 percent in 1999 to 36.8 percent in 2000, according to DEA’s Domestic Monitor Program. The average purity of retail heroin 

purchased in 2000, by type, was 48.1 percent for 

South American, 34.6 percent for Southwest 

17.Under the Heroin Signature Program, DEA’s Special Testing and Research Laboratory analyzes heroin samples from POE 

seizures, as well as a random sample of other seizures and purchases submitted to DEA laboratories, to determine source areas.
National Drug Intelligence Center

43

Asian, 26.7 percent for Southeast Asian, and 20.8 

percent for Mexican heroin.18

According to DEA price information for 

2001, wholesale quantities of South American 

heroin ranged from $50,000 to $250,000 per kilogram nationwide, Southeast and Southwest Asian 

heroin ranged from $35,000 to $120,000 per kilogram, and Mexican heroin ranged from $15,000 

to $65,000 per kilogram. Street-level heroin typically sells for $10 per dose, although prices vary 

throughout the country.

Demand

The overall demand for heroin appears to be 

dependent on age group: among adults rates of 

use are relatively stable, while among adolescents 

rates of use are stable or decreasing. NHSDA data 

show that in 2000 and 2001 past year heroin use 

was reported by 0.4 and 0.5 percent, respectively, 

of young adults aged 18–25 and by 0.1 and 0.2 

percent of those 26 and older.

MTF data show that past year heroin use 

among college students (19–22) was relatively stable between 2000 and 2001 (0.5% to 0.4%). During the same period past year heroin use among 

young adults aged 19–28 was also stable at approximately the same level (0.4% to 0.5%). Among 

MTF respondents aged 35 and 40 past year heroin 

use was 0.1 percent in both 2000 and 2001.

National-level prevalence studies such as the 

NHSDA, MTF, and PRIDE indicate that among 

adolescents heroin use appears to be stable to 

decreasing. According to the NHSDA, the rate of 

past year heroin use for those aged 12–17 held 

steady at 0.2 percent in 2000 and 2001.

Results of the MTF study show no significant 

changes in past year heroin use among students 

between 2001 and 2002. In those years, according 

to MTF data, past year heroin use was reported by 

1.0 and 0.9 percent, respectively, of eighth graders, 0.9 and 1.1 percent of tenth graders, and 0.9 

and 1.0 percent of twelfth graders.

PRIDE data show sharp reductions in the rate 

of heroin use among adolescents. According to 

PRIDE, past year heroin use declined between the 

2000–2001 and 2001–2002 school years for

junior high students (1.6% to 1.5%) and decreased 

significantly for senior high students (3.2% to 

2.9%) and twelfth graders (4.4% to 3.7%).

Adolescents’ perceptions of the risks associated with heroin use are relatively strong but have 

shown signs of weakening. PATS reports that 79 

percent of teens in 2001 agreed that “heroin is a 

dangerously addictive drug,” down slightly from 

81 percent in 2000. According to NHSDA, the 

percentage of those aged 12–17 indicating they 

believe there is great risk in trying heroin once or 

twice dropped slightly between 1999 and 2000, 

from 62.3 to 61.2 percent. Further, the percentage 

who believe there is great risk in using heroin 

once or twice a week decreased from 84.1 to 83.1 

percent. More recent data from MTF show that 

the percentage of twelfth graders who believe 

there is great risk in using heroin once or twice 

rose—although not significantly—between 2001 

and 2002 (55.6% to 56.0%) as did the percentage 

who disapprove of trying heroin once or twice 

(93.1% to 94.1%).

Data from national-level studies gauging the 

consequences of heroin use are mixed, possibly 

because of differing reporting periods. DAWN 

data show a decline in the number of ED heroin 

mentions between 2000 (94,804) and 2001 

(93,064). Declines occurred in each age group 

except among those 35 and older. DAWN data 

show that ED heroin mentions among those aged 

35 and older trended upward from 51,698 in 2000 

to 51,827 in 2001.

18.The Domestic Monitor Program is a heroin purchase program designed to identify the purity, price, and source of origin of retaillevel heroin available in drug markets in 23 major U.S. metropolitan areas.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

44

TEDS data show that the number of admissions to publicly funded treatment facilities for 

which heroin was identified as the primary substance of abuse increased from 229,500 in 1998 

to 235,668 in 1999. The average age of those 

admitted for treatment for heroin abuse was 35.8. 

TEDS data further indicate that of the 235,668 

heroin users seeking treatment in 1999, most 

(66.4%) reported injection as the primary route 

of administration.

ADAM data show that 5.4 percent of adult 

male arrestees reported past year use of opiates 

(usually heroin) at ADAM sites in 2001. ADAM 

data further show that these past year users 

reported an average frequency of use of 10.5 days 

in the past month. Past year heroin data for 2000 

are unavailable.

Production

Worldwide opium cultivation and heroin production decreased significantly between 2000 and 

2001, primarily because of declines in cultivation 

in Asian source areas, particularly Afghanistan. 

Intelligence Community reporting indicates that 

worldwide potential opium cultivation dropped 

from 5,082 metric tons in 2000 to 1,255 metric 

tons in 2001, leading to a decrease in estimated 

worldwide potential heroin production over that 

period from 482.2 metric tons to 109.3 metric 

tons. Despite this overall decrease, production in 

Mexico and Colombia—the principal sources of 

heroin to U.S. markets—may have increased.

Transportation

Heroin is smuggled into the United States 

from the four primary foreign source areas via 

many transportation methods and routes. Reporting from law enforcement and intelligence agencies indicates that heroin typically is smuggled 

into the country hidden in commercial and private 

vehicles driven from Mexico and Canada and carried by couriers traveling on commercial flights 

from source and transit countries. Maritime transport and mail services are used as well.

Mexican Heroin

Heroin produced in Mexico is transported in 

multikilogram quantities via private vehicles from 

production areas in western and southern Mexico 

to the U.S.–Mexico border. Before being smuggled across the border, the shipments usually are 

broken down into much smaller quantities; smugglers crossing the U.S.–Mexico border in private 

vehicles typically carry 1 to 7 kilograms of heroin 

per trip. Couriers walking across the U.S.–Mexico 

border smuggle heroin into the country as well. 

These couriers—often illegal aliens—typically 

carry small quantities (1 kg to 2 kg) hidden in 

handbags and backpacks or on their body. Methods 

used less frequently to smuggle heroin across the 

U.S.–Mexico border include couriers on commercial buses and flights, rail traffic, and mail services.

Mexican heroin is smuggled into the United 

States via various points along the U.S.–Mexico 

border. EPIC seizure data indicate that more heroin 

was seized at the San Ysidro (129 kg), Del Rio (42 

kg), Otay Mesa (34 kg), and Calexico (33 kg) POEs 

in 2001 than at any others along the U.S.–Mexico 

border. The amount seized at Del Rio represents 

one large seizure, however. Heroin produced in 

Mexico is smuggled through and between Southwest Border POEs and transported to midlevel distributors in the Pacific, Southwest, West Central, 

Great Lakes, and Southeast regions. Although DEA 

reports that some Mexican heroin is transported to 

cities in the Mid-Atlantic, New England, New York/

New Jersey, and Florida/Caribbean regions, the 

quantities generally are limited. The primary market 

area for heroin produced in Mexico is Los Angeles.
National Drug Intelligence Center

45

South American Heroin

South American heroin usually is transported 

from Colombia to the United States via commercial flights directly to New York or Miami, overland through the Mexico–Central America 

corridor and, occasionally, via maritime transport. 

To disguise the true destination and origin of the 

heroin, couriers on commercial flights sometimes 

fly to other U.S. cities, such as Houston and Dallas-Ft. Worth, or take indirect flights through Caribbean or Central American countries, such as the 

Netherlands Antilles or Panama. Law enforcement reporting also suggests that heroin couriers 

are flying through South American countries such 

as Chile, Ecuador, and Venezuela with more frequency. These couriers, typically Colombian 

nationals, swallow as much as 1 kilogram of heroin in latex-wrapped pellets.

Although most South American heroin is 

smuggled through the POEs at New York and 

Miami, some is smuggled through Southwest 

Border POEs as well. South American heroin 

transported through Mexico is smuggled into the 

United States at various points along the border 

primarily via private vehicles and couriers who 

swallow heroin pellets. From the Southwest Border area Dominican and, to a lesser extent, Mexican, Colombian, and Haitian traffickers transport 

South American heroin typically by private vehicle to the eastern United States, most often New 

York. South American heroin smuggled through 

Southwest Border POEs also is supplied to the 

primary market areas of Chicago and New York 

as well as to markets in Atlanta, Detroit, and

New Orleans.

Southeast Asian Heroin

Southeast Asian heroin is transported from production areas, primarily in Burma, to North America via containerized maritime cargo, couriers on 

commercial flights, and mail services. Transportation from Burma to the United States typically follows four principal routes: through Hong Kong, 

through Hong Kong via Bangkok, through Tokyo 

via Bangkok, and through Fuzhou (China).

U.S.- and Canada-based Chinese criminal 

groups typically control the transport of Southeast 

Asian heroin via containerized cargo. Shipments 

usually are destined for major POEs on the west 

coast of North America, including Los Angeles, 

San Francisco, Seattle, and Vancouver. Most seizures of Southeast Asian heroin from containerized maritime cargo have occurred in Canada in 

recent years. In many instances some of the heroin smuggled into Vancouver is transported 

across Canada to Toronto. A small percentage of 

the heroin smuggled into Canada is transported 

across the U.S.–Canada border through the POEs 

at Blaine, Buffalo, and Detroit. Once in the 

United States, Southeast Asian heroin is transported primarily in private vehicles to markets in 

the central and eastern United States, including 

Chicago, Detroit, and New York.

Southeast Asian heroin also is trafficked by 

Nigerian criminal groups who use couriers to 

transport the drug from Southeast Asia via commercial flights. Couriers fly primarily to Chicago 

but also to Atlanta, Baltimore, Dallas, Houston, 

Newark, New York, and Washington, D.C. Nigerian criminal groups also transport Southeast 

Asian heroin from East Coast POEs to Chicago 

via commercial buses, trains, and mail services.

Southwest Asian Heroin

Southwest Asian heroin is transported from 

production areas, primarily Afghanistan, to the 

United States through Europe as well as through 

Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific. The primary method of transportation to the United States 

is by couriers (swallowers) traveling on commercial flights, although mail services are used frequently as well. Most Southwest Asian heroin is 

transported to the United States by Southwest 

Asian, Middle Eastern, and Central Asian criminal 

groups, particularly those of Afghan, Indian, Lebanese, and Turkish origin. West African criminal 

groups—typically Nigerians—are prominent 

transporters of Southwest Asian heroin to the 

United States, and they sometimes intermingle 

shipments of Southwest and Southeast Asian heroin. Nigerians employ couriers and coordinate 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

46

shipments from Asia, Africa, and Europe. Others 

associated with the transportation of Southwest 

Asian heroin to the United States include those of 

East European and Russian origin.

Most of the Southwest Asian heroin smuggled 

into the United States is transported through POEs 

at New York, Detroit, Chicago and, occasionally, 

Los Angeles. Southwest Asian heroin transported 

through the Los Angeles POE typically is shipped 

to the eastern half of the country, including the 

primary market areas of Chicago and New York 

as well as Detroit.

Unlike South American and Southeast Asian 

heroin, Southwest Asian heroin does not appear to 

be transported via maritime conveyances with any 

frequency or in any notable quantity. There were 

no significant seizures of Southwest Asian heroin 

from maritime containerized cargo in 2001.

Distribution

Law enforcement reporting indicates that heroin distribution is expanding in several regions of 

the country. Over the past 2 years, no DEA Field 

Division or HIDTA has reported a decline in heroin distribution in its area, and several report significant expansion of heroin distribution to new 

markets. Since 2000 heroin distribution has 

spread particularly in the New England region, 

and markets have emerged in many rural communities in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. In 

other regions heroin distribution has expanded 

most notably in suburbs of, and other communities near, large cities with well-established, innercity heroin markets such as Newark, New 

Orleans, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and the 

Baltimore-Washington, D.C., metropolitan area.

Facilitating the expansion of heroin distribution, particularly in eastern states, are a growing 

number of local independent distributors. Independent heroin distributors—who often distribute 

several other illicit drugs—travel to nearby cities 

as often as once a week to purchase wholesale and 

midlevel quantities of heroin, transport the drug 

back to their distribution areas, and repackage it 

for retail sales. Previously, distribution in new 

market areas was conducted primarily by innercity wholesale distribution groups that would 

establish and supply a distributor in a new area but 

maintain control over all aspects of distribution in 

that new market. While this practice still occurs, 

today these inner-city distribution groups more 

often serve as wholesale and midlevel suppliers to 

several independent distributors.

DEA and HIDTA reporting indicates that 

Mexican, Colombian, Nigerian, and Dominican 

criminal groups control most wholesale heroin 

distribution in the United States. Mexican wholesale distributors are predominant in the Pacific, 

Southwest, and West Central regions, while 

Colombian and Dominican criminal groups control most wholesale distribution of heroin in the 

Florida/Caribbean, Mid-Atlantic, New England, 

New York/New Jersey, and Southeast regions. 

Colombian, Nigerian, and Dominican criminal 

groups are all active in the Great Lakes region, 

where Mexican wholesalers serve in a minor 

capacity in Chicago and Detroit—the largest heroin markets within the region.

Puerto Rican wholesale heroin distributors are 

also prominent in several significant heroin markets 

in the eastern half of the country, including Boston, 

Chicago, Miami, Newark, New York, and Philadelphia. Southeast Asian criminal groups are most 

active in the New England and New York/New Jersey regions; however, DEA reports that Southeast 

and Southwest Asian criminal groups transport 

wholesale quantities of heroin through Los Angeles 

en route to heroin markets primarily in eastern 

states. West African, particularly Nigerian, wholesale distributors are prominent in several large heroin markets, including Chicago, Detroit, Los 

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

Different groups control retail heroin distribution depending primarily on the type of heroin distributed and the location of the market. According 

to DEA and HIDTA reporting, Mexican criminal 
National Drug Intelligence Center

47

groups and Hispanic gangs that distribute black tar 

and, occasionally, brown powdered heroin control 

most retail distribution in the Pacific, Southwest, 

and West Central regions. Asian gangs distribute 

some Southeast Asian heroin at the retail level in 

the Pacific region. African American gangs and 

independent dealers distributing Southeast and 

Southwest Asian heroin are prominent in the 

Great Lakes region, although Dominican retail 

distributors of South American heroin and Mexican retail distributors are also common in the 

Great Lakes.

In the Mid-Atlantic, New England, New York/

New Jersey, and Southeast regions, numerous 

retail heroin distributors are active and no single 

group dominates. African American distributors, 

however, appear to be the most commonly identified retail distributors in all four regions, selling 

South American, Southeast Asian, and Southwest 

Asian heroin. Dominican retail distributors of 

South American heroin are prominent throughout 

these regions and their presence is growing, 

according to DEA reporting. Colombian retail 

distributors of South American heroin often operate in the same market areas as Dominican retailers, while Puerto Rican retail distributors of South 

American heroin are active primarily in the New 

England and New York/New Jersey regions. 

Asian distributors, particularly Asian gangs, distribute Southeast Asian heroin at the retail level in 

the New England and New York/New Jersey 

regions. Retail distributors of Mexican heroin are 

active in the Southeast but are not prominent in 

most areas of the New England, New York/New 

Jersey, and Mid-Atlantic regions, where neither 

black tar nor brown powdered heroin is common. 

In the Florida/Caribbean region, Puerto Rican 

distributors control sales at the retail level.

Primary Market Areas

Heroin is distributed and used in every large 

city in the country. Reporting from law enforcement and public health agencies suggests, however, that Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, and 

New York are the primary market areas for heroin 

because of high levels of heroin use, significant consequences of that use, and widespread distribution. 

Other significant heroin markets include Baltimore, 

Detroit, Newark, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and 

Washington, D.C.

Boston. Reporting from law enforcement and 

epidemiologic sources indicates that heroin use 

and the consequences of this use have increased 

sharply in Boston in recent years. DAWN data for 

Boston show a 12.7 percent increase between 

2000 and 2001 in the number of ED mentions for 

heroin (3,867 to 4,358). According to DAWN 

mortality data, heroin/morphine was mentioned in 

168 of 344 deaths involving drug abuse in Boston 

in 1999 and in 183 of 343 deaths in 2000, more 

than for any other drug in both years. It was listed 

as the drug of abuse in 47 of 116 single-drug 

deaths in 2000. CEWG reports that heroin may 

have surpassed cocaine as the most commonly 

used drug in the Boston area and that admissions 

for which heroin was the primary drug of abuse 

now constitute the largest proportion (42%) of 

illicit drug admissions to publicly funded treatment programs in the city.

Expansion of the Boston heroin market has 

been facilitated greatly by several New Yorkbased criminal groups. Colombian and Dominican distributors are predominant, supplying 

wholesale and midlevel quantities of South 

American heroin to retail distributors in Boston 

and subsequently throughout New England. 

Asian midlevel distributors supply Southeast 

Asian heroin primarily to Asian gangs, who distribute retail quantities in communities in the 

Boston metropolitan area.

Chicago. Chicago is one of the largest heroin 

markets in the United States and the consequences 

of heroin use in the city are high. The most recent 

DAWN data available show that the number of 

heroin ED mentions in Chicago declined from 

12,454 in 2000 to 11,902 in 2001; however, mentions were still the highest for any city reporting in 

2001. DAWN mortality data indicate that heroin/

morphine was mentioned in 456 of 878 deaths 

involving drug abuse in 1999 and in 499 of 869 

deaths in 2000. Heroin/morphine was the drug of 

abuse in 101 of 268 single-drug deaths in Chicago 

in 2000, second only to cocaine. ADAM data for 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

48

2001 indicate that 21.8 percent of adult male 

arrestees in Chicago tested positive for opiates.

Heroin from all four source areas is available 

to varying degrees in Chicago. Colombian and 

Nigerian traffickers dominate distribution at the 

wholesale level. Nigerian traffickers smuggling 

Southwest and Southeast Asian heroin supply 

African American and Hispanic gangs—particularly Vice Lords, Gangster Disciples, and Latin 

Kings—who control retail heroin distribution in 

the city. Nigerian dominance of wholesale distribution is waning, however. Colombian traffickers 

smuggling South American heroin have secured a 

sizable portion of the heroin market in Chicago 

and often supply the same gangs supplied by Nigerian distributors. Mexican distributors of black tar 

heroin are present at the midlevel and retail levels 

but are not a significant presence in Chicago.

Chicago-based wholesale and midlevel distributors supply distributors in several other heroin markets primarily in the Great Lakes region, such as 

Detroit, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, and Minneapolis.

Los Angeles. Los Angeles is in all likelihood 

the largest heroin market in the western United 

States and the largest black tar heroin market in 

the country. DAWN ED data show that the number of ED mentions for heroin decreased significantly between 2000 and 2001 from 3,177 to 

2,878. According to DAWN mortality data, heroin/morphine was mentioned in 644 of 1,887 

deaths involving drug abuse in 1999 and in 473 of 

1,192 deaths in 2000, when it was the drug of 

abuse in 76 of 295 single-drug deaths.

In Los Angeles Mexican criminal groups control most distribution of heroin—primarily black 

tar—at the wholesale, midlevel, and retail levels. 

Mexican wholesale and midlevel distribution 

groups also supply black tar heroin to several 

African American and Hispanic gangs, who conduct a large portion of retail heroin distribution in 

the city. DEA and HIDTA reporting indicates that 

Colombian criminal groups may be establishing 

networks in Los Angeles to distribute South 

American heroin in the area. Chinese, Nigerian, 

and Thai criminals facilitate the wholesale distribution of Southeast Asian heroin from Los Angeles to other U.S. markets, but distribution of 

Southeast Asian heroin at the retail level in Los 

Angeles is very limited.

Mexican and South American heroin often is 

distributed from Los Angeles to other heroin 

 Figure 9. 

Los Angeles Los Angeles

Chicago Chicago New York New York

Los Angeles

New York

Boston

Chicago

Primary Market Areas: Heroin
National Drug Intelligence Center

49

markets throughout the country. Mexican heroin 

is distributed from Los Angeles to Denver, Honolulu, Las Vegas, Portland, Salt Lake City, San 

Francisco, Seattle, and St. Louis. South American heroin is distributed from Los Angeles to 

New Orleans and other markets in eastern states.

New York. New York is possibly the largest 

heroin market in the United States. The level of 

heroin use is high, although the consequences of 

such use appear to have declined slightly from 

2000 to 2001. DAWN data show that the number 

of heroin ED mentions declined between 2000 

and 2001 from 11,009 to 10,644—second only to 

Chicago among DAWN reporting cities. DAWN 

mortality data show that heroin/morphine was 

mentioned in 174 of 729 deaths involving drug 

abuse in 1999 and in 194 of 924 deaths in 2000. 

ADAM data reflect a decrease (22.0% to 18.7%) 

in adult male arrestees in New York testing positive for opiates between 2000 and 2001.

Extensive wholesale, midlevel, and retail distribution of South American heroin occurs in New 

York and, according to DEA, most of the heroin 

available at the retail level in that city is of South 

American origin. Southeast and Southwest Asian 

heroin are available but to a much lesser extent. 

Numerous criminal groups and gangs distribute 

heroin in the city; however, Colombian and 

Dominican distributors are predominant and often 

work together to sell South American heroin at all 

levels of distribution. Colombian and Dominican 

distributors also supply Puerto Rican criminal 

groups and African American and Hispanic gangs 

with retail quantities for distribution.

Asian criminal groups, typically Fukinese 

Chinese, once controlled heroin distribution in the 

city. Now they usually supply only wholesale and 

midlevel quantities of Southeast Asian heroin to 

groups that distribute the drug at the retail level. 

Southwest Asian criminal groups, including those 

of Afghan, Indian, and Pakistani origin, supply 

wholesale and midlevel amounts of Southwest 

Asian heroin to midlevel and retail distributors.

New York is a major source of South American 

heroin to heroin markets throughout the New 

England, Mid-Atlantic, and Great Lakes regions. 

New York is also a source of limited amounts of 

Southeast Asian heroin to heroin markets in some 

eastern states. Law enforcement reporting indicates 

that distributors in Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, 

Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, Newark, 

Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C., receive heroin 

from wholesale distributors in New York.

Key Developments

Mexican criminal groups are increasingly 

transporting South American heroin. DEA reports 

that in 2002 a significant number of Mexican 

nationals intending to board flights to Mexico 

were arrested at airports in Central and South 

America with South American heroin in their 

possession. This heroin was to be stored in Mexico and smuggled across the U.S.–Mexico border 

for transport and distribution to eastern drug markets, primarily New York, by Colombian and 

Dominican criminal groups.

U.S. Customs Service (USCS) reporting indicates that seizures involving heroin saturation—a 

technique whereby material such as clothing, blankets, and towels is soaked in heroin solution and 

then allowed to dry—increased in 2001. Law 

enforcement reporting indicates that heroin saturation usually is encountered in shipments transported 

from Colombia to the United States via couriers on 

commercial flights and in maritime cargo.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

50

Projections

Worldwide heroin production likely will 

increase in 2002 since, according to Intelligence 

Community reporting, producers in post-Taliban 

Afghanistan will resume opium cultivation. Notwithstanding the potential increase, U.S. markets 

likely will not experience an increase in the availability of Southwest Asian heroin since this heroin generally is consumed in markets in Europe 

and in central and western Asia.

Increased airport security since September 11, 

2001, may result in fewer heroin couriers on commercial flights to the United States. To compensate, Colombian traffickers may rely more heavily 

on Mexican criminal groups to transport heroin 

across the U.S.–Mexico border or increase their 

use of maritime transportation and, possibly,

mail services.
National Drug Intelligence Center

51

National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

MDMA

The trafficking and abuse of MDMA (3,4-

methylenedioxymethamphetamine) pose a significant threat to the United States. MDMA is widely 

available in every region of the country, principally in large metropolitan areas but increasingly 

in smaller cities and towns. Reporting from law 

enforcement and public health agencies indicates 

that MDMA is now considered a mainstream drug 

in many areas. It—like other drugs—is widely 

available in nightclubs and schools, at parties and 

shopping malls, and on street corners and is often 

sold with other drugs such as crack cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin.

The demand for MDMA appears to be 

increasing among both adults and adolescents; 

however, data from national-level prevalence 

studies indicate that the rate of increase has 

slowed. MDMA produced in several countries is 

available in U.S. markets, but the Netherlands and 

Belgium continue to be the source of most of the 

MDMA in the United States. Domestic MDMA 

production remains limited. MDMA transported 

from Europe is smuggled into the United States 

by couriers on commercial flights and, to a lesser 

extent, via mail services, either directly from 

European source countries or via transit countries, 

including France, Germany, Spain, Canada, Mexico, Panama, and various Caribbean island 

nations. Most MDMA distribution occurs in 

urban and suburban areas; however, much of the 

increased distribution is occurring in midsize

cities with large college populations. The primary 

market areas for MDMA are Los Angeles, 

Miami, and New York.

NDTS data show that 2.0 percent of state and 

local law enforcement agencies nationwide identify MDMA as their greatest drug threat. There 

were regional differences, however. More state 

and local law enforcement agencies in the Florida/Caribbean (5.7%), New England (4.9%), and 

New York/New Jersey regions (4.7%) identify 

MDMA as the greatest threat than do their counterparts in the Mid-Atlantic (2.1%), Great Lakes 

(1.8%), Pacific (0.9%), Southeast (0.8%), Southwest (0.7%), and West Central regions (0.6%).

The threat of MDMA trafficking and abuse is 

compounded by the short- and potential long-term 

effects of the drug. MDMA use causes increased 

heart rate, blood pressure, and body temperature, 

which can lead to muscle breakdown and kidney 

and cardiovascular system failure. Moreover, 

studies by Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions and 

the National Institute of Mental Health indicate 

that MDMA may cause brain damage. Some 

MDMA users’ bodies lose the ability to produce 

and release proper levels of serotonin—a neurotransmitter that regulates mood, memory, appetite, and sleep—which may lead to chronic 

depression.

Violence typically is not associated with 

MDMA use; however, there are occasional reports 

of violence associated with MDMA retail distributors, particularly if they also sell other drugs.

Availability

MDMA is present throughout the country, 

and although reporting indicates that availability 

increased over the past year, the rate of increase 

appears to have slowed. Nearly all DEA Field 

Divisions describe MDMA as readily available, 

particularly in metropolitan areas, and several 

report that availability is increasing. More than 90 

percent of the sources reporting to Pulse Check 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

52

indicate that MDMA is widely or somewhat 

available. Of these sources, 64 percent report an 

increase in MDMA availability while 29 percent 

describe availability as stable.

According to NDTS data, 54.4 percent of 

state and local law enforcement agencies 

nationwide report that the availability of 

MDMA is high or medium, while 37.1 percent 

describe it as low. Agencies in the Florida/Caribbean (70.9%) and New England regions 

(68.8%) account for the greatest proportions 

reporting high or medium availability, while 

those in the Southwest (45.5%) and West Central regions (44.4%) account for the smallest.

Data from DEA’s System to Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence (STRIDE) show a 

sharp increase in the number of MDMA dosage 

units seized between 2000 (3,341,649) and 2001 

(5,575,432). Seizure data from USCS show a 

decrease in the number of MDMA dosage units 

seized, from 9.3 million MDMA tablets in 

FY2000 to 7.2 million in FY2001; however, one 

FY2000 seizure of 2.1 million tablets accounts 

for the disparity. The recording of MDMA

seizures in FDSS data began in April 2001; figures are yet unavailable.19

The number of OCDETF investigations 

involving MDMA increased from 107 in FY2000 

to 179 in FY2001. OCDETF indictments involving MDMA also rose from 104 in FY2000 to 193 

in FY2001. Arrests for MDMA-related offenses 

are increasing, although the rate of arrests appears 

to have slowed. DEA arrests for MDMA-related 

offenses increased from 577 in 1999, to 1,530 in 

2000, to 1,932 in 2001. DEA-initiated investigations against MDMA violators increased from 

330 in 1999, to 791 in 2000, to 1,079 in 2001.

MDMA tablets vary in size, weight, and 

shape; however, DEA reports that MDMA tablets 

generally contain between 70 and 120 milligrams 

of MDMA. Nationally, the wholesale price of 

MDMA ranged from $5 to $17 per dosage unit, 

while the retail price ranged from $10 to $60 per 

dosage unit.

The availability of a highly pure form of 

MDMA called crystal MDMA appears to be very 

limited. DEA reports only two seizures of crystal 

MDMA, one in Philadelphia and one in Florida.

Demand

MDMA use increased steadily over the past 

several years among both adults and adolescents. 

As with availability, however, the rate of increase 

has slowed, particularly among adolescents.

NHSDA data for 2001 indicate that 3.2 million 

persons aged 12 and older in the United States—

1.4 percent of the population—reported past year 

use of MDMA. Because previous versions of the 

NHSDA did not track past year use of MDMA, it 

is not possible to show a trend for past year use. 

However, estimates of the number of individuals 

reporting lifetime use (use at least once in a user’s 

lifetime) increased from 5.1 million in 1999, to 6.5 

million in 2000, to 8.1 million in 2001. The rate of 

lifetime use among individuals 12 and older 

increased significantly over the same period, from 

2.3, to 2.9, to 3.6 percent.

Among adults, MDMA use is rising. Data 

from the NHSDA show that lifetime MDMA use 

for young adults aged 18–25 was 7.6 percent in 

1999, 9.7 percent in 2000, and 13.1 percent in 

2001; the increase between 2000 and 2001 is considered significant. Lifetime use for adults aged 

26 or older has trended upward during the same 

period from 1.5, to 1.8, to 2.0 percent. The rates of 

past year use in 2001, the first year for which such 

data are available, were 6.9 percent for those aged 

18–25 and 0.4 percent for those 26 and older.

MTF data indicate a slower rate of increase in 

past year MDMA use for adults in 2001. The rate 

19.The STRIDE data set contains information on the total cost, weight, and purity or potency of illicit drugs purchased as well as the 

date and location of the purchase. There are some overlaps in reporting between STRIDE and USCS seizure statistics.
National Drug Intelligence Center

53

of past year MDMA use for college students (19–

22) increased significantly from 5.5 percent in 

1999 to 9.1 percent in 2000 but remained relatively stable at 9.2 percent in 2001. Similarly, past 

year MDMA use for all young adults (19–28) 

increased significantly from 3.6 percent in 1999 

to 7.2 percent in 2000 and then remained statistically unchanged at 7.5 percent in 2001.

Among adolescents, too, national-level 

demand indicators show a slowed rate of increase 

in MDMA use in 2001. NHSDA data show that 

the percentage of adolescents aged 12–17 reporting lifetime MDMA use increased significantly 

from 1.8 percent in 1999, to 2.6 percent in 2000, 

to 3.2 percent in 2001. Past year use for those 

aged 12–17 was 2.4 percent in 2001, the first year 

for which past year data are available.

According to MTF data, past year MDMA 

use for eighth graders increased from 3.1 percent 

in 2000 to 3.5 percent in 2001 before declining to 

2.9 percent in 2002. Likewise, rates of past year 

MDMA use for tenth graders increased from 5.4 

to 6.2 percent before decreasing to 4.9 percent, 

while those for twelfth graders increased from 8.2 

to 9.2 percent before declining to 7.4 percent. Of 

the declines in past year MDMA use between 

2001 and 2002, only the decrease reported for 

tenth graders is statistically significant.

Data from PATS show a 43 percent increase in 

teens reporting lifetime MDMA use between 1999 

(7%) and 2000 (10%); however, between 2000 

and 2001 the rate rose only another 20 percent, to 

12 percent reporting lifetime use. According to 

PATS, 10 percent of students in grades 7 through 

12 reported past year MDMA use in 2001, the first 

year for which past year data are available.

The slower pace at which rates of use are 

increasing may be attributable to a rise in the perceived dangers of MDMA use among youths. 

According to PATS, the percentage of teens ranking MDMA as either the most or second most 

dangerous drug increased from 12 percent in 1999 

to 15 percent in 2000. Furthermore, PATS data 

reveal that in 2001, 42 percent of teens saw great 

risk in trying MDMA once or twice, while 72 percent saw great risk in using MDMA regularly. 

Data from MTF show a statistically significant 

increase between 2001 and 2002 in the percentage 

of twelfth graders who perceive great risk in trying MDMA once or twice (45.7% to 52.2%).

As the number of MDMA users has 

increased, so too have the consequences associated with use of the drug. DAWN data indicate 

that the estimated number of ED mentions for 

MDMA increased from 2,850 in 1999, to 4,511 in 

2000, to 5,542 in 2001. Although the number of 

ED mentions has increased, the rate of ED mentions for MDMA remains the lowest among the 

major drug categories at only 2 mentions per 

100,000 population in 2001.

DAWN data further show that the consequences of MDMA use are affecting older age 

groups, despite the prevalence of MDMA use 

among young adults and adolescents. More than 

three-quarters (76.9%) of DAWN ED mentions 

for MDMA in 2001 were attributed to patients 

aged 25 and under. Nonetheless between 2000 

and 2001 significant increases in ED mentions for 

MDMA use were noted in patients aged 26–29 

(132.2%) and in those aged 35 and older (34.0%).

Although TEDS does not monitor treatment 

admissions for MDMA as a primary substance of 

abuse, reporting from epidemiologic sources suggests that the number of patients seeking treatment 

for MDMA use is increasing. CEWG reports an 

increase in the number of MDMA users admitted 

to drug treatment in Denver, Minneapolis, and 

Texas during 2001.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

54

Production

Most MDMA consumed in the United States 

is produced in the Netherlands and Belgium. 

DEA reports that criminal groups operating in 

these two countries produce most of the MDMA 

available in the United States. MDMA production 

also occurs in Poland but is limited. Most of the 

MDMA produced in that country is consumed in 

Europe; however, U.S. law enforcement agencies 

have identified Poland as the source of limited 

quantities of MDMA in New York, Chicago and, 

possibly, Las Vegas. Criminal groups in Germany 

and the United Kingdom also produce MDMA to 

varying degrees, but the availability in U.S. markets of MDMA produced in these countries 

appears to be limited.

MDMA is produced in Canada primarily for 

consumption in that country, although it is likely 

that some MDMA produced in Canada is smuggled into the United States. DEA reports that 

MDMA laboratories have been seized in Québec, 

Ontario, and British Columbia within the past 

year, and the RCMP reports that the total potential yield of MDMA from laboratories discovered 

in Canada since 1999 exceeds 10 million tablets. 

The smuggling of MDMA from Europe into Canada is a far greater problem in that country than 

domestic production, however.

There are indications that traffickers operating 

laboratories in Asia and South America (particularly Brazil and Colombia) may be producing 

MDMA in greater quantities. Furthermore, law 

enforcement in California notes that some methamphetamine producers in Mexico are becoming 

involved in MDMA production as well.

Domestic MDMA production remains limited. Relatively few MDMA laboratories have 

been seized, and of those seized, most were capable of producing only small amounts of the drug. 

Data from NCLSS indicate that 13 MDMA laboratories were seized in the United States in 1999, 

8 in 2000, and 9 in 2001. No DEA Division, 

HIDTA, or NDTS responding agency indicated 

that domestically produced MDMA was available 

in any significant quantities in its jurisdiction. 

According to NDTS data, just 2.3 percent of state 

and local law enforcement agencies nationwide 

report that MDMA is produced in their areas.

Transportation

The smuggling of MDMA into the United 

States occurs via several transportation methods 

and routes. From Europe, MDMA most often is 

smuggled into the United States by couriers on 

commercial flights either directly from European 

source countries or via transit countries, including 

France, Germany, Spain, Canada, Mexico, Panama, and various Caribbean island nations. 

MDMA also is transported from and through the 

same source and transit countries by mail services, although use of this method appears to have 

decreased greatly over the past year. MDMA is 

increasingly smuggled into the United States 

overland via couriers on foot and in private vehicles crossing the U.S. borders with Mexico and 

Canada. Israeli and Russian criminal groups control most MDMA transportation to the United 

States; however, Colombian, Dominican, and 

U.S. independent distributors have become 

increasingly prominent in the transportation of 

MDMA to the United States.

MDMA couriers on commercial flights from 

Europe often tape between 2.5 and 5.0 kilograms of 

MDMA tablets to their bodies and smuggle additional amounts (up to 10 kg) in hidden compartments within their luggage. Couriers on commercial 

flights depart from nearly every major European 

city en route to the United States. Typical arrival 

airports in the United States are John F. Kennedy, 

Miami, and Newark International Airports.
National Drug Intelligence Center

55

Colombian criminal groups often transport 

MDMA from Europe to the United States via Panama. From Panama couriers on commercial flights 

transport MDMA either directly to the United 

States or to Mexico, from where it is smuggled 

across the U.S.–Mexico border. According to 

DEA reports, Dominican criminal groups have 

become increasingly involved in transporting 

MDMA from Europe to the United States via the 

Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico.

The DEA Caribbean Field Division reports 

that European criminal groups transport MDMA 

from Europe to the United States via Caribbean 

countries, particularly those with ties to the Netherlands such as Aruba, Curaçao, and the Netherlands Antilles. DEA reporting indicates that 

MDMA couriers on commercial flights transport 

the MDMA from Europe to the Caribbean and 

then either directly to the United States or to 

Mexico for overland transport. Similarly, European criminal groups sometimes use Suriname in 

South America as an MDMA transit country.

Transport of MDMA produced in or transported through Canada most often occurs via couriers crossing the U.S.–Canada border in private 

vehicles. EPIC seizure data indicate that these 

couriers typically transit the POEs at Buffalo, 

Champlain, and Detroit.

Once smuggled into the United States, 

MDMA is transported to the primary market 

areas of Los Angeles, Miami, and New York as 

well as to smaller cities throughout the country.

Distribution

Nearly all DEA Field Divisions and HIDTAs, 

as well as sources in most Pulse Check sites, indicate that MDMA is distributed in their areas and 

that distribution appears to be increasing. Most 

MDMA distribution occurs in urban and suburban 

areas; however, distribution appears to be expanding to areas in which colleges and universities are 

located, such as Billings, Montana; Madison, 

Wisconsin; and Lawrence, Kansas.

Law enforcement reporting indicates that 

Israeli criminal groups are the predominant 

MDMA wholesale distributors, supplying 

MDMA to midlevel distributors in large cities 

throughout the country. Other wholesalers, 

including Asian, Dominican, Mexican, and Russian criminal groups, distribute MDMA but only 

in a limited number of cities. For example, law 

enforcement reporting indicates that Asian 

wholesale distributors are active in Miami, New 

York, and Seattle; Dominican wholesalers distribute in Miami, Newark, and New York; and Russian MDMA wholesalers maintain a significant 

presence in Atlanta, New York, and Miami.

Most of the same criminal groups engaged in 

wholesale MDMA distribution are midlevel distributors as well. Other midlevel distributors were 

identified as African American, particularly in the 

Mid-Atlantic region, and Mexican, primarily in 

the Florida/Caribbean, Southwest, and West Central regions. Wholesalers sell MDMA to midlevel 

distributors in quantities of at least 1,000 tablets, 

typically called “boats.” Midlevel distributors 

often sell tablets to retail distributors by the “jar,” 

a quantity of 100 tablets.

Independent MDMA distributors, typically 

college age Caucasians, dominate the retail-level 

distribution of MDMA throughout the country, 

although gangs have become increasingly 

involved in retail distribution of MDMA. Of those 

DEA Field Divisions that identified prominent 

MDMA retail distributors in their areas, most 

identified Caucasian independent dealers. Law 

enforcement reporting is increasingly identifying 

the involvement of gangs in retail distribution of 

MDMA. Asian gangs have been identified as 

retail MDMA distributors primarily in the West 

and Hispanic gangs primarily in the East. African 

American independent dealers and gangs have 

emerged as retail MDMA distributors within the 

past 2 years in eastern states such as Alabama, 

New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, and 

Virginia. Other retail distributors identified are 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

56

the Hells Angels and Pagans outlaw motorcycle 

gangs and Russian gangs in Florida and New Jersey, Dominican criminal groups in New York, and 

Colombian criminal groups in Florida.

Law enforcement reporting indicates that 

most MDMA retail distribution occurs at college 

campuses, raves, dance clubs, bars, gyms, and 

high schools. Furthermore, several agencies 

report that a growing number of retail distributors 

of other drugs—including crack cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin—are distributing 

MDMA on streets and in open-air drug markets.

Primary Market Areas

Reporting from law enforcement and public 

health agencies of widespread use and distribution 

of MDMA, as well as data from studies that gauge 

the consequences of drug use, indicates that Los 

Angeles, Miami, and New York are the primary 

market areas for MDMA in the United States.

Los Angeles. Reporting from law enforcement 

and public health agencies indicates that MDMA 

distribution and use in Los Angeles are widespread 

and increasing. The DEA Los Angeles Field Division reports that use of MDMA is high, while the 

Los Angeles HIDTA notes that use is increasing 

sharply. CEWG also reports that MDMA use in 

Los Angeles is increasing. According to DAWN, 

however, the consequences of MDMA use in Los 

Angeles are decreasing. DAWN data indicate that 

the estimated number of ED mentions for MDMA 

in Los Angeles decreased significantly from 2000 

(177) to 2001 (142).

Israeli criminal groups control most wholesale MDMA distribution in Los Angeles, 

although Russian wholesale distributors are 

prominent in the area as well. Independent distributors, often Caucasians, primarily control 

midlevel and retail distribution of MDMA. Retail 

distribution in Los Angeles most often occurs at 

raves, nightclubs, and colleges.

Wholesale quantities of MDMA are commonly distributed from Los Angeles to markets in 

the Great Lakes, Pacific, Southeast, Southwest, 

and West Central regions as well as in New Jersey 

and Virginia.

Miami. MDMA use in Miami is relatively 

high and appears to be increasing. The South 

Florida HIDTA reports that MDMA use in Miami 

 Figure 10. 

Los Angeles Los Angeles

New York New York

Miami

Los Angeles

New York

Miami

Primary Market Areas: MDMA
National Drug Intelligence Center

57

is increasing sharply, and CEWG reports that 

among teens MDMA use surpassed cocaine use 

for the first time in 2000. DAWN data show a corresponding increase in the estimated number of 

ED mentions. ED mentions for MDMA use in 

Miami increased more than 75 percent from 105 

in 2000 to 184 in 2001.

Wholesale MDMA distribution in Miami is 

controlled primarily by Israeli criminal groups, 

although Asian and Russian criminal groups are 

active in the area as well. DEA and HIDTA 

reporting indicates that midlevel MDMA distribution in Miami is not controlled by any single 

group. Rather, independent distributors as well as 

criminal groups of Asian, Caucasian, Colombian, 

Israeli, Mexican, and Russian origin supply retail 

distributors, who are typically Caucasian independent dealers. Retail distribution most often 

occurs in Miami nightclubs and raves.

Wholesale quantities of MDMA are distributed from Miami to markets in the Florida/Caribbean, Great Lakes, and Southeast regions; to 

markets in Kansas, New Jersey, Rhode Island, 

Texas, and Virginia; and to the primary market 

area of Los Angeles.

New York. New York is possibly the largest 

MDMA market in the United States, and wholesale quantities of MDMA are distributed from 

New York to markets throughout the United 

States. According to DEA and HIDTA reporting, 

the level of MDMA use in the city is very high 

and increasing. Data from DAWN, however, indicate that the estimated number of ED mentions 

for MDMA use in New York declined from 200 

in 2000 to 172 in 2001.

Wholesale MDMA distribution in New York 

is controlled primarily by Israeli criminal groups; 

Russian wholesale distribution groups are also 

prominent. Midlevel distributors usually are independent dealers but also include Asian, Israeli, 

and Russian criminal groups as well as members 

of traditional organized crime. Retail distributors 

in New York typically are Caucasian teenagers or 

young adults.

MDMA is distributed from New York to 

markets in the Florida/Caribbean, Great Lakes, 

Mid-Atlantic, New England, New York/New 

Jersey, Pacific, and Southeast regions; to markets in Texas; and to the primary market area of 

Los Angeles.

Key Developments

Traffickers of drugs such as cocaine and heroin 

have become increasingly involved in MDMA trafficking in some areas. HIDTA, Pulse Check, and 

local law enforcement reporting indicates that 

cocaine and crack dealers in Florida have expanded 

their operations to include MDMA because of the 

drug’s profit potential. Similarly, reporting from 

the DEA New York Field Division and Pulse 

Check sources indicates that MDMA is being distributed along with cocaine and heroin in New 

York. The Northern California HIDTA reports that 

many of the criminal groups distributing MDMA 

in its area are polydrug traffickers, and Pulse Check 

sources in Washington, D.C., report that crack 

cocaine dealers in the city have become increasingly involved in MDMA sales.

The use of couriers who internally carry 

MDMA into the country, although still relatively 

limited, appears to be increasing. The smuggling of 

MDMA via this method emerged in 2000 with just 

a few seizures per year. EPIC reports, however, 

that since July 2002 both the frequency of seizures 

involving this method and the volume of MDMA 

seized per incident have increased. According to 

EPIC, recent seizures have involved couriers swallowing as many as 130 pellets containing between 

40 and 50 MDMA tablets each. Seizures of 

MDMA smuggled internally largely have involved 

Dominican and Spanish couriers traveling on commercial flights from Western Europe.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

58

Projections

MDMA will become available in more areas 

of the country, particularly in midsize and smaller 

cities. But the overall level of MDMA use may 

increase only slightly or begin to stabilize. 

National-level drug prevalence data indicate that 

the rate of MDMA use has slowed, indicating that 

the sharp yearly increases that began in the mid1990s may be ending.

Mexican criminal groups appear to be 

expanding their role in MDMA production and 

transportation. DEA reporting indicates that 

MDMA production in Mexico increased in 2002 

and that Mexican methamphetamine producers 

have been consulting with European MDMA producers regarding production methods so that they 

can begin producing MDMA in addition to methamphetamine. Also, numerous reports from federal, state, and local law enforcement in 2002 

indicate that MDMA is increasingly being transshipped through Mexico en route to the United 

States from Europe. Such increases suggest that 

Europe–Mexico could become a primary route 

for transporting MDMA to the United States.
National Drug Intelligence Center

59

National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

Other Dangerous Drugs

Other dangerous drugs, which include club 

drugs such as GHB and GHB analogs, ketamine, 

and Rohypnol as well as hallucinogens such as 

LSD, PCP, and psilocybin, pose a relatively low 

threat in comparison with other illicit drugs.20 The 

availability and use of other dangerous drugs 

overall appear to be stable; however, the increasing availability of some of these drugs—such as 

GHB, ketamine, and PCP—is raising concerns 

among law enforcement and drug treatment providers. Other dangerous drugs are present in 

every region of the country but are most prevalent 

in metropolitan areas, where they are used primarily by adolescents and young adults.

NDTS data show that just 1.1 percent of state 

and local law enforcement agencies nationwide 

identify other dangerous drugs as their greatest 

drug threat. Regionally, more state and local law 

enforcement agencies in the Mid-Atlantic (3.0%), 

Great Lakes (2.0%), New England (1.7%), and 

Florida/Caribbean regions (1.6%) identify other 

dangerous drugs as the greatest threat than do those 

in the Southeast (0.9%), West Central (0.5%), 

Pacific (0.2%), and Southwest regions (0.1%). The 

percentage of agencies in the New York/New Jersey region (0.0%) identifying other dangerous 

drugs as their greatest threat was negligible.

Club Drugs

The term club drugs refers to a collection of 

drugs that are commonly distributed and used at 

dance clubs and raves, including MDMA (see 

MDMA section), GHB and its analogs (see text 

box, next page), ketamine, and Rohypnol. The 

threat associated with each club drug differs; 

however, the overall threat remained relatively 

stable over the past year.

GHB

GHB (gamma-hydroxybutyrate), as well as its 

analogs GBL (gamma-butyrolactone) and BD 

(1,4-butanediol), is available in every region of 

the country. Nearly every DEA Field Division 

and HIDTA reports that GHB is available, and 

while some report that availability has increased 

over the past year, the increases appear to be 

slight. Seldom is GHB reported as widely or 

readily available: less than half (17 of 42) of 

Pulse Check sources, for example, describe GHB 

as somewhat or widely available. Most reporting 

indicates that the availability of GHB is limited 

primarily to raves and dance clubs, although the 

drug also can be acquired at gyms, on college 

campuses, at private parties, and from the Internet, where it is sold under the guise of cleaning 

products and nail polish remover.

NDTS data show that 16.4 percent of state 

and local law enforcement agencies nationwide 

describe GHB availability as high or medium, 

while 50.8 percent indicate availability is low. 

Another 29.6 percent of state and local law 

enforcement agencies nationwide report that 

GHB is not available in their jurisdictions.

20.The use of trademarked names such as Rohypnol in this assessment does not imply any criminal activity, criminal intent, or 

misdealing on the part of the companies that manufacture these drugs.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

60

Federal, state, and local law enforcement 

agencies in every region of the country report 

that because of its powerful sedative properties, GHB currently appears to be the substance most commonly used in drugfacilitated sexual assault. When used to facilitate a sexual assault, the drug usually is 

mixed into a victim’s drink.

Many national-level drug abuse indicators do 

not measure GHB use or the consequences of that 

use; however, at least two indicators do show 

general downward trends. MTF data for 2001 and 

2002 show that past year use of GHB was 

reported by 1.1 and 0.8 percent of eighth graders, 

1.0 and 1.4 percent of tenth graders, and 1.6 and 

1.5 percent of twelfth graders. Also, according to 

DAWN, there was a decline between 2000 and 

2001 in the estimated number of GHB-related ED 

mentions from 4,969 to 3,340 (DAWN includes 

the analog GBL in its GHB data). DAWN data 

further show that patients aged 20–25 accounted 

for more than half of GHB ED mentions in 2001. 

DEA estimates that there had been approximately 

72 deaths associated with GHB in the United 

States by the end of 2001. TEDS does not monitor treatment admissions for GHB as a primary 

substance of abuse.

GHB is produced illegally in both domestic 

and foreign clandestine laboratories. Law 

enforcement agencies in every region of the country report that GHB is produced in their areas, 

typically by Caucasian independent operators and 

typically in small amounts. GHB has, at times, 

been produced in quantities large enough for 

national-level distribution, however. According to 

NCLSS data, 20 GHB laboratories were seized in 

2000, 12 of which were seized by DEA. In 2001, 

13 GHB laboratories were seized.

Law enforcement reporting indicates that 

GHB is produced illegally in Europe and in Canada and then transported to the United States. 

GHB produced in Europe is smuggled most often 

via mail services, while GHB produced in Canada 

is smuggled into the United States via private vehicles. Within the United States, GHB typically is 

transported from domestic production areas via 

mail services and from POEs in private vehicles. 

Male Caucasian independent dealers are the primary distributors of GHB; however, African 

American gangs and other diverse independent 

dealers are increasingly active in GHB distribution.

GHB Analogs

GHB analogs, which include GBL, BD, GHV 

(gamma-hydroxyvalerate), and GVL 

(gamma-valerolactone), are drugs that have 

chemical structures that closely resemble 

the chemical structure of GHB. GHB users 

not only use these analogs—easily purchased over the Internet—to produce GHB, 

they also ingest them directly. Both GBL and 

BD metabolize into GHB upon ingestion, and 

thus produce effects similar to those of GHB. 

Criminal penalties associated with GHB have 

been made more stringent, likely leading to 

apparent increases in the distribution and 

abuse of GHB analogs. Several DEA Field 

Divisions and HIDTAs report that GBL and 

BD are increasingly available in their areas. 

GBL is a listed chemical and is widely used 

as an industrial solvent in the United States.

Ketamine 

Ketamine is a dissociative anesthetic that has 

a combination of stimulant, depressant, hallucinogenic, and analgesic properties. It generally is 

used as a preoperative veterinary anesthetic.

Reporting from law enforcement and public 

health agencies indicates that the availability of 

ketamine may be increasing slightly. Most DEA 

Field Divisions report that ketamine is available 

in their areas, and several indicate that availability 

is increasing. While only 12 of 42 sources in 

Pulse Check sites describe ketamine as somewhat 

or widely available, availability was reported as 

increasing in six Pulse Check sites. Notwithstanding the reports of increased availability, STRIDE 

data show that only 3,185 dosage units of ketamine were seized in 2000 compared with 

111,478 dosage units in 2001.

NDTS data show that 10.7 percent of state 

and local law enforcement agencies nationwide 
National Drug Intelligence Center

61

identify ketamine availability as high or medium, 

while 49.5 percent indicate availability is low. 

Another 36.5 percent of state and local law 

enforcement agencies nationwide report that ketamine is not available in their jurisdictions.

While many national-level drug abuse indicators do not measure ketamine use or the consequences of that use, at least two indicators do 

show some general upward trends. MTF data 

indicate that between 2001 and 2002 past year use 

of ketamine held steady for eighth graders at 1.3 

percent and rose—although not significantly—for 

tenth (2.1% to 2.2%) and twelfth graders (2.5% to 

2.6%). In addition, DAWN data show an increase 

in the consequences of ketamine use. The estimated number of DAWN ED mentions for ketamine increased from 263 in 2000 to 679 in 2001.

Ketamine is produced commercially in the 

United States and in a number of other countries 

including Belgium, China, Colombia, Germany, 

and Mexico. Ketamine production is a complex 

and time-intensive process, making clandestine 

production impractical. For this reason, the vast 

majority of ketamine distributed in the United 

States is diverted or stolen from legitimate 

sources, particularly veterinary clinics.

Ketamine powder and capsules typically are 

distributed among friends and acquaintances, 

often at private gatherings, raves, and dance 

clubs. Street sales of ketamine are rare. DEA 

reports that personal-use quantities of powder 

ketamine (100 mg to 200 mg) are packaged in 

small glass vials and small plastic bags as well as 

in paper, glassine, or aluminum foil folds. These 

user quantities sell for approximately $20 each. 

Liquid ketamine is distributed in small glass vials 

and bottles that sell for approximately $100 per 

10-milliliter container.

Rohypnol 

Rohypnol (flunitrazepam) is a powerful benzodiazepine sedative—up to 10 times stronger 

than Valium. Although not approved for use in 

the United States, Rohypnol is prescribed legally 

in more than 70 countries to treat sleep disorders 

or for use as a preanesthetic medication.

Overall, the availability of Rohypnol appears 

to be stable at low levels, and Rohypnol is the least 

available of the club drugs. DEA Field Divisions 

and HIDTAs typically do not report on Rohypnol 

availability; however, the Rocky Mountain and 

South Texas HIDTAs reported increases in the 

availability of Rohypnol in their areas. According 

to STRIDE data, the number of Rohypnol dosage 

units seized declined dramatically between 2000 

(4,967) and 2001 (691).

NDTS data show that 5.7 percent of state and 

local law enforcement agencies nationwide identify Rohypnol availability as high or medium, 

while 47.4 percent indicate availability is low. 

Another 42.8 percent of state and local law 

enforcement agencies nationwide report that 

Rohypnol is not available in their jurisdictions.

The use of Rohypnol is also at low levels, particularly when compared with the use of other 

club drugs. According to MTF, past year use of 

Rohypnol was relatively stable at low levels 

between 2001 and 2002 for eighth (0.7% to 0.3%) 

and tenth graders (1.0% to 0.7%). Past year use 

for twelfth graders is reported at 0.9 percent in 

2001 and 1.6 percent for 2002; however, the MTF 

study indicates that data for twelfth-grade use of 

Rohypnol are not comparable between these 

years because of changes in questionnaire forms.

Rohypnol is commercially produced in several countries. Mexico is the primary source for 

Rohypnol in the United States, although some is 

smuggled into the country from Colombia. 

Rohypnol often is diverted from pharmacies in 

Mexico, particularly those in Tijuana, and smuggled across the U.S.–Mexico border via private 

vehicle and, to a lesser extent, mail services. 

Rohypnol from Colombia typically is transported 

to southern Florida via overnight mail services 

and couriers on commercial flights. Once in the 

United States, the drug is distributed primarily at 

raves, dance clubs, and bars.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

62

Hallucinogens

Hallucinogens include LSD, PCP, and psilocybin—drugs that may distort light, sound, color, 

time, and perception and that sometimes induce 

powerful false images. Hallucinogens constitute a 

moderate to low threat overall because of their 

limited availability, which is concentrated primarily in metropolitan areas. Although law enforcement reporting indicated increased availability of 

hallucinogens at raves in 2000 and 2001, there 

has not been a corresponding increase in hallucinogen use nationally.

LSD

LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide) is available 

throughout the United States and its availability 

appears to be relatively stable. Most DEA Field 

Divisions and HIDTAs report that the availability 

of LSD is stable or increasing in their areas. 

CEWG reporting also indicates that LSD is 

present in most metropolitan areas: sources in 19 

of 21 CEWG areas report that LSD is available. 

Despite reports of widespread and stable availability, STRIDE data show that LSD seizures 

decreased sharply from 24,460,970 dosage units 

in 2000 to 93,974 dosage units in 2001.

NDTS data show that 20.9 percent of state 

and local law enforcement agencies nationwide 

describe LSD availability as high or medium, 

while 57.1 percent indicate availability is low. 

Slightly less than 20 percent of state and local law 

enforcement agencies nationwide report that LSD 

is not available in their jurisdictions.

LSD usually is ingested orally but the means 

of administration can take several forms, such 

as blotter paper, sugar cubes, gelatin 

squares, and tablets. Law enforcement 

reporting indicates, however, that LSD is 

increasingly distributed and used in its liquid 

form, which often is “packaged” in small bottles typically used to sell breath drops. The 

New England and North Texas HIDTAs and 

the DEA Washington (DC) Field Division 

report increasing availability of liquid LSD in 

their areas.

LSD use appears to be trending downward 

among both younger and older adults. NHSDA 

data indicate that between 2000 and 2001 past 

year use of LSD was reported by 3.4 and 3.3 percent, respectively, of those aged 18–25 and held 

steady among those aged 26 and older at 0.1 percent. MTF data appear to indicate a similar downward trend among young adults, although 

changes between 2000 and 2001 are not statistically significant. Past year use of LSD among 

MTF respondents aged 19–28 was 3.7 percent in 

2000 and 3.4 percent in 2001.

LSD use also appears to be declining among 

adolescents. NHSDA data indicate that past year 

LSD use among those aged 12–17 was 2.2 percent 

in 2000 and 1.9 percent in 2001. According to 

MTF, past year use of LSD decreased significantly 

between 2001 and 2002 for eighth (2.2% to 1.5%), 

tenth (4.1% to 2.6%), and twelfth graders (6.6% to 

3.5%). Data from PATS show a decrease as well in 

the rate of lifetime LSD use among teens from 12 

percent in 2000 to 10 percent in 2001.

The consequences of LSD use have decreased 

as well. DAWN data show that the estimated 

number of ED mentions for LSD declined from 

4,016 in 2000 to 2,821 in 2001. ED mentions for 

patients aged 18–25 in particular decreased significantly during that period, dropping 37.5 percent.

DEA reports that LSD production is complex 

and, for the most part, controlled by a small number of experienced chemists in the San Francisco 

Bay Area and in the Pacific Northwest. Seizures 

of LSD laboratories are very infrequent. According to NCLSS data, one possible LSD laboratory 

was seized in 1998 and one in 2000. No LSD laboratories were seized in 1999, in 2001, or in the 

first 6 months of 2002.

Those few who control LSD production also 

control wholesale distribution of the drug, supplying trusted midlevel distributors throughout the 

country. According to law enforcement reporting, 

LSD usually is transported from California to 

midlevel distributors via mail services and private 
National Drug Intelligence Center

63

vehicles. Caucasian independent dealers conduct 

most retail distribution of LSD, although some 

gangs and other independent dealers distribute 

LSD at the retail level as well. Law enforcement 

reporting indicates that the most common venues 

for retail LSD distribution are raves, dance clubs, 

and concerts.

PCP

PCP (phencyclidine) is available in every 

region of the United States, but for the most part, 

availability is limited to large metropolitan areas. 

More than half (14 of 21) of CEWG areas, less 

than half (9 of 21) of the DEA Field Divisions, 

and less than half (9 of 32) of the HIDTAs report 

the availability of PCP in any significant amounts. 

Of those, only sources in Chicago, Dallas, Houston, and Philadelphia report that availability is 

increasing. STRIDE data show that the number of 

PCP dosage units seized has increased sharply 

from 52,055 in 1999, to 184,938 in 2000, to 

1,037,574 in 2001.

NDTS data show that 6.5 percent of state and 

local law enforcement agencies nationwide identify PCP availability as high or medium, while 

50.7 percent indicate availability is low. Another 

39.5 percent of state and local law enforcement 

agencies nationwide report that PCP is not available in their jurisdictions.

PCP is available in tablet, liquid, and powder 

forms and is either ingested orally or smoked 

by applying the liquid form to tobacco or marijuana cigarettes or by lacing these and other 

cigarettes, sometimes containing herbs such 

as mint or parsley, with PCP powder.

The rate of PCP use is very low but may be 

rising among young adults. NHSDA data show 

that past year use of PCP among young adults 

aged 18–25 was 0.3 and 0.4 percent in 2000 and 

2001, respectively. Among adults aged 26 and 

older NHSDA data show virtually no measurable 

past year PCP use (0.0%) in both years. MTF data 

indicate a very low rate of past year PCP use for 

young adults aged 19–28 as well, and the rate was 

statistically unchanged from 2000 to 2001 (0.3% 

to 0.6%).

The level of PCP use among adolescents is 

also low and may be declining. NHSDA data 

indicate that past year PCP use among those aged 

12–17 held steady between 2000 and 2001 at 0.5 

percent. According to MTF data, however, past 

year use of PCP for twelfth graders—the only 

group for which data are available—declined 

from 1.8 percent in 2001 to 1.1 percent in 2002, 

the lowest rate recorded in the last 12 years.

Despite the very low rates of PCP use, the 

consequences of that use have been increasing. 

DAWN data show an increase in the estimated 

number of ED mentions for PCP from 1999 

(3,663), to 2000 (5,404), to 2001 (6,102). Moreover, CEWG reports that admissions to publicly 

funded treatment facilities for PCP use—while 

low—have increased, particularly in Los Angeles, Newark, and Texas.

According to DEA, African American gangs 

produce most of the PCP available in the United 

States in clandestine laboratories primarily in the 

Los Angeles area. State and local law enforcement agencies also report PCP production in the 

Gary, Indiana, and Buffalo, New York, areas. 

NCLSS data show that few PCP laboratories have 

been seized over the past several years: five PCP 

laboratories were seized in 1998 and 1999; four 

were seized in 2000 and 2001.

The African American gangs responsible for 

most production of PCP also control most wholesale distribution of the drug. PCP usually is transported from production sites to midlevel 

distributors via private vehicles and mail services. 

African American gangs control most retail distribution of PCP as well, distributing in markets 

such as Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, New 

York, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C.

Psilocybin

The availability of psilocybin mushrooms is 

limited to certain areas in the United States, primarily in the western and central United States. 

Of the DEA Field Divisions, only those in Boston 

and Denver reported psilocybin availability. Only 

seven HIDTAs reported psilocybin availability: 

the Northern California, Northwest, Oregon, and 

Rocky Mountain HIDTAs report the availability 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

64

of significant amounts of psilocybin, while the 

Milwaukee, New England, and New Mexico 

HIDTAs report that the drug is available but not in 

significant amounts. State and local law enforcement reporting further indicates that psilocybin 

mushrooms are encountered frequently in Alaska.

NDTS data show that 17.2 percent of state 

and local law enforcement agencies nationwide 

identify psilocybin availability as high or 

medium, while 52.0 percent indicate availability 

is low. Another 27.8 percent of state and local law 

enforcement agencies nationwide report that 

psilocybin is not available in their jurisdictions.

Most national-level drug prevalence and consequence studies do not measure psilocybin use. 

The NHSDA tracks lifetime use of psilocybin; 

however, data for reported age groups are mixed. 

Lifetime psilocybin use among young adults (18–

25) declined from 11.4 percent in 1999 to 11.0 

percent in 2000. Among adults 26 and older lifetime use trended upward from 6.0 percent to

6.3 percent over the same period. Similarly, among 

adolescents (12–17) lifetime use trended upward 

slightly between 1999 and 2000 (2.5% to 2.6%).

Law enforcement reporting indicates that 

psilocybin mushrooms are cultivated most frequently by independent growers in the Pacific 

region, particularly in Oregon and Washington, 

but agencies in California, Colorado, Maine, New 

Mexico, North Carolina, and South Dakota report 

psilocybin mushroom cultivation in their areas as 

well. Independent growers often cultivate psilocybin mushrooms indoors, increasingly from kits 

purchased via the Internet.

Most psilocybin mushrooms are transported 

from source areas to distributors in U.S. markets 

through mail services, in private vehicles and, 

occasionally, by couriers on commercial flights. 

Caucasian independent distributors conduct most 

retail psilocybin distribution, which occurs primarily in college areas.
National Drug Intelligence Center

65

National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

Pharmaceuticals

Pharmaceutical controlled substances, which 

include narcotics, depressants, and stimulants, are 

a growing drug threat to the country. Pharmaceutical controlled substances are commonly diverted 

through fraudulent prescriptions, unscrupulous 

physicians and pharmacists, and theft. The number of armed robberies of pharmacies has 

increased substantially over the past 2 years. 

These robberies have particularly targeted the 

Schedule II narcotic OxyContin, which commands a very high street value.

Diverted narcotics such as hydrocodone, oxycodone, and codeine are available in drug markets 

throughout the country, and this availability may 

be increasing. The overall demand for diverted 

narcotics is high and increasing, as are the consequences associated with their abuse.

Depressants, including benzodiazepines and 

barbiturates, are available and abused throughout 

the country to varying degrees. The abuse of 

depressants appears to be increasing, and abuse of 

the benzodiazepine Xanax in particular has 

increased notably in some eastern states.

The availability of diverted stimulants is 

increasing in most areas of the country, largely 

because of sharp increases in stimulant prescriptions since 1990. And while reporting from law 

enforcement agencies indicates a rise in stimulant 

abuse, data from drug consequence studies show 

declines in ED mentions for stimulants.

NDTS data show that 2.7 percent of state and 

local law enforcement agencies nationwide identify diverted pharmaceuticals as their greatest 

drug threat. Regionally, more state and local law 

enforcement agencies in the Florida/Caribbean 

(6.9%), Mid-Atlantic (4.3%), Southeast (4.1%), 

Great Lakes (3.7%), and New England regions 

(2.8%) identify diverted pharmaceuticals as the 

greatest drug threat than do their counterparts in 

the New York/New Jersey (1.8%), Pacific 

(1.4%), Southwest (0.6%), and West Central 

regions (0.0%).

NDTS data further reveal that 70.0 percent of 

state and local law enforcement agencies nationwide identify the availability of diverted pharmaceuticals as high or medium, while 20.2 percent 

indicate availability is low. Just 7.1 percent of 

state and local law enforcement agencies nationwide report that diverted pharmaceuticals are not 

available in their jurisdictions.

Narcotics 

Pharmaceutical narcotics are diverted and 

abused for the euphoric effects they produce. Narcotics such as hydrocodone, oxycodone, hydromorphone, and codeine are available throughout 

the country, and law enforcement reports indicate 

that availability is increasing.

Hydrocodone is the most available and abused 

of the pharmaceutical narcotics. A semisynthetic 

opioid structurally related to codeine, hydrocodone 

produces opiate-like effects similar to those of 

morphine. DEA reports that the diversion and 

abuse of hydrocodone drugs increased sharply 

since 1990, and DEA Field Divisions in Atlanta, 

Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, New 

Orleans, and San Francisco report that Vicodin, 

Lorcet, and Lortab are the most commonly 

encountered hydrocodone drugs in their areas. 

Moreover, data from the National Association of 

State Controlled Substance Authorities 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

66

(NASCSA) 2001 Survey indicate that, overall, 

hydrocodone—particularly Vicodin—is the most 

abused and diverted pharmaceutical in the 34 

states surveyed.

The availability of diverted oxycodone drugs 

such as OxyContin, Percocet, and Percodan is rising. Reporting from most DEA Field Divisions, 

HIDTAs, and sources in Pulse Check sites indicates 

that the availability and abuse of oxycodone drugs, 

particularly OxyContin, are increasing in their 

areas. According to NASCSA, oxycodone is the 

second most abused and diverted pharmaceutical.

The abuse of OxyContin, a central nervous 

system depressant with heroin-like effects, is 

most prevalent in eastern states, particularly in the 

Mid-Atlantic and New England regions. Over the 

past year, however, abuse has spread to every 

region of the country. In many areas where 

increasing abuse of OxyContin has been reported, 

law enforcement agencies also have noted 

increased pharmacy thefts. Moreover, reporting 

from some HIDTAs and local law enforcement 

agencies in areas where OxyContin abuse 

emerged, such as western Pennsylvania and 

Maine, suggests that recent increases in heroin 

abuse may be due to OxyContin abusers switching to heroin. Not only is heroin less expensive 

but efforts to control the diversion of OxyContin 

may be reducing the availability of OxyContin in 

some areas. The use of heroin as a substitute for 

OxyContin has been reported in 12 of 20 Pulse 

Check sites.

Hydromorphone (Dilaudid) and codeine also 

are commonly diverted throughout the country, 

but they generally are abused less frequently than 

hydrocodone and oxycodone drugs. Six DEA 

Field Divisions (Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, 

New York, San Francisco, and Seattle) and four 

HIDTAs (Atlanta, Houston, Milwaukee, and 

Washington/Baltimore) report the availability and 

abuse of codeine in their areas. The DEA Houston 

Field Division identifies increases specifically in 

the abuse of codeine cough syrups.

The demand for narcotics is high and appears 

to be increasing overall. The NHSDA reports that 

nearly 8.4 million people abused narcotics (pain 

relievers) in 2001—more than the number who 

abused cocaine or heroin. Among individuals 

aged 12 and older the rate of past year nonmedical use of pain relievers increased significantly 

between 2000 and 2001 (2.9% to 3.7%), and in 

both years, the rates were higher than those for 

any other drug except marijuana. NHSDA data 

further show that the number of lifetime nonmedical OxyContin users escalated from 221,000 in 

1999, to 399,000 in 2000, to 957,000 in 2001. 

According to MTF data, past year use of narcotics 

other than heroin increased significantly among 

young adults (19–28) from 4.1 percent in 2000 to 

5.0 percent in 2001. In 2002 the MTF questioned 

students regarding use of Vicodin and OxyContin; because this is the first year such data were 

collected, there are no trend data. In 2002, 2.5 

percent of eighth graders, 6.9 percent of tenth 

graders, and 9.6 percent of twelfth graders 

reported past year use of Vicodin, while 1.3, 3.0, 

and 4.0 percent of eight, tenth, and twelfth

graders, respectively, reported past year use

of OxyContin.

The consequences associated with the abuse of 

narcotics are increasing as well. DAWN data show 

that between 2000 and 2001 the estimated number 

of ED mentions for hydrocodone drugs rose from 

20,098 to 21,567, while those for oxycodone drugs 

increased significantly from 10,825 to 18,409 over 

the same period. DAWN data for hydromorphone 

were incomplete in both 2000 and 2001, while ED 

mentions for codeine declined during those years 

from 1,155 to 930.

According to TEDS data, admissions to publicly funded treatment facilities for abuse of narcotics other than heroin increased 41 percent from 

1994 (15,436) to 1999 (21,758), when they 

accounted for 1 percent of all TEDS admissions. 

Much of this increase likely is due to an increase 

in the number of individuals seeking treatment for 

OxyContin abuse. The American Methadone 

Treatment Association reports an increase in the 

number of patients admitted to methadone treatment for OxyContin abuse. Moreover, treatment 

programs in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Virginia report that 50 to 90 percent of newly admitted patients in 2001 identified OxyContin as their 

primary drug of abuse.
National Drug Intelligence Center

67

Depressants 

Pharmaceutical depressants—the most frequently prescribed of which are benzodiazepines 

and barbiturates—cause relaxation and reduced 

anxiety; thus, they often are used to treat anxiety 

and sleep disorders. Depressants are diverted and 

abused throughout the country to varying 

degrees. Law enforcement reporting indicates 

that while benzodiazepines such as alprazolam 

(Xanax) and diazepam (Valium) are widely available and abused in every region, the availability 

and abuse of barbiturates such as pentobarbital 

(Nembutal) and secobarbital (Seconal) are rarely 

reported. DEA Field Divisions and HIDTAs 

report that the availability and abuse of benzodiazepines, Xanax in particular, have increased in 

several areas of the country but primarily in eastern states and particularly in Florida. No DEA 

Field Division or HIDTA reports significant availability or abuse of barbiturates.

The consequences of depressant abuse generally are rising. According to DAWN, the estimated number of ED mentions increased 

significantly for both benzodiazepines (91,078 to 

103,972) and barbiturates (7,102 to 9,506) 

between 2000 and 2001. DAWN data show significant increases in ED mentions for alprazolam 

between 2000 and 2001 (+16.0%), 1999 and 2001 

(+25.2%), and 1994 and 2001 (+49.4%). Likewise, TEDS data show the number of admissions 

to publicly funded treatment for abuse of benzodiazepines increased from 3,693 to 4,153, while 

the number of admissions for abuse of barbiturates decreased from 1,118 to 1,030 between 

1998 and 1999.

Stimulants

Pharmaceutical stimulants increase alertness 

and energy and improve concentration; consequently, they are prescribed largely to treat attention deficit disorder (ADD), attention deficit 

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), obesity, and narcolepsy. The availability of diverted pharmaceutical stimulants such as dextroamphetamine 

(Adderall and Dexedrine) and methylphenidate 

(Concerta, Metadate, Methyline, and Ritalin) is 

increasing in most areas of the country. DEA and 

HIDTA reporting indicates that the diversion and 

abuse of stimulants—Ritalin and Adderall in particular—are increasing. Law enforcement reporting identifies college students as the most 

common abusers of stimulants, although others 

abuse stimulants as well. Adolescents, for example, often are identified as abusers of Ritalin.

A sharp rise in the number of prescriptions for 

Ritalin and Adderall appears to be contributing to 

the increased availability of these drugs. According to DEA, approximately 2,000 prescriptions 

per year were written for methylphenidate (usually 

for Ritalin) before 1991. By 2000, this number 

had increased to approximately 11 million per 

year. The number of amphetamine prescriptions 

(usually for Adderall) also increased from approximately 1.3 million in 1996 to approximately 6 

million in 1999.

Despite reports of increased availability, the 

abuse of stimulants and the consequences of that 

abuse appear to be declining. MTF data indicate 

that between 2001 and 2002 use of Ritalin 

declined for eighth (2.9% to 2.8%) and twelfth 

graders (5.1% to 4.0%) and held steady at 4.8 percent for tenth graders. According to DAWN data, 

ED mentions for methylphenidate declined 

between 2000 (1,487) and 2001 (1,279), continuing a general decrease since 1997.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

68

This page intentionally left blank.
National Drug Intelligence Center

69

National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

Money Laundering

The trafficking and abuse of illicit drugs—

from cocaine to pharmaceuticals—generate enormous profits, and detecting and seizing the money 

and assets derived from drug trafficking are critical to U.S. counterdrug efforts. The actual dollar 

amount of money laundered in the United States 

from the proceeds of drug trafficking is unknown, 

although interagency estimates suggest that 

between $100 billion and $300 billion in U.S. 

currency is laundered annually.

Colombian and Mexican drug trafficking 

organizations are the primary drug money launderers in the United States. While these organizations are active throughout the country, 

Colombian money launderers are predominant in 

the Florida/Caribbean, Mid-Atlantic, New York/

New Jersey, and Southeast regions, and Mexican 

money launders dominate in the Great Lakes, 

Pacific, Southwest, and West Central regions. 

Dominican traffickers are prominent money launderers as well but primarily only in the MidAtlantic, New England, and New York/New Jersey regions. Drug money laundering activities 

typically are centered in large drug market areas, 

such as Los Angeles, Miami, and New York, and 

in areas where drugs and drug proceeds are transported to and from the United States, such as the 

Southwest Border area and San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Most drug transactions are conducted in cash 

and typically involve small denominations, that 

is, bills of $20 and under. Thus drug trafficking 

organizations and criminal groups amass large 

volumes of bills that must be either smuggled to 

a foreign destination or placed into the U.S. 

financial system.

The bulk shipment of currency, as well as of 

monetary instruments such as money orders and 

checks, is a principal money laundering method 

used by traffickers. Drug proceeds frequently are 

collected and stored at stash houses in primary 

market areas before being transported out of the 

country. Drug proceeds generated throughout the 

United States often are transported to cities near 

the U.S.–Mexico border and in the Southeast 

before being smuggled out of the country.

The smuggling of bulk cash and monetary 

instruments out of the United States occurs via 

private vehicles and aircraft; commercial trucks, 

buses, trains, and aircraft; air and maritime cargo; 

and couriers on foot. While use of this money 

laundering method is significant and avoids regulations associated with placing funds in the U.S. 

financial system, traffickers still launder billions 

of dollars in drug proceeds through the financial 

system using techniques of varying complexity.

Traffickers launder drug proceeds through 

money service businesses such as money remittance, money exchange, and check cashing firms. 

Money service businesses have been implicated 

in federal drug investigations for accepting and 

transferring drug proceeds on behalf of drug trafficking organizations, and the number of such 

businesses in several U.S. cities, including 

Atlanta, Chicago, and Philadelphia, has 

increased. According to Financial Crimes 

Enforcement Network estimates, in 1999 there 

were approximately 158,000 money service businesses transacting more than $200 billion annually. In 2002 the estimated number of such 

businesses was raised to 200,000. An updated 

transaction total is not available.

Traffickers also introduce drug proceeds into 

the legitimate financial system by structuring currency transactions in amounts that fall under 

threshold reporting requirements (see discussion of 

the Bank Secrecy Act, this page). Traffickers also 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

70

place illicit funds in the U.S. financial system by 

commingling drug proceeds with funds generated at 

legitimate businesses, by purchasing real estate and 

vehicles, and by exploiting the gaming industry.

Traffickers employ a number of other techniques to launder their drug proceeds. Common 

methods include underground banking systems 

such as the Colombian Black Market Peso 

Exchange or the Asia-based Hawala system, tradebased schemes, and the services of fiduciaries such 

as lawyers, accountants, and securities brokers.

The smuggling of currency to foreign countries through mail services is another technique 

frequently used by traffickers to launder drug proceeds. Legislation granting the USCS the authority to conduct searches, without a warrant, of 

outbound USPS mail or parcels exceeding 16 

ounces is contained in the Trade Act of 2002 that 

was signed into law by the President in August 

2002. This new authority should greatly enhance 

the effectiveness of the USCS in preventing the 

smuggling of currency and monetary instruments 

through the mail.

In addition to the Trade Act of 2002, several 

other legislative and regulatory efforts have been 

enacted to help combat drug money laundering, 

such as the Uniting and Strengthening America 

by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to 

Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA 

PATRIOT) Act. This Act, which was signed into 

law in October 2001, provides for wide-ranging 

reforms designed to stop the funding of terrorism, 

but these same reforms will also enhance efforts 

to combat drug money laundering. For example, 

the USA PATRIOT Act makes inbound and outbound smuggling of bulk cash a criminal offense 

for which the USCS has exclusive investigative 

jurisdiction. Other provisions of the Act include 

the following:

• Special due diligence for correspondent 

accounts and private banking accounts

• Prohibition on U.S. correspondent accounts 

with foreign shell banks

• Prohibitions relating to the use of concentration accounts to conceal the identity of the 

owner of the funds

• Amendments relating to the reporting of suspicious activities, including reporting of suspicious activities by securities brokers and 

dealers

• Enhancements to financial institutions’

anti-money laundering programs

• Increased penalties for operating an unlicensed money transmitting business

The Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation 

Act was enacted to disrupt the financial activities 

of drug trafficking organizations and criminal 

groups. The Kingpin Act was signed into law in 

December 1999 as an amendment to the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY2000. Modeled 

after the Specially Designated Narcotics Traffickers program that sought to expose, isolate, and 

incapacitate the financial infrastructure of key 

Colombian drug trafficking organizations, the 

Kingpin Act provides for economic sanctions to 

be applied to significant foreign drug traffickers 

and their organizations located worldwide.

The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 was designed 

to deter money laundering and the use of secret 

foreign bank accounts. It established regulatory 

reporting standards and requirements that, in 

essence, provide a framework for creating a paper 

trail for large financial transactions. Reports 

required under the Bank Secrecy Act include the 

Currency Transaction Report (CTR), required for 

cash transactions over $10,000 conducted at 

financial institutions, and the Currency Transaction Report by Casinos (CTRC), required for 

deposits, withdrawals, exchanges of currency or 

gambling tokens or chips, or other payments or 

transfers over $10,000 involving casinos. A 

Report of Cash Payments Over $10,000 Received 

in Trade or Business (Form 8300) is required for 

cash amounts over $10,000 received by business 

enterprises. A Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR) is required for foreign 

bank accounts with aggregate deposits above 

$10,000 that are held by U.S. persons. A Report 

of International Transportation of Currency or 

Monetary Instruments (CMIR) is required for the 

physical transport of currency or bearer monetary 

instruments over $10,000 into or out of the 
National Drug Intelligence Center

71

United States. The Suspicious Activity Report 

(SAR) is another requirement of the Bank 

Secrecy Act. All financial institutions in the 

United States are required to complete this report 

for various suspicious transactions including 

those totaling $5,000 or more that involve potential money laundering or violations of the Bank 

Secrecy Act.

Geographic Targeting Orders, which require 

money remitters to file weekly reports on all currency transactions over an arbitrary figure established by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, 

have been successful. In 1996 and 1997, for example, Geographic Targeting Orders were adopted 

requiring remittance agents in New York and 

Puerto Rico that specialized in wire transfers to 

Colombia and the Dominican Republic to report 

cash remittances of $750 and above and to identify 

individuals completing these transactions. The 

Geographic Targeting Orders led to an immediate 

reduction in the amount of currency being wired to 

Colombia and the Dominican Republic from 

money remitters in these targeted geographic areas, 

and more than 900 money transmitters ceased their 

activities as a result of these operations.

The 2002 Money Laundering Strategy calls 

for continued refinements to the High Intensity 

Money Laundering and Related Financial Crime 

Areas (HIFCAs) task forces. By November 2002, 

each HIFCA task force will have evaluated and 

identified ways in which to increase the participation of state and local law enforcement, regulatory, and prosecution agencies, which has proven 

to be particularly effective in fighting financial 

crimes in the past. The New York El Dorado Task 

Force, a HIDTA-funded financial crimes task 

force led by the USCS and Internal Revenue Service but comprising members of 29 federal, state, 

and local agencies, has seized $425 million and 

arrested 1,500 individuals since its inception a 

decade ago. HIFCA task forces initiated more 

than 100 cases in 2001.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

72

This page intentionally left blank.
National Drug Intelligence Center

73

Appendix A: National Drug Threat Survey 2002 Methodology

NDIC’s National Drug Threat Survey (NDTS) 2002 was administered to a probability-based sample 

of state and local law enforcement agencies. The sample was designed to provide nationally and regionally representative data for use in the National Drug Threat Assessment 2003. Previous versions of the 

NDTS, conducted in 2000 and 2001, were targeted research projects based on nonprobability, purposive 

sampling plans that limited the generalization of results to only those agencies responding in a given year.

Survey Instrument

The NDTS 2002 questionnaire (OMB Number 1105-0071) was designed by NDIC. A thorough 

review of data and response patterns from previous versions of the NDTS was conducted to improve the 

accuracy of information obtained from respondents. Items in the survey were designed to assess the 

availability, abuse, overall threat, and past year change in the overall threat of all major drugs of abuse in 

the United States. Responding law enforcement agencies were asked to rank the greatest drug threats in 

their areas and to identify not only source cities for the powder cocaine, crack cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, marijuana, and MDMA transported to their areas but also destination cities for these drugs 

transported out of their areas. The survey also solicited information on specific groups involved in the 

transportation, wholesale distribution, and retail sales of these drugs. Information on cultivation, production, and chemical procurement was solicited when applicable to specific drugs. The survey contained 

open-ended items that permitted responding agencies to provide detailed qualitative information on various aspects of the overall drug situation and the threat of specific drugs in their areas. Such information 

was used to substantiate and expand drug threat information obtained from other federal, state, and local 

law enforcement reporting used in the preparation of the National Drug Threat Assessment 2003.

Sample Design

The 2000 Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies conducted by the U.S. Bureau of 

Justice Statistics was the basis for determining a sample frame from which to select law enforcement 

agencies to be surveyed for the NDTS 2002. After careful review of the more than 17,000 law enforcement agencies in the 2000 Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, a final sample frame of 

7,932 state and local law enforcement agencies with drug law enforcement responsibilities was created. 

Municipal police departments from every state, including regional and county police departments with 10 

or more sworn full time equivalent (FTE) employees, were retained for the sampling frame. County sheriff’s offices with 10 or more sworn FTE employees were also retained for the sampling frame except 

those in six states where county sheriff’s offices do not have drug law enforcement responsibilities. In the 

rest of the country, sheriff’s offices were excluded if they did not indicate on the 2000 Census of State and 

Local Law Enforcement Agencies that they enforce drug laws. Campus police departments, constables, 

and special police agencies were excluded since most of these agencies, too, have limited or no drug 

investigation responsibilities. Tribal police departments, whose jurisdictions fall under federal authority, 

also were eliminated. State drug investigative agencies not in the 2000 Census of State and Local Law 

Enforcement Agencies were added to the sampling universe.

The sample frame of 7,932 state and local law enforcement agencies was stratified to include the following specific groups of state and local law enforcement agencies to ensure a thorough analysis of the 

domestic drug situation.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

74

Municipal police departments (stratum 50) or county sheriff’s offices (stratum 40) with 75 or more 

sworn FTE employees as reported in the 2000 Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies 

were selected with certainty.

State police and state-level investigative agencies (stratum 10) were selected with certainty to provide 

information on the drug threat situation from a state perspective. State police agencies were obtained 

from the 2000 Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies. Additional state-level investigative 

agencies were derived from previous NDTS sampling plans. Typically included for each state were the 

state police and lead drug enforcement agency, although this pattern varied in some states.

All U.S. members of the Major Cities Chiefs Association (stratum 20) were selected with certainty to 

ensure adequate assessment of the drug threat situation in major cities, which are the location of many of 

the primary drug markets in the United States. These agencies were in the 2000 Census of State and Local 

Law Enforcement Agencies and were identified in a stratum to enable detailed analysis of responses from 

these agencies by NDIC.

A final stratum selected with certainty comprises 26 municipal police departments and county sheriff’s offices with jurisdictions that correspond to ports of entry located along the U.S.–Mexico border 

(stratum 30). These agencies were in the 2000 Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies and 

were selected with certainty to allow for analysis of transportation and distribution information provided 

by agencies at these critical drug trafficking areas.

To ensure that regionally representative statements could be made about results obtained from the 

NDTS 2002, local law enforcement agencies were coded according to the nine OCDETF regions. Municipal police departments and county sheriff’s offices with sworn FTE employees of 10 or more but fewer 

than 75, and meeting all the criteria discussed above, were included in these strata. These OCDETF 

regions were used as the noncertainty strata, and a Neyman allocation21 was used to allocate the noncertainty sample to the OCDETF region strata.

The actual sample, representing the sampling universe of 7,932 state and local law enforcement agencies, consisted of 3,002 agencies in 23 strata, 5 of which were certainty strata. A summary of the sample 

design is presented in Table A1, page 77.

Data Collection

NDIC verified the point of contact and mailing address for each law enforcement agency in the sample and mailed the surveys, which were accompanied by a cover letter from NDIC Director Michael T. 

Horn and a postage-paid return envelope. Field Program Specialists located throughout the country were 

responsible for follow-up contacts with sample agencies that were mailed a survey.

Of the 3,002 state and local law enforcement agencies in the actual sample, 383 had received the survey earlier in 2002 under a joint effort by NDIC and the HIDTA program that was designed to assist the 

HIDTAs in preparing their annual threat assessments. Copies of surveys completed by sample agencies 

under the joint NDIC–HIDTA effort were forwarded to NDIC. Lists of agencies that did not respond were 

given to Field Program Specialists for follow-up contact, and a second NDTS 2002 survey was either 

mailed or personally delivered to the nonresponding agency.

21.For more details on Neyman allocation, W.G. Cochran, “Stratified Random Sampling,” Chapter 5 in Sampling Techniques, 3d ed. 

New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1977.
National Drug Intelligence Center

75

NDIC provided daily reports to help Field Program Specialists target nonresponding agencies, which 

were contacted by telephone, by letter, and in person. All responses were entered in the NDTS database 

designed and developed by NDIC.

Sample Adjustments

During the survey process, NDIC identified 21 state police and investigative agency records in the 

original sample as duplicates. Duplicate records were removed, modifying the number of state police and 

investigative agencies in the original sample file from 99 to 78. NDIC also identified five agencies as ineligible because they had merged with other law enforcement agencies during the period of administering 

the survey. Two of these agencies were large county sheriff’s offices (stratum 40), one was a large county 

police department (stratum 50), one was a small county police department in the Florida/Caribbean 

OCDETF region (stratum 55), and one was a small county police department in the Great Lakes 

OCDETF region (stratum 56).

The original actual sample of 3,002 was corrected to an adjusted sample of 2,976 agencies in 23 strata, 

5 of which were certainty strata.

To compensate for the deletion of the two ineligible records in noncertainty strata (stratum 55 and 

stratum 56) from the sample, a poststratification factor was calculated for the affected strata to correct the 

base weights for those strata. For all other strata, the poststratification factor is 1.0. The poststratification 

factors for all strata also are shown in Table 1.

Nonresponse Adjustment Factor

Of the 2,976 agencies in the adjusted sample, 2,386 agencies responded to the NDTS 2002 for an 

overall response rate of 80.17 percent. Table 2 on page 77 summarizes the response rates by OCDETF 

region. A nonresponse adjustment factor was applied to account for those agencies that did not respond to 

the survey.

The nonresponse adjustment factor for each stratum j is calculated as 

where k represents either the kth responding or the kth nonresponding agency in stratum j.

The final weight for each responding agency is calculated as

 .



 

































































































	









































j k agencies

responding

j k agencies

nonresponding

j k agencies

responding

factor

poststratification

weight

base

factor

poststratification

weight

base

factor

poststratification

weight

base

factor

adjustment

nonresponse

j

,

, ,















































 















factor

adjustment

nonresponse

factor

poststratification

weight

base

weight

final
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

76

Estimation Techniques

The final weight for each respondent was used to derive national and regional estimates for all applicable survey items (nominal and ordinal data questions). The final adjusted score was summed for each 

response category (for example, high, medium, and low) for each item, and the proportion of the final 

scores provided the national or regional estimate for that item. Some respondents did not answer all survey items. The item nonresponse rate ranged from 1.2 to 5.5 percent.

Nonsampling Error

Nonsampling error may affect NDTS 2002 data. Possible nonsampling errors include the following:

◗ Inability to obtain information about all agencies in the sample

◗ Varied interpretation of response categories (for example, high, medium, and low are 

defined differently by respondents)

◗ Inability or unwillingness of respondents to provide correct information

◗ Errors made in collection, coding, or processing of data

◗ Failure to represent all agencies within the sample (undercoverage)

Nonsampling error can increase the total error over the error resulting from sampling. Random nonsampling errors can increase the variability of data, while systemic nonsampling errors that are consistent 

in one direction can introduce bias into the results of a sample survey. NDIC used data collection, coding, 

and processing procedures designed to limit the effects of random nonsampling error on the NDTS 2002 

data. No systemic nonsampling errors were identified.
National Drug Intelligence Center

77

Table A1. NDTS 2002 Sample Design (2,386 of 2,976 agencies responding)

Stratum description Stratum 

code

Sample 

count Total Original base weight

Poststratification 

factor

Nonresponse 

adjustment factor

Final 

weight

State police and investigative agencies 10 78 78 1.00000 1.00000 1.06849 1.06849

Major City Chiefs Association member agencies 20 52 52 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000

Southwest Border POE agencies 30 26 26 1.00000 1.00000 1.36842 1.36842

County sheriff's offices 

with drug enforcement

responsibilities

75+ sworn FTE 40 380 380 1.00000 1.00000 1.25413 1.25413

New England 41 7 30 4.28571 1.00000 1.16667 5.00001

New York/New Jersey 42 8 37 4.62500 1.00000 1.00000 4.62500

Mid-Atlantic 43 10 40 4.00000 1.00000 1.11111 4.44444

Southeast 44 112 388 3.46429 1.00000 1.31765 4.56472

Florida/Caribbean 45 8 26 3.25000 1.00000 1.60000 5.20000

Great Lakes 46 100 391 3.91000 1.00000 1.85185 7.24073

West Central 47 73 321 4.39726 1.00000 1.17742 5.17742

Southwest 48 45 190 4.22222 1.00000 1.60714 6.78570

Pacific 49 34 111 3.26471 1.00000 1.17241 3.82758

Municipal/county/regional 

police departments

75+ sworn FTE 50 770 770 1.00000 1.00000 1.17378 1.17378

New England 51 124 478 3.85484 1.00000 1.05085 4.05086

New York/New Jersey 52 155 590 3.80645 1.00000 1.17424 4.46969

Mid-Atlantic 53 106 482 4.54717 1.00000 1.23256 5.60466

Southeast 54 183 745 4.07104 1.00000 1.26207 5.13794

Florida/Caribbean 55 43 166 3.79545 1.01713 1.22857 4.74285

Great Lakes 56 304 1233 4.04590 1.00248 1.53535 6.22728

West Central 57 137 564 4.11679 1.00000 1.23423 5.08107

Southwest 58 134 498 3.71642 1.00000 1.44086 5.35484

Pacific 59 87 336 3.86207 1.00000 1.10127 4.25318

Table A2. NDTS 2002 Response Rates by OCDETF Region

Region Respondents Sample size Response rate

New England 206 216 95.37

New York/New Jersey 248 286 86.71

Mid-Atlantic 163 187 87.17

Southeast 419 537 78.03

Florida/Caribbean 125 151 82.78

Great Lakes 407 615 66.18

West Central 293 339 86.43

Southwest 288 386 74.61

Pacific 237 259 91.51
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

78

This page intentionally left blank.
National Drug Intelligence Center

79

Appendix B: Selected National Substance Abuse Indicators

Selected National Substance Abuse Indicators
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

80

Table B1. Percentage of NHSDA Respondents Reporting Use of Specific Drugs in Their Lifetime, 

by Age Group, 1997–2001

1997 1998 1999a 2000 2001

Cocaine

12–17 3.0 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.3

18–25 8.9 10.0 11.9 10.9 13.0

26–34 18.4 17.1 17.8 15.1 15.9

35 & older 9.9 10.4 11.4 11.8 13.0

12 & older 10.5 10.6 11.5 11.2 12.3

Crack

12–17 1.3 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6

18–25 2.9 2.7 3.3 2.8 3.4

26–34 3.6 3.9 5.1 3.8 4.5

35 & older 1.4 1.7 2.3 2.2 2.6

12 & older 1.9 2.0 2.7 2.4 2.8

Methamphetamine

12–17 1.2 0.6 1.4 1.3 1.4

18–25 2.3 2.6 5.2 4.1 5.1

26–34 2.7 2.6 5.4 4.8 4.4

35 & older 2.6 2.2 4.3 4.2 4.5

12 & older 2.5 2.1 4.3 4.0 4.3

Marijuana

12–17 18.9 17.0 18.7 18.3 19.7

18–25 41.5 44.6 46.8 45.7 50.0

26–34 47.9 47.9 47.7 46.0 47.9

35 & older 29.4 29.4 31.5 31.6 34.5

12 & older 32.9 33.0 34.6 34.2 36.9

Heroin

12–17 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3

18–25 1.0 1.1 1.8 1.4 1.6

26–34 1.0 0.9 1.3 1.1 1.3

35 & older 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.4 1.5

12 & older 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.2 1.4

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

Abuse, 1997–2001.
National Drug Intelligence Center

81

MDMA

12–17 1.3 1.6 1.8 2.6 3.2

18–25 4.6 5.0 7.6 9.7 13.1

26–34 3.1 2.6 1.5b 4.7 6.0

35 & older 0.5 0.5 — 1.1 1.1

12 & older 1.5 1.5 2.3 2.9 3.6

LSD

12–17 5.2 4.2 3.8 3.6 3.1

18–25 13.2 14.0 14.7 14.0 15.3

26–34 11.8 10.6 12.4 11.8 12.6

35 & older 5.9 6.5 7.3 7.8 7.8

12 & older 7.8 7.9 8.7 8.8 9.0

PCP

12–17 1.4 1.2 0.9 1.1 1.0

18–25 2.4 3.0 2.4 2.3 2.6

26–34 3.2 4.0 2.2 1.8 2.0

35 & older 3.3 3.9 3.0 3.1 3.1

12 & older 3.0 3.5 2.6 2.6 2.7

— Not available

a

 Estimates for 1999 and later should not be compared to earlier NHSDA estimates because of major differences in the data collection methods used prior to 1999. b

 In 1999 MDMA was reported in the NHSDA in four age groups: 12–17, 18–25, 26 & older, 12 & older.

Table B1. Percentage of NHSDA Respondents Reporting Use of Specific Drugs in Their Lifetime, 

by Age Group, 1997–2001

1997 1998 1999a 2000 2001
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

82

Table B2. Percentage of NHSDA Respondents Reporting Use of Specific Drugs in the Past Year,

by Age Group, 1997–2001

1997 1998 1999a 2000 2001b

Cocaine

12–17 2.2 1.7 1.6 1.7 1.5

18–25 3.9 4.7 5.2 4.4 5.7

26–34 3.1 2.7 2.4 2.1 2.7

35 & older 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.9

12 & older 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.9

Crack

12–17 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4

18–25 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.9

26–34 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.6

35 & older 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3

12 & older 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.5

Methamphetamine

12–17 — — 0.7 0.8 0.8

18–25 — — 1.5 1.2 1.7

26–34 — — 0.5 0.5 0.7

35 & older — — 0.3 0.2 0.3

12 & older — — 0.5 0.5 0.6

Marijuana

12–17 15.8 14.1 14.2 13.4 15.2

18–25 22.3 24.1 24.5 23.7 26.7

26–34 11.2 9.7 10.3 10.3 11.9

35 & older 4.4 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.1

12 & older 9.0 8.6 8.6 8.3 9.3

Heroin

12–17 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2

18–25 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5

26–34 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2

35 & older 0.2 * 0.1 0.1 0.1

12 & older 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2

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

Abuse, 1997–2001.
National Drug Intelligence Center

83

MDMA

12–17 — — — — 2.4

18–25 — — — — 6.9

26–34 — — — — 1.4

35 & older — — — — 0.1

12 & older — — — — 1.4

LSD

12–17 2.9 2.6 2.4 2.2 1.9

18–25 3.7 3.4 4.0 3.4 3.3

26–34 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4

35 & older 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1

12 & older 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.7

PCP

12–17 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5

18–25 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4

26–34 * * * 0.1 0.0

35 & older 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 *

12 & older 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1

— Not available

* Low precision; no estimate reported

a

 Estimates for 1999 and later should not be compared to earlier NHSDA estimates because of major differences in the data collection methods used prior to 1999. b

 Estimates for 2001 for past year and past month use of hallucinogens (MDMA, LSD, PCP) should be compared to earlier estimates with caution because of 

changes to the NHSDA questionnaire in 2001.

Table B2. Percentage of NHSDA Respondents Reporting Use of Specific Drugs in the Past Year,

by Age Group, 1997–2001

1997 1998 1999a 2000 2001b
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

84

Table B3. Percentage of NHSDA Respondents Reporting Use of Specific Drugs in the Past Month, 

by Age Group, 1997–2001

1997 1998 1999a 2000 2001b

Cocaine

12–17 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.4

18–25 1.2 2.0 1.7 1.4 1.9

26–34 0.9 1.2 1.2 0.8 1.1

35 & older 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5

12 & older 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.7

Crack

12–17 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1

18–25 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.3

26–34 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.2

35 & older 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2

12 & older 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2

Methamphetamine

12–17 — — 0.2 0.3 0.2

18–25 — — 0.5 0.3 0.7

26–34 — — 0.2 0.2 0.4

35 & older — — 0.1 0.1 0.1

12 & older — — 0.2 0.2 0.3

Marijuana

12–17 9.4 8.3 7.2 7.2 8.0

18–25 12.8 13.8 14.2 13.6 16.0

26–34 6.0 5.5 5.4 5.9 6.8

35 & older 2.6 2.5 2.2 2.3 2.4

12 & older 5.1 5.0 4.7 4.8 5.4

Heroin

12–17 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0

18–25 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2

26–34 0.2 * 0.1 0.0 0.1

35 & older 0.2 * 0.0 0.1 0.0

12 & older 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

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

Abuse, 1997–2001.
National Drug Intelligence Center

85

MDMA

12–17 — — — — 0.6

18–25 — — — — 1.7

26–34 — — — — 0.2

35 & older — — — — 0.0

12 & older — — — — 0.3

LSD

12–17 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4

18–25 1.0 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6

26–34 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0

35 & older * 0.1 0.0 * 0.0

12 & older 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1

PCP

12–17 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

18–25 0.1 * 0.1 0.1 0.1

26–34 * * * 0.0 0.0

35 & older 0.1 * * 0.0 *

12 & older 0.1 * 0.0 0.0 0.0

— Not available

* Low precision; no estimate reported

a

 Estimates for 1999 and later should not be compared to earlier NHSDA estimates because of major differences in the data collection methods used prior to 1999. b

 Estimates for 2001 for past year and past month use of hallucinogens (MDMA, LSD, PCP) should be compared to earlier estimates with caution because of 

changes to the NHSDA questionnaire in 2001.

Table B3. Percentage of NHSDA Respondents Reporting Use of Specific Drugs in the Past Month, 

by Age Group, 1997–2001

1997 1998 1999a 2000 2001b
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

86

Table B4. MTF: Trends in Lifetime Prevalence of Use of Various Drugs for Eighth, Tenth,

and Twelfth Graders, 1998–2002 (%)

1998 1999a 2000 2001 2002

Cocaine

8th Grade 3.7 3.8 3.5 3.3 2.8

10th Grade 6.4 6.8 6.0 5.0 5.2

12th Grade 8.4 8.8 7.7 7.4 7.0

Crack

8th Grade 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.5

10th Grade 3.9 4.0 3.7 3.1 3.6

12th Grade 4.4 4.6 3.9 3.7 3.8

Methamphetamine

8th Grade — 4.5 4.2 4.4 3.5

10th Grade — 7.3 6.9 6.4 6.1

12th Grade — 8.2 7.9 6.9 6.7

Marijuana/Hashish

8th Grade 22.2 22.0 20.3 20.4 19.2

10th Grade 39.6 40.9 40.3 40.1 38.7

12th Grade 49.1 49.7 48.8 49.0 47.8

Heroin

8th Grade 2.3 2.3 1.9 1.7 1.6

10th Grade 2.3 2.3 2.2 1.7 1.8

12th Grade 2.0 2.0 2.4 1.8 1.7

MDMA

8th Grade 2.7 2.7 4.3 5.2 4.3

10th Grade 5.1 6.0 7.3 8.0 6.6

12th Grade 5.8 8.0 11.0 11.7 10.5

LSD

8th Grade 4.1 4.1 3.9 3.4 2.5

10th Grade 8.5 8.5 7.6 6.3 5.0

12th Grade 12.6 12.2 11.1 10.9 8.4

PCP

8th Grade — — — — —

10th Grade — — — — —

12th Grade 3.9 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.1

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Monitoring the Future Study, 2002.

— Not available
National Drug Intelligence Center

87

Table B5. MTF: Trends in Past Year Prevalence of Use of Various Drugs for Eighth, Tenth,

and Twelfth Graders, 1998–2002 (%)

1998 1999a 2000 2001 2002

Cocaine

8th Grade 2.4 2.3 1.9 1.9 1.8

10th Grade 4.0 4.4 3.8 3.0 3.4

12th Grade 4.9 5.8 4.5 4.4 4.4

Crack

8th Grade 2.1 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.6

10th Grade 2.5 2.4 2.2 1.8 2.3

12th Grade 2.5 2.7 2.2 2.1 2.3

Methamphetamine

8th Grade — 3.2 2.5 2.8 2.2

10th Grade — 4.6 4.0 3.7 3.9

12th Grade — 4.7 4.3 3.9 3.6

Marijuana/Hashish

8th Grade 16.9 16.5 15.6 15.4 14.6

10th Grade 31.1 32.1 32.2 32.7 30.3

12th Grade 37.5 37.8 36.5 37.0 36.2

Heroin

8th Grade 1.3 1.4 1.1 1.0 0.9

10th Grade 1.4 1.4 1.4 0.9 1.1

12th Grade 1.0 1.1 1.5 0.9 1.0

MDMA

8th Grade 1.8 1.7 3.1 3.5 2.9

10th Grade 3.3 4.4 5.4 6.2 4.9

12th Grade 3.6 5.6 8.2 9.2 7.4

LSD

8th Grade 2.8 2.4 2.4 2.2 1.5

10th Grade 5.9 6.0 5.1 4.1 2.6

12th Grade 7.6 8.1 6.6 6.6 3.5

PCP

8th Grade — — — — —

10th Grade — — — — —

12th Grade 2.1 1.8 2.3 1.8 1.1

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Monitoring the Future Study, 2002.

— Not available
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

88

Table B6. MTF: Trends in Current Prevalence of Use of Various Drugs for Eighth, Tenth,

and Twelfth Graders, 1998–2002 (%)

1998 1999a 2000 2001 2002

Cocaine

8th Grade 1.0 1.1 0.9 0.9 0.8

10th Grade 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.2 1.3

12th Grade 2.0 2.5 1.7 1.8 1.9

Crack

8th Grade 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

10th Grade 1.1 0.8 0.9 0.7 1.0

12th Grade 1.0 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.2

Methamphetamine

8th Grade — 1.1 0.8 1.3 1.1

10th Grade — 1.8 2.0 1.5 1.8

12th Grade — 1.7 1.9 1.5 1.7

Marijuana/Hashish

8th Grade 9.7 9.7 9.1 9.2 8.3

10th Grade 18.7 19.4 19.7 19.8 17.8

12th Grade 22.8 23.1 21.6 22.4 21.5

Heroin

8th Grade 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5

10th Grade 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.5

12th Grade 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.5

MDMA

8th Grade 0.9 0.8 1.4 1.8 1.4

10th Grade 1.3 1.8 2.6 2.6 1.8

12th Grade 1.5 2.5 3.6 2.8 2.4

LSD

8th Grade 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 0.7

10th Grade 2.7 2.3 1.6 1.5 0.7

12th Grade 3.2 2.7 1.6 2.3 0.7

PCP

8th Grade — — — — —

10th Grade — — — — —

12th Grade 1.0 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.4

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Monitoring the Future Study, 2002.

— Not available
National Drug Intelligence Center

89

Table B7. PRIDE: Percentage of Past Year Drug Use by Junior and Senior High School Students 

and Twelfth Graders, 1997–1998 through 2001–2002 School Years

1997–1998 1998–1999 1999–2000 2000–2001 2001–2002

Cocaine

Junior High 2.8 2.7 2.2 2.1 2.1

Senior High 6.0 6.1 5.3 5.5 5.1

12th Grade 7.9 8.0 7.1 7.9 7.1

Marijuana

Junior High 12.5 11.0 9.2 9.3 8.3

Senior High 33.4 32.3 31.4 32.3 29.4

12th Grade 38.6 37.8 38.0 39.0 35.7

Heroin

Junior High 2.1 1.9 1.6 1.6 1.5

Senior High 3.2 3.1 2.9 3.2 2.9

12th Grade 3.8 3.6 3.2 4.4 3.7

Source: Parents’ Resource Institute for Drug Education 2001–2002, National Summary, Grades 6 through 12.

Table B8. PRIDE: Percentage of Current Year Drug Use by Junior and Senior High School 

Students and Twelfth Graders, 1997–1998 through 2001–2002 School Years

1997–1998 1998–1999 1999–2000 2000–2001 2001–2002

Cocaine

Junior High 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.3

Senior High 3.1 3.2 2.9 3.0 2.7

12th Grade 4.0 4.1 3.6 4.2 3.8

Marijuana

Junior High 7.1 6.5 5.2 5.3 4.7

Senior High 20.8 20.3 19.3 20.5 18.5

12th Grade 23.6 23.1 23.4 24.2 21.9

Heroin

Junior High 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0

Senior High 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.1 1.8

12th Grade 2.3 2.4 2.1 2.8 2.4

Source: Parents’ Resource Institute for Drug Education 2001–2002, National Summary, Grades 6 through 12.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

90

Table B9. DAWN: Estimated Number of Emergency Department Drug Mentions

and Mentions of Selected Drugs by Year, 1994–2001

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Total Mentions (All Drugs) 899,600 900,287 906,366 942,382 981,764 1,014,243 1,099,306 1,165,367

Drug Mentions (Specific Drugs)

Cocaine 143,337 135,711 152,420 161,083 172,011 168,751 174,881 193,034

Methamphetamine 17,537 15,933 11,002 17,154 11,486 10,447 13,505 14,923

Marijuana 40,034 45,259 53,770 64,720 76,842 87,068 96,426 110,512

Heroin 63,158 69,556 72,980 70,712 75,668 82,192 94,804 93,064

MDMA 253 421 319 637 1,143 2,850 4,511 5,542

GHBa 56 145 638 762 1,282 3,178 4,969 3,340

Ketamine 19 – 81 – 209 396 263 679

Rohypnol 13 – – – – – – –

LSD 5,158 5,682 4,569 5,219 4,982 5,126 4,016 2,821

PCP 5,899 5,963 3,441 3,626 3,436 3,663 5,404 6,102

Hydrocodone drugs 9,320 9,686 11,419 11,570 13,611 15,252 20,098 21,567

Oxycodone drugs 4,069 3,393 3,190 5,012 5,211 6,429 10,825 18,409

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Drug Abuse Warning Network, 1994–2001. a

 Includes GHB and its precursor GBL

– Incomplete data

Table B10. Treatment Admissions and Admissions by Selected Primary Substances of Abuse

TEDS 1994–1999

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Treatment Admissions (Total) 1,633,973 1,637,302 1,606,379 1,538,049 1,615,019 1,587,510

Primary Substance

Cocaine 292,340 272,723 257,909 231,991 244,051 228,206

Smoked 216,688 203,221 190,969 171,201 178,973 166,501

Nonsmoked 75,652 69,502 66,940 60,790 65,078 61,705

Methamphetamine 33,407 47,837 41,014 53,559 56,456 57,834

Marijuana/hashish 142,633 171,381 193,236 199,926 218,483 223,597

Heroin 212,156 221,143 216,906 221,284 229,500 235,668

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

1994–1999.
National Drug Intelligence Center

91

Sources

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System

Central Intelligence Agency

Crime and Narcotics Center

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

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

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

Criminal Justice Information Service

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

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

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

St. Louis Field Office

Strategic Intelligence and Analysis Unit

Tampa Field Office

Washington DC Field Office
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

92

Federal Bureau of Prisons

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

Nevada

New England

New York/New Jersey

North Florida

North Texas

Northern California

Northwest

Ohio

Oregon

Philadelphia/Camden

Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands

Rocky Mountain

South Florida

Southeast 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

Internal Revenue Service

Narcotic Information Networks

HIDTA Bay Area Narcotic Information Network

Los Angeles County Criminal Information Clearinghouse 

San Diego/Imperial County Regional Narcotic 

Information Network

National Alliance of Gang Investigators Associations

National Institute on Drug Abuse

Community Epidemiology Work Group

Office of Justice Programs

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Regional Information Sharing Systems

Middle Atlantic-Great Lakes Organized Crime

Law Enforcement Network (MAGLOCLEN)

Mid-States Organized Crime Information Center

New England State Police Information Network

Regional Organized Crime Information Center

Rocky Mountain Information Network

Western States Information Network

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces

Florida/Caribbean

Great Lakes

Mid-Atlantic

New England

New York/New Jersey

Pacific

Southeast

Southwest

West Central

Parents’ Resource Institute for Drug Education 

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Office of Applied Studies

United Nations International Narcotics Control Board

U.S. Attorneys’ Offices
National Drug Intelligence Center

93

U.S. Border Patrol

U.S. Coast Guard

U.S. Customs Service

U.S. Department of Defense

Joint Interagency Task Force-West

Joint Task Force-6

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Department of State

U.S. Forest Service

U.S. General Accounting Office

U.S. Marshals Service

U.S. Postal Inspection Service

U.S. Sentencing Commission

National Drug Threat Survey Respondents

Alabama

Alabama Department of Public Safety

Auburn Police Department

Baldwin County Sheriff

Barbour County Sheriff

Bay Minette Police Department

Bessemer Police Department

Birmingham Police Department

Blount County Sheriff

Calera Police Department

Calhoun-Cleburne County Drug and Violent Crime Task Force

Central Alabama Drug Task Force

Chambers County Sheriff

Chickasaw Police Department

Colbert County Drug Task Force

Dadeville Police Department

Dale County Sheriff

DeKalb County Drug Task Force

Decatur Police Department

Dothan Police Department

Elba Police Department

Escambia County Sheriff

Eufaula Police Department

Fayette County Sheriff

Florence Police Department

Foley Police Department

Gadsden Police Department

Geneva County Sheriff Drug Task Force

Greenville Police Department

Guntersville Police Department

Hartselle Police Department

Helena Police Department

Hoover Police Department

Hueytown Police Department

Huntsville Police Department

Jasper Police Department

Jefferson County Sheriff

Luverne Police Department

Madison County Sheriff

Marshall County Sheriff

Mobile County Sheriff

Mobile Police Department

Monroeville Police Department

Montgomery County Sheriff

Montgomery Police Department

Morgan County Sheriff

Mountain Brook Police Department

Opelika Police Department

Ozark Police Department

Piedmont Police Department

Rainsville Police Department

Russellville Police Department

Shelby County Sheriff

Talladega County Sheriff

Talladega Police Department

Tallapoosa County Narcotics Task Force

Tarrant Police Department

Tuscaloosa County Sheriff

Tuscaloosa Metro Drug Enforcement Task Force

Valley Police Department

Walker County Sheriff

Warrior Police Department

Winston County Sheriff

Alaska

Alaska State Troopers

Anchorage Police Department

Juneau Police Department

Kenai Police Department

Valdez Police Department

Wasilla Police Department
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

94

Arizona

Arizona Department of Public Safety

Highway Patrol Division

Chandler Police Department

Narcotics Unit

Cochise County Border Alliance Group Task Force

El Mirage Police Department

Gilbert Police Department

Graham County Sheriff

Marana Police Department

Maricopa County Sheriff

Mesa Police Department

Metropolitan Area Narcotics Trafficking Interdiction Squads

Multi-Agency Surveillance Team

Nogales Police Department

Northern Arizona Street Crimes Task Force

Oro Valley Police Department

Peoria Police Department

Phoenix Police Department

Pima County Sheriff

Pinal County Sheriff

Safford Police Department

Scottsdale Police Department

Snowflake-Taylor Police Department

South Tucson Police Department

Southwest Border Alliance Narcotics Task Force

Surprise Police Department

Tempe Police Department

Tucson Police Department

Yavapai County Sheriff

Yuma County Sheriff

Yuma Police Department

Arkansas

4th Judicial District Drug Task Force

Arkansas County Sheriff

Arkansas State Police

Criminal Investigation Division

Conway Police Department

El Dorado Police Department

Fayetteville Police Department

Franklin County Sheriff

Ft. Smith Police Department

Narcotics Division

Garland County Sheriff 

Criminal Investigation Division

Greenwood Police Department

Hot Springs Police Department

Jonesboro Police Department

Little Rock Police Department

Narcotics Division

Morrilton Police Department

Pine Bluff Police Department

Poinsett County Sheriff

Polk County Sheriff

Pulaski County Sheriff

Searcy Police Department

Siloam Springs Police Department

Springdale Police Department

Stuttgart Police Department

Texarkana Police Department

Criminal Investigation Division

Washington County Sheriff

West Memphis Police Department 

Narcotics Division

California

Alameda County Sheriff

Alameda Police Department

Albany Police Department

Alhambra Police Department

Anaheim Police Department

Antioch Police Department

Arcata Police Department

Arroyo Grande Police Department

Auburn Police Department

Bakersfield Police Department

Baldwin Park Police Department

Banning Police Department

Berkeley Police Department

Beverly Hills Police Department

Bishop Police Department

Brea Police Department

Brisbane Police Department

Buena Park Police Department

Burbank Police Department

Butte County Sheriff

Calaveras County Sheriff

Calexico Police Department

California Department of Justice 

Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement

California Highway Patrol

Carlsbad Police Department

Chico Police Department

Chino Police Department

Chula Vista Police Department

Claremont Police Department

Clovis Police Department

Concord Police Department

Contra Costa County Sheriff

Corcoran Police Department

Corning Police Department

Corona Police Department

Coronado Police Department

Costa Mesa Police Department

Culver City Police Department

Cypress Police Department

Daly City Police Department

Downey Police Department

El Cajon Police Department

El Dorado County Sheriff
National Drug Intelligence Center

95

El Monte Police Department

Escondido Police Department

Eureka Police Department

Fairfield Police Department

Fontana Police Department

Fremont Police Department

Fresno County Sheriff

Narcotics Unit 

Fresno Police Department 

Fullerton Police Department

Garden Grove Police Department

Gardena Police Department

Glendale Police Department

Greenfield Police Department

Gridley Police Department

Hanford Police Department

Hawthorne Police Department

Hayward Police Department

Hemet Police Department

Hollister Police Department

Humboldt County Sheriff

Huntington Beach Police Department

Imperial County Narcotics Task Force

Imperial County Sheriff

Imperial Police Department

Imperial Valley Street Interdiction Team

Indio Police Department

Inglewood Police Department

Inland Crackdown Allied Task Force

Inland Regional Narcotics Enforcement Team 

Irvine Police Department

Inyo Narcotic Enforcement Team

Kern County Sheriff

Kings County Sheriff

La Habra Police Department

La Mesa Police Department

La Palma Police Department

Lake County Sheriff

Lincoln Police Department

Livermore Police Department

Lodi Police Department

Long Beach Police Department

Los Angeles County Sheriff

Los Angeles Police Department

Madera County Narcotic Enforcement Team

Manhattan Beach Police Department

Marin County Major Crimes Task Force

Marin County Sheriff

Mariposa County Sheriff

Martinez Police Department

Marysville Police Department

Menlo Park Police Department

Merced County Sheriff

Merced Police Department

Mill Valley Police Department

Millbrae Police Department

Milpitas Police Department

Modesto Police Department

Modoc County Sheriff

Montclair Police Department

Montebello Police Department

Monterey County Sheriff

Monterey Park Police Department

Mountain View Police Department

Napa County Sheriff

Napa Police Department

National City Police Department

Nevada County Sheriff

Newman Police Department

Newport Beach Police Department

Oakland Police Department

Oceanside Police Department

Ontario Police Department

Orange Police Department

Orland Police Department

Oxnard Police Department

Pacific Grove Police Department

Palo Alto Police Department

Palm Springs Police Department

Palos Verdes Estates Police Department

Pasadena Police Department

Pinole Police Department

Pismo Beach Police Department

Pittsburg Police Department

Placentia Police Department

Placer County Sheriff

Pleasant Hill Police Department

Pleasanton Police Department

Plumas County Sheriff

Pomona Police Department

Redlands Police Department

Redondo Beach Police Department

Redwood City Police Department

Rialto Police Department

Richmond Police Department

Riverside Police Department

Riverside County Sheriff

Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety

Roseville Police Department

Sacramento County Sheriff

Sacramento Police Department

Salinas Police Department

San Bernardino County Sheriff

San Bernardino Police Department

San Diego County Sheriff

San Diego Police Department

San Francisco Police Department

San Joaquin County Sheriff

San Jose Police Department

San Leandro Police Department

San Luis Obispo County Sheriff

San Mateo County Narcotics Task Force

San Mateo County Sheriff

Sanger Police Department

Santa Ana Police Department

Santa Barbara County Sheriff

Santa Barbara Police Department

Santa Clara Police Department

Santa Cruz County Sheriff

Santa Cruz Police Department
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

96

Santa Maria Police Department

Santa Monica Police Department

Santa Paula Police Department

Santa Rosa Police Department

Seaside Police Department

Shasta Interagency Narcotic Task Force

Sierra Madre Police Department

Simi Valley Police Department

Solano County Sheriff

Sonoma County Sheriff Narcotics Task Force

Sonoma Police Department

South Gate Police Department

South San Francisco Police Department

Southern Alameda County Gang Violence Suppression

Task Force

Southern Alameda County Narcotics Enforcement Team

Southern California Drug Task Force

Stanislaus Drug Enforcement Agency

Stockton Police Department

Suisun City Police Department

Sunnyvale Department of Public Safety

Tehama and Glenn Methamphetamine Enforcement Team

Torrance Police Department

Trinity County Sheriff

Tulare Police Department

Tuolumne County Sheriff

Tustin Police Department

Twin Cities Police Department

Upland Police Department

Vacaville Police Department

Vallejo Police Department

Ventura County Sheriff

Ventura Police Department

Visalia Police Department

Walnut Creek Police Department

West Contra Costa County Narcotic Enforcement Team

West Covina Police Department

West Sacramento Police Department

Westminster Police Department

Whittier Police Department

Winters Police Department

Yuba-Sutter Narcotic Enforcement Team

Colorado

Adams County Sheriff

Arapahoe County Sheriff

Arvada Police Department

Aurora Police Department

Basalt Police Department

Boulder County Sheriff

Boulder Police Department

Broomfield Police Department

Canon City Police Department

Cherry Hills Police Department

Colorado Springs Police Department

Metro Vice & Narcotics and Intelligence Unit

Colorado State Patrol

Investigative Services Section

Commerce City Police Department

Craig Police Department

Cripple Creek Police Department

Denver Police Department

Douglas County Sheriff

El Paso County Sheriff

Englewood Department of Safety Services

Erie Police Department

Fountain Police Department

Fremont County Sheriff

Front Range Task Force

Fruita Police Department

Ft. Collins Police Services

Glenwood Springs Police Department

Golden Police Department

Grand Junction Police Department

Grand Valley Joint Drug Task Force

Grand, Routt & Moffat Narcotics Enforcement Team

Greeley Police Department

Gunnison County Sheriff

Jefferson County Sheriff

La Junta Police Department

La Plata County Sheriff

Lakewood Police Department

Larimer County Drug Task Force

Larimer County Sheriff

Las Animas County Sheriff

Littleton Police Department

Longmont Police Department

Mesa County Sheriff

Metro Gang Task Force

Monte Vista Police Department

Morgan County Sheriff

North Metro Task Force

Park County Sheriff

Pueblo County Sheriff

Pueblo Police Department

San Miguel County Sheriff

Silverthorne Police Department

South Metro Drug Task Force

Southwest Drug Task Force

Thornton Police Department

Two Rivers Drug Enforcement Team 

Weld County Drug Task Force

Weld County Sheriff

West Metro Drug Task Force

Westminster Police Department

Connecticut

Bethel Police Department

Bridgeport Police Department

Bristol Police Department

Cheshire Police Department

Connecticut State Police

Statewide Narcotics Task Force

Danbury Police Department
National Drug Intelligence Center

97

East Central Narcotics Task Force

Manchester Police Department

South Windsor Police Department

East Hartford Police Department

East Windsor Police Department

Enfield Police Department

Fairfield Police Department

Glastonbury Police Department

Greenwich Police Department

Hamden Police Department

Hartford Police Department

Madison Police Department

Meriden Police Department

Middlebury Police Department

Middletown Police Department

Milford Police Department

Naugatuck Police Department

New Britain Police Department

New Haven Police Department

New London Police Department

Newington Police Department

North Branford Police Department

Norwalk Police Department

Norwich Police Department

Orange Police Department

Plainville Police Department

Portland Police Department

Southbury Police Department

Stamford Police Department

Stratford Police Department

Torrington Police Department

Waterbury Police Department

Waterford Police Department

West Hartford Police Department

West Haven Police Department

Westport Police Department

Willimantic Police Department

Windsor Locks Police Department

Delaware

Delaware State Police

Troop 9

Dover Police Department

Milford Police Department

New Castle County Police Department

Wilmington Police Department

District of Columbia

Metropolitan Police Department

Florida

Alachua County Sheriff

Atlantis Police Department

Aventura Police Department

Baker County Sheriff

Bal Harbour Police Department

Boca Raton Police Department

Boynton Beach Police Department

Bradenton Police Department

Bradford County Sheriff

Broward County Sheriff

Bunnell Police Department

Cape Coral Police Department

Casselberry Police Department

Central Florida Heroin Task Force

Central Florida Methamphetamine Task Force

Charlotte County Sheriff

Citrus County Sheriff

Clay County Sheriff

Clearwater Police Department

Clewiston Police Department

Collier County Sheriff

Columbia County Sheriff

Coral Gables Police Department

Coral Springs Police Department

Davie Police Department

Daytona Beach Police Department

Delray Beach Police Department

Edgewood Police Department

Escambia County Sheriff

Fernandina Beach Police Department

Flagler County Sheriff

Florida Department of Law Enforcement 

Jacksonville Regional Operations Center

Miami Regional Operations Center

Orlando Regional Operations Center

Pensacola Regional Operations Center

St. Augustine Field Office

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Florida Highway Patrol

Troop E Miami

Troop G Jacksonville

Franklin County Sheriff

Frostproof Police Department

Ft. Lauderdale Police Department

Ft. Meade Police Department

Ft. Myers Police Department

Ft. Pierce Police Department

Gainesville Police Department

Gilchrist County Sheriff

Glades County Sheriff

Green Cove Springs Police Department

Gulf County Sheriff

Haines City Police Department

Hallandale Beach Police Department

Hernando County Sheriff

Hialeah Police Department

Highland Beach Police Department

Highlands County Sheriff

Hillsborough County Sheriff

Holly Hill Police Department

Hollywood Police Department

South Broward Drug Enforcement Unit
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

98

Holmes Beach Police Department

Homestead Police Department

Indialantic Police Department

Indian Creek Public Safety Department

Indian Harbour Beach Police Department

Indian River County Sheriff

Jacksonville Sheriff

Key West Police Department

Kissimmee Police Department

Lake County Sheriff

Lake Placid Police Department

Lake Wales Police Department

Lake Worth Police Department

Lakeland Police Department

Lauderhill Police Department

Leesburg Police Department

Leon County Sheriff

Levy County Sheriff

Lighthouse Point Police Department

Live Oak Police Department

Lynn Haven Police Department

Maitland Police Department

Margate Police Department

Marion County Sheriff

Melbourne Police Department

Metropolitan Bureau of Investigations

Miami Police Department

Miami Beach Police Department

Miami-Dade Police Department

Miami Shores Police Department

Miami Springs Police Department

Miramar Police Department

Monroe County Sheriff

Monticello Police Department

Mount Dora Police Department

Naples Police Department

Nassau County Sheriff

Neptune Beach Police Department

New Port Richey Police Department

New Smyrna Beach Police Department

North Miami Beach Police Department

North Miami Police Department

Ocala Police Department

Okaloosa County Sheriff

Okeechobee County Sheriff

Orange City Police Department

Orange County Sheriff

Orlando Police Department

Osceola County Sheriff

Palm Beach County Sheriff

Palm Beach Gardens Police Department

Palm Beach Police Department

Palm Springs Department of Public Safety

Pasco County Sheriff

Pembroke Pines Police Department

Pinellas County Sheriff HIDTA Task Force

Pinellas Park Police Department

Plantation Police Department

Polk County Sheriff

Ponce Inlet Police Department

Port Orange Police Department

Port Richey Police Department

Port St. Lucie Police Department

Punta Gorda Police Department

Putnam County Sheriff

Riviera Beach Police Department

Sanford Police Department

Sarasota County Sheriff

Sarasota Police Department

Strategic Narcotics Section

Sebastian Police Department

Seminole County Sheriff

St. Augustine Police Department

St. Johns County Sheriff

St. Lucie County Sheriff

St. Petersburg Beach Police Department

St. Petersburg Police Department

Stuart Police Department

Sumter County Sheriff

Sunrise Police Department

Tallahassee Police Department

Tampa Police Department

Titusville Police Department

University of Florida Police Department

University of North Florida Police Department

Vero Beach Police Department

Volusia County Sheriff

Washington County Sheriff

Wauchula Police Department

West Palm Beach Police Department

Williston Police Department

Winter Park Police Department

Zephyrhills Police Department

Georgia

Albany Police Department

Albany-Dougherty Drug Unit

Athens-Clarke County Sheriff

Atlanta Police Department

Auburn Police Department

Barnesville Police Department

Bartow County Sheriff

Ben Hill County Sheriff

Berrien County Sheriff

Bibb County Sheriff

Blakely Police Department

Bloomingdale Police Department

Brunswick Police Department

Bryan County Sheriff

Burke County Sheriff

Cairo Police Department

Cedartown Police Department

Chatham-Savannah Counter Narcotics Team

Clayton County Sheriff

Cobb County Police Department

Marietta-Cobb-Smyrna Narcotics Unit

Cobb County Sheriff
National Drug Intelligence Center

99

College Park Police Department

Columbia County Sheriff

Columbus Police Department

Cordele Police Department

Covington Police Department

Crawford County Sheriff

Crisp County Sheriff

Dalton Police Department

Dawson Police Department

DeKalb County Police Department

Douglas County Sheriff

Douglas Police Department

Early County Department of Public Safety

East Metro Drug Enforcement Team

East Point Police Department

Elbert County Sheriff

Fayette County Sheriff

Floyd County Police Department

Forsyth County Sheriff

Forsyth Police Department

Fulton County Police Department

Gainesville Police Department

Georgia State Patrol

Glynn County Police Department

Greene County Sheriff

Grovetown Department of Public Safety

Gwinnett County Police Department

Hall County Sheriff

Harris County Sheriff

Hawkinsville Police Department

Henry County Sheriff

Houston County Sheriff

Jackson Police Department

Jefferson County Sheriff

Jefferson Police Department

Jesup Police Department

Jonesboro Police Department

La Grange Police Department

Lamar County Sheriff

Laurens County Sheriff

Lee County Sheriff

Lowndes County Sheriff

Lumpkin County Sheriff

Macon County Sheriff

Macon Police Department

Madison Police Department

Marietta Police Department

Meriwether County Sheriff

Monroe Police Department

Muscogee County Sheriff

Newton County Sheriff

Norcross Police Department

Paulding County Sheriff

Pelham Police Department

Pike County Sheriff

Port Wentworth Police Department

Richmond County Sheriff

Rockdale County Sheriff

Rockmart Police Department

Rome Police Department

Screven County Sheriff

Smyrna Police Department

Snellville Police Department

Statesboro Police Department

Stephens County Sheriff

Summerville Police Department

Tifton Police Department

Troup County Sheriff

Tyrone Police Department

Union City Police Department

Valdosta Police Department

Vidalia Police Department

Walton County Sheriff

Warner Robins Police Department

Washington County Sheriff

Waynesboro Police Department

Whitfield County Sheriff

Guam

Government of Guam

Customs and Quarantine Agency

Hawaii

Hawaii County Police Department

Hawaii Department of Public Safety

Narcotics Enforcement Division

Honolulu Police Department

Kauai Police Department

Maui Police Department

Idaho

Ada County Sheriff

Boise Police Department

Bonner County Sheriff

Cassia County Sheriff

Clearwater County Sheriff

Emmett Police Department

Garden City Police Department

Idaho County Sheriff

Idaho Falls Police Department

Idaho State Police

Jerome Police Department

Minidoka County Sheriff

Moscow Police Department

Oneida County Sheriff

Pocatello Police Department

Twin Falls Police Department

Weiser Police Department
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

100

Illinois

Antioch Police Department

Arlington Heights Police Department

Aurora Police Department

Bannockburn Police Department

Barrington Hills Police Department

Bedford Park Police Department

Bensenville Police Department

Berwyn Police Department

Bloomington Police Department

Blue Island Police Department

Bridgeview Police Department

Broadview Police Department

Brookfield Police Department

Buffalo Grove Police Department

Burbank Police Department

Calumet Park Police Department

Calumet Park Police Department

Canton Police Department

Champaign Police Department

Channahon Police Department

Charleston Police Department

Chatham Police Department

Chicago Police Department

Narcotic and Gang Investigation Section

Cicero Police Department

Clinton County Sheriff

Colona Police Department

Comit Drug Task Force

Cook County Sheriff

Cook County Sheriff’s Police Department 

North Suburban Initiative

South Suburban Initiative

Country Club Hills Police Department

Countryside Police Department

Decatur Police Department

Des Plaines Police Department

DeWitt County Sheriff

Dixon Police Department

DuPage County Sheriff

East Hazel Crest Police Department

East Peoria Police Department

Effingham City-County Special Operations Group

Elgin Police Department

Evanston Police Department

Evergreen Park Police Department

Fairfield Police Department

Flossmoor Police Department

Forest Park Police Department

Forest View Police Department

Freeport Police Department

Fulton County Sheriff

Glenwood Police Department

Granite City Police Department

Gurnee Police Department

Hanover Park Police Department

Harvey Police Department

Harwood Heights Police Department

Henderson County Sheriff

Hillside Police Department

Hoffman Estates Police Department

Homewood Police Department

Hoopeston Police Department

Illinois State Police

Jefferson County Sheriff

Joliet Police Department

Justice Police Department

Kane County Sheriff

Kendall County Cooperative Police Assistance Team

LaGrange Park Police Department

Lansing Police Department

Lemont Police Department

Libertyville Police Department

Lincoln Police Department

Lincolnwood Police Department

Lynwood Police Department

Lyons Police Department

McHenry Police Department

McHenry County Sheriff

Melrose Park Police Department

Mendota Police Department

Morris Police Department

Morton Grove Police Department

Mount Prospect Police Department

Murphysboro Police Department

Naperville Police Department

Norridge Police Department

Northbrook Police Department

Northfield Police Department

Oak Lawn Police Department

Oak Park Police Department

Orland Park Police Department

Palatine Police Department

Paris Police Department

Park Forest Police Department

Peru Police Department

Phoenix Police Department

Posen Police Department

Rantoul Police Department

River Grove Police Department

River Forest Police Department

Robinson Police Department

Rockford Police Department

Rolling Meadows Police Department

Romeoville Police Department

Roselle Police Department

Round Lake Beach Police Department

Sangamon County Sheriff

Schaumburg Police Department

Schiller Park Police Department

Skokie Police Department

South Barrington Police Department

South Holland Police Department

Sparta Police Department

Springfield Police Department

Steger Police Department

Stickney Police Department

Streamwood Police Department

Tinley Park Police Department
National Drug Intelligence Center

101

Washington Police Department

Waterloo Police Department

Waukegan Police Department

Westchester Police Department

Western Springs Police Department

Wheaton Police Department

Wheeling Police Department

Will County Gang Suppression Unit

Winnetka Police Department

Winthrop Harbor Police Department

Wood Dale Police Department

Worth Police Department

Yorkville Police Department

Zion Police Department

Indiana

Allen County Sheriff 

Avon Police Department

Bartholomew County Sheriff

Bloomington Police Department

Brownsburg Police Department

Burns Harbor Police Department

Carmel Police Department

Charlestown Police Department

Columbus Police Department

East Chicago Police Department

Evansville Police Department

Fayette County Sheriff 

Fort Wayne Police Department

Garrett Police Department

Gary Police Department

Griffith Police Department

Indiana State Police 

Indianapolis Police Department

Jasper County Sheriff

Johnson County Sheriff

Kendallville Police Department

Lafayette Police Department

Lake County Drug Task Force

Lake County Sheriff

Madison County Drug Task Force

Marion County Sheriff

Merrillville Police Department

Michigan City Police Department

Mishawaka Police Department

Monroe County Sheriff

Morgan County Sheriff

New Castle Police Department

Plymouth Police Department

Portage Police Department

Porter County Sheriff

Randolph County Sheriff

Richmond Police Department

South Bend Police Department

Union County Sheriff

Valparaiso Police Department

Vanderburgh County Sheriff

Wabash Police Department

Washington Police Department

Whiting Police Department

Winchester Police Department

Iowa

Bettendorf Police Department

Black Hawk County Sheriff

Boone Police Department

Buchanan County Sheriff

Cedar Rapids Police Department

Cherokee Police Department

Clarinda Police Department

Council Bluffs Police Department

Davenport Police Department

Delaware County Sheriff

Denison Police Department

Des Moines Police Department

Dubuque Police Department

Grundy County Sheriff

Iowa City Police Department

Iowa Department of Public Safety 

Intelligence Bureau

Johnson County Sheriff

Johnston Police Department

Lee County Narcotics Task Force

Linn County Sheriff

Marion Police Department

Mid-Iowa Drug Task Force

Muscatine County Drug Task Force

Newton Police Department

O’Brien County Sheriff

Oelwein Police Department

Osceola County Sheriff

Polk County Sheriff

Shenandoah Police Department

Sioux City Police Department

South Central Iowa Drug Task Force

Spencer Police Department

Urbandale Police Department

Waterloo Police Department

Webster City Police Department

Webster County Sheriff

Woodbury County Sheriff

Kansas

Abilene Police Department

Chanute Police Department

Cloud County Sheriff

Coffeyville Police Department

Colby Police Department

Columbus Police Department

Dickinson County Sheriff

Douglas County Sheriff 

Finney County Sheriff

Gardner Police Department 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

102

Hays Police Department

I–135/I–70 Drug Task Force

Johnson County Sheriff 

Junction City Police Department

Kansas Bureau of Investigation

Great Bend Regional Task Force

Southeast Kansas Drug Enforcement Task Force

Kansas City Police Department

Kansas Highway Patrol

Kearny County Sheriff

Lawrence Police Department

Liberal Police Department

McPherson County Sheriff 

Miami County Sheriff

Mission Police Department

Montgomery County Sheriff 

Olathe Police Department

Overland Park Police Department

Park City Police Department

Reno County Sheriff

Riley County Police Department

Salina Police Department

Sedgwick County Sheriff

Shawnee County Sheriff 

Shawnee Police Department

Topeka Police Department

Ulysses Police Department

Wichita Police Department

Wilson County Sheriff

Kentucky

Albany Police Department

Barbourville Police Department

Beattyville Police Department

Bellevue Police Department

Bowling Green Police Department

Breathitt County Sheriff

Campbellsville Police Department

Columbia Police Department

Corbin Police Department

Covington Police Department

Edgewood Police Department

Franklin County Sheriff

Grayson Police Department

Hardin County Sheriff

Henderson Police Department

Hyden Police Department

Independence Police Department

Jackson Police Department

Jefferson County Police Department

Kentucky State Police

Appalachia HIDTA Unit

Intelligence Section

Posts 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15

Knox County Sheriff

La Grange Police Department

Lake Cumberland Area Drug Task Force

Lawrenceburg Police Department

Lebanon Police Department

Leslie County Sheriff

Lexington-Fayette Urban County Division of Police

London Police Department

Louisville Division of Police Metro Narcotics Unit

Madisonville Police Department

Monticello Police Department

Newport Police Department

Owensboro Police Department

Paducah Police Department

Paris Police Department

Pikeville Police Department

Pineville Police Department

Pippa Passes Police Department

Pulaski County Sheriff

Radcliff Police Department

Rowan County Sheriff

Russellville Police Department

Salyersville Police Department

Simpson County Sheriff

Somerset Police Department

Taylor County Sheriff

Tompkinsville Police Department

Louisiana

Acadia Parish Sheriff

Alexandria Police Department 

Narcotics Division

Ascension Parish Sheriff

Baker Police Department

Baton Rouge Police Department

Berwick Police Department

Bogalusa Police Department

Bossier City Police Department

Caddo Parish Sheriff

Calcasieu Parish Sheriff

Cameron Parish Sheriff

Carencro Police Department

Concordia Parish Sheriff

Crowley Police Department

Dequincy Police Department

East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff

Eunice Police Department

Evangeline Parish Sheriff

Gramercy Police Department

Gretna Police Department

Hammond Police Department

Iberville Parish Sheriff

Jackson Parish Sheriff

Jefferson Davis Parish Sheriff

Jefferson Parish Sheriff

Jonesboro Police Department

Kenner Police Department

Lafayette Metro Narcotics Task Force

Lafayette Police Department

Lafourche Parish Sheriff Task Force

Lake Charles Police Department
National Drug Intelligence Center

103

Livingston Parish Sheriff

Louisiana State Police

Madison Parish Sheriff

Mansfield Police Department

Monroe Police Department

Morehouse Parish Sheriff

New Iberia Police Department

New Orleans Police Department

New Roads Police Department

Ouachita Parish Sheriff

Metro-Narcotics Drug Task Force

Plaquemines Parish Sheriff

Pointe Coupee Parish Sheriff

Rapides Parish Sheriff 

Metro Narcotics

Richland Parish Sheriff

Scott Police Department

Shreveport Police Department

Narcotics Division

St. Bernard Parish Sheriff

St. Charles Parish Sheriff

St. Helena Parish Sheriff

St. James Parish Sheriff

St. Landry Parish Sheriff

St. Martin Parish Sheriff

St. Mary Parish Multi-Jurisdictional Narcotics Task Force

St. Tammany Parish Sheriff

Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff

Terrebonne Parish Sheriff

Tri-Parish Narcotics Task Force

Vermilion Parish Sheriff

Vernon Parish Sheriff

Vidalia Police Department

Webster Parish Sheriff

West Feliciana Parish Sheriff

West Monroe Police Department

Westwego Police Department

Zachary Police Department

Maine

Bangor Police Department

Bar Harbor Police Department

Bath Police Department

Belfast Police Department

Biddeford Police Department

Brewer Police Department

Bridgton Police Department

Bucksport Police Department

Calais Police Department

Camden Police Department

Caribou Police Department

Cumberland County Sheriff 

Cumberland Police Department

Dexter Police Department

Ellsworth Police Department

Fairfield Police Department

Farmington Police Department

Gardiner Police Department

Hancock County Sheriff

Kennebunk Police Department

Lewiston Police Department

Lincoln County Sheriff

Maine Drug Enforcement Agency

Augusta Task Force Office

Lewiston Task Force Office

Portland Task Force Office

Maine State Police

Mexico Police Department

Orono Police Department

Piscataquis County Sheriff

Portland Police Department

Presque Isle Police Department

Saco Police Department

Sanford Police Department

Scarborough Police Department

South Portland Police Department

Topsham Police Department

Waldoboro Police Department

Washington County Sheriff 

Waterville Police Department

Westbrook Police Department

Yarmouth Police Department

York Police Department

Maryland

Annapolis Police Department

Anne Arundel County Police Department

Narcotics Unit

Baltimore County Sheriff

Narcotics Task Force

Baltimore Police Department

C3I Narcotics Investigation Unit of Allegany County

Calvert County Sheriff

Cambridge Police Department

Charles County Sheriff

Delmar Police Department

District Heights Police Department

Dorchester County Sheriff

Frederick County Sheriff

Frederick Police Department

Drug Enforcement Unit

Frostburg Police Department

Gaithersburg Police Department

Greenbelt Police Department

Hagerstown Police Department

Harford County Sheriff

Havre de Grace Police Department

Howard County Police Department

Laurel Police Department

Maryland Natural Resources Police Department

Maryland State Police

Criminal Intelligence Division

Montgomery County Police Department

Special Investigations Division
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

104

Ocean City Police Department

Pocomoke City Police Department

Prince George’s County Police Department

Salisbury Police Department

Somerset County Sheriff

St. Mary’s County Sheriff 

Wicomico County Narcotics Task Force

Massachusetts

Abington Police Department

Agawam Police Department

Amherst Police Department

Andover Police Department

Ashland Police Department

Athol Police Department

Attleboro Police Department

Barnstable Police Department

Bellingham Police Department

Belmont Police Department

Beverly Police Department

Boston Police Department

Drug Control Division

Bourne Police Department

Boxford Police Department

Braintree Police Department

Brewster Police Department

Brockton Police Department

Brookline Police Department

Burlington Police Department

Cambridge Police Department

Chelsea Police Department

Chicopee Police Department

Clinton Police Department

Danvers Police Department

Dartmouth Police Department

Dedham Police Department

Dighton Police Department

Dover Police Department

Dracut Police Department

Dudley Police Department

East Bridgewater Police Department

East Brookfield Police Department

Easton Police Department

Fall River Police Department

Vice and Intelligence Unit

Falmouth Police Department

Fitchburg Police Department

Framingham Police Department

Freetown Police Department

Georgetown Police Department

Gloucester Police Department

Hanover Police Department

Harvard Police Department

Haverhill Police Department

Hingham Police Department

Holden Police Department

Holyoke Police Department

Hudson Police Department

Lakeville Police Department

Lawrence Police Department

Lee Police Department

Leicester Police Department

Lenox Police Department

Leominster Police Department

Lexington Police Department

Lowell Police Department

Ludlow Police Department

Lunenburg Police Department

Lynn Police Department

Malden Police Department

Manchester Police Department

Mansfield Police Department

Marlborough Police Department

Massachusetts State Police

Medfield Police Department

Medford Police Department

Melrose Police Department

Merrimac Police Department

Methuen Police Department

Milford Police Department

Millbury Police Department

Nahant Police Department

Natick Police Department

New Bedford Police Department

Newbury Police Department

Newton Police Department

North Andover Police Department

North Attleboro Police Department

North Brookfield Police Department

Northampton Police Department

Northborough Police Department

Norton Police Department

Palmer Police Department

Peabody Police Department

Pittsfield Police Department

Plainville Police Department

Plymouth Police Department

Provincetown Police Department

Quincy Police Department

Reading Police Department

Salem Police Department

Sandwich Police Department

Saugus Police Department

Scituate Police Department

Sharon Police Department

Shrewsbury Police Department

Somerville Police Department

South Hadley Police Department

Southborough Police Department

Southbridge Police Department

Spencer Police Department

Springfield Police Department

Suburban Middlesex County Drug Task Force

Sunderland Police Department

Swampscott Police Department

Swansea Police Department

Taunton Police Department
National Drug Intelligence Center

105

Tisbury Police Department

Townsend Police Department

Tyngsboro Police Department

Wakefield Police Department

Ware Police Department

Watertown Police Department

West Newbury Police Department

West Springfield Police Department

Westborough Police Department

Westfield Police Department

Westford Police Department

Westminster Police Department

Weymouth Police Department

Wilbraham Police Department

Williamstown Police Department

Wilmington Police Department

Winchester Police Department

Woburn Police Department

Worcester Police Department

Michigan

Adrian Police Department

Allegan Police Department

Allegan County Sheriff

Allen Park Police Department

Alpena Police Department

Ann Arbor Police Department

Battle Creek Police Department 

Bay City Police Department

Benton Township Police Department

Benzie County Sheriff 

Calhoun County Sheriff

Centerline Department Of Public Safety

Chippewa County Sheriff

Davison Police Department

Dearborn Heights Police Department

Dearborn Police Department

Detroit Police Department

Farmington Hills Police Department 

Franklin Police Department

Grosse Pointe Woods Department of Public Safety

Hamburg Township Police Department

Hamtramck Police Department

Huron County Sheriff

Ingham County Sheriff

Inkster Police Department

Jackson Police Department

Kalamazoo Valley Enforcement Team 

Kent County Sheriff

Lansing Police Department

Lenawee County Sheriff

Livingston County Sheriff

Livonia Police Department

Macomb County Sheriff

Marquette County Sheriff 

Marquette Police Department

Mason County Sheriff

Michigan State Police

Monroe County Sheriff 

Mount Morris Police Department

Mundy Township Police Department

Muskegon Police Department

Norton Shores Police Department

Ogemaw County Sheriff

Ontonagon County Sheriff

Ottawa County Sheriff

Owosso Police Department

Petoskey Department of Public Safety

Plainwell Police Department

Plymouth Police Department

Royal Oak Police Department

Saginaw Police Department

Shiawassee County Sheriff

Southfield Police Department

Spring Lake/Ferrysburg Police Department

St. Clair Shores Police Department

St. Johns Police Department

Sterling Heights Police Department

Taylor Police Department

Troy Police Department

Washtenaw County Sheriff

Waterford Police Department

Wayne County Sheriff

Wayne Police Department

Westland Police Department

Wexford County Sheriff

Minnesota

Alexandria Police Department

Anoka County Sheriff

Becker County Sheriff

Brooklyn Center Police Department

Carver County Sheriff

Cass County Sheriff

Chaska Police Department

Chisago County Sheriff

Cook County Sheriff

Coon Rapids Police Department

Crookston Police Department

Duluth Police Department

Grand Forks Police Department

Goodhue County Sheriff

Hennepin County Sheriff

Lake City Police Department

Lake County Sheriff

Marshall Department of Public Safety

McLeod County Sheriff

Minneapolis Police Department

Narcotics Unit

Minnesota Department of Public Safety

Bureau of Criminal Apprehension

Minnesota State Patrol

Minnetonka Police Department

Morrison County Sheriff
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

106

Mound Police Department

New Hope Police Department

Olmsted County Sheriff

Ramsey County Sheriff

Red Wing Department of Public Safety

Richfield Police Department

Rochester Police Department

St. Louis County Sheriff

Stillwater Police Department

Thief River Falls Police Department

Wadena Police Department

Washington County Sheriff

Willmar Police Department

Mississippi

Aberdeen Police Department

Alcorn County Sheriff

Attala County Sheriff

Biloxi Police Department

Brookhaven Police Department

Calhoun County Sheriff

Capital Cities Metro Narcotics Unit

Claiborne County Sheriff

Cleveland Police Department

Coahoma County Sheriff

Columbus Police Department

Copiah County Sheriff

Forest Police Department

Greenville Police Department

Grenada Police Department

Gulfport Police Department

Hancock County Sheriff

Narcotic Division

Harrison County Sheriff

Hattiesburg Police Department

Hinds County Sheriff

Houston Police Department

Humphreys County Sheriff

Indianola Police Department

Jackson County Sheriff

Jackson Police Department

Jones County Sheriff

Kosciusko Police Department

Lafayette County Metro Narcotics Unit

Lee County Sheriff

Leflore County Sheriff

Leland Police Department

Lincoln County Sheriff

Long Beach Police Department

Louisville Police Department

Macon Police Department

Marshall County Sheriff

McComb Police Department

Meridian Police Department

Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics

Gulfport District Office

Hattiesburg District Office

Jackson District Office

Meridian District Office

Oxford District Office

Pascagoula District Office

Southhaven District Office

Tupelo District Office

Mississippi Highway Safety Patrol

Criminal Investigation Bureau

Monroe County Sheriff

Natchez-Adams County Metro Narcotics Unit

Newton Police Department

Oktibbeha County Sheriff

Oxford Police Department

Panola-Tate Narcotics Task Force

Philadelphia Police Department

Picayune Police Department

Pike County Sheriff

Pontotoc Police Department

Prentiss County Sheriff

Quitman Police Department

Simpson County Sheriff

South Mississippi Narcotics Task Force 

Southhaven Police Department

Tate County Sheriff

Tunica County Sheriff

Tupelo Police Department

Vicksburg Police Department

Water Valley Police Department

Missouri

Bel-Nor Police Department

Bel-Ridge Police Department

Blue Springs Police Department

Boone County Sheriff

Boonville Police Department

Cameron Police Department

Chesterfield Police Department

Christian County Sheriff

Clay County Sheriff

Claycomo Police Department

Columbia Police Department

East Central Drug Task Force

Gladstone Department of Public Safety

Glendale Police Department

Greene County Sheriff

Hannibal Police Department

Harrisonville Police Department

Henry County Sheriff

Independence Police Department

Iron County Sheriff

Jackson County Drug Task Force

Jasper County Drug Task Force

Jefferson City Police Department

Jefferson County Sheriff

Joplin Police Department

Kansas City Police Department

Lafayette County Narcotics Unit

Lees Summit Police Department
National Drug Intelligence Center

107

Manchester Police Department

Maplewood Police Department

Maryland Heights Police Department

Kansas City Metropolitan Drug Task Force

Miller County Sheriff

Miner Police Department

Missouri State Highway Patrol

Moniteau County Sheriff

Nevada Police Department

Nixa Police Department

Normandy Police Department

North Central Missouri Drug Task Force

Overland Police Department

Pemiscot County Sheriff

Pike County Sheriff 

Platte City Police Department

Pleasant Hill Police Department

Pleasant Valley Police Department

Pulaski County Sheriff

Raytown Police Department

Rolla Police Department

Scott County Sheriff

Sedalia Police Department

Sikeston Department of Public Safety

Southeast Missouri Drug Task Force

Springfield Police Department

St. Charles County Drug Task Force

St. Charles County Sheriff

St. Charles Police Department

St. John Police Department

St. Joseph Police Department

St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department

Taney County Sheriff

Troy Police Department

Union Police Department

University City Police Department

Versailles Police Department

Vinita Park Police Department

Warrensburg Police Department

Montana

Big Horn County Sheriff

Billings Police Department

Hamilton Police Department

Kalispell Police Department

Laurel Police Department

Missoula Police Department

Missouri River Drug Task Force

Montana Department of Justice

Division of Criminal Investigations

Roosevelt County Sheriff 

Yellowstone County Sheriff

Nebraska

III Corps Drug Task Force

Beatrice Police Department

Chadron Police Department

Columbus Police Department

Dodge County Sheriff

Douglas County Sheriff

Fremont Police Department

Grand Island Police Department

Lancaster County Sheriff

Lincoln Police Department

Nebraska State Patrol

North Platte Police Department

Omaha Area Metro Drug Task Force

Sarpy County Sheriff 

Saunders County Sheriff

Scottsbluff Police Department

Seward County Sheriff

Tri-City Drug Task Force

Western Intelligence Narcotics Group (WING)

York Police Department

Nevada

Carson City Sheriff

Douglas County Sheriff

Fallon Police Department

Henderson Police Department

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Lincoln County Sheriff

Lyon County Sheriff

Nevada Department of Public Safety

Investigation Division

Elko Office

Las Vegas Office

Mesquite Office

Winnemucka Office

Nevada Highway Patrol

North Las Vegas Police Department

Nye County Sheriff

Pershing County Sheriff

Reno Police Department

Sparks Police Department

Tri-Net Narcotics Task Force

Washoe County Sheriff

White Pine County Sheriff

New Hampshire

Alton Police Department

Atkinson Police Department

Berlin Police Department

Claremont Police Department
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

108

Concord Police Department

Derry Police Department

Dover Police Department

Durham Police Department

Enfield Police Department

Exeter Police Department

Farmington Police Department

Goffstown Police Department

Gorham Police Department

Hillsboro Police Department

Hudson Police Department

Jaffrey Police Department

Laconia Police Department

Lancaster Police Department

Londonderry Police Department

Milford Police Department

Nashua Police Department

New Hampshire Drug Task Force

New Hampshire State Police

Newmarket Police Department

Newport Police Department

Northfield Police Department

Pelham Police Department

Pembroke Police Department

Plaistow Police Department

Plymouth Police Department

Portsmouth Police Department

Rochester Police Department

Salem Police Department

New Jersey

Aberdeen Township Police Department

Allenhurst Police Department

Alpine Police Department

Andover Township Police Department

Asbury Park Police Department

Atlantic City Police Department

Atlantic County Prosecutor

Narcotics Unit

Avalon Police Department

Barnegat Township Police Department

Bergen County Prosecutor

Narcotic Task Force

Berkeley Township Police Department

Berlin Township Police Department

Bernardsville Police Department

Bloomfield Police Department

Bogota Police Department

Boonton Township Police Department

Branchburg Township Police Department

Brick Township Police Department

Brielle Police Department

Brigantine Police Department

Caldwell Police Department

Camden County Prosecutor

Camden Police Department

Cape May County Prosecutor

Carneys Point Police Department

Chatham Borough Police Department

Cherry Hill Police Department

Clayton Borough Police Department

Clifton Police Department

Closter Police Department

Dumont Police Department

East Brunswick Police Department

East Rutherford Police Department

Edison Police Department

Egg Harbor Township Police Department

Elizabeth Police Department

Emerson Police Department

Essex County Sheriff

Bureau of Narcotics

Evesham Township Police Department

Ewing Township Police Department

Fairview Police Department

Fanwood Police Department

Florham Park Police Department

Fort Lee Police Department

Franklin Township Police Department

Freehold Township Police Department

Gloucester Township Police Department

Haddon Heights Police Department

Hamilton Township Police Department

Highlands Police Department

Hoboken Police Department

Howell Township Police Department

Hunterdon County Prosecutor

Irvington Police Department

Jersey City Police Department

Kearny Police Department

Kenilworth Police Department

Kinnelon Police Department

Lakewood Police Department

Linden Police Department

Manalapan Township Police Department

Manasquan Police Department

Mansfield Township Police Department

Manville Police Department

Medford Lakes Police Department

Mercer County Prosecutor

Special Investigations Unit

Metuchen Police Department

Middlesex County Prosecutor

Narcotics Task Force

Middletown Township Police Department

Milltown Police Department

Monmouth County Prosecutor

Montclair Police Department

Morris County Prosecutor

Mount Arlington Police Department

Mount Olive Township Police Department

Mullica Township Police Department

New Brunswick Police Department

New Jersey State Police

Narcotics and Organized Crime Section

Newark Police Department

North Bergen Township Police Department
National Drug Intelligence Center

109

North Brunswick Township Police Department

North Plainfield Police Department

North Wildwood Police Department

Northfield Police Department

Ocean City Police Division

Ocean County Prosecutor

Ocean Township Police Department

Oceanport Police Department

Old Bridge Township Police Department

Orange Police Department

Paramus Police Department

Passaic Police Department

Perth Amboy Police Department

Pine Hill Police Department

Piscataway Police Department

Plainfield Police Department

Plainsboro Township Police Department

Pleasantville Police Department

Princeton Township Police Department

Rahway Police Department

Ramsey Police Department

Raritan Township Police Department

Red Bank Police Department

Ridgewood Police Department

Rockaway Borough Police Department

Roselle Park Police Department

Salem Police Department

Sayreville Police Department

Seaside Park Police Department

Somerville Police Department

South River Police Department

Spring Lake Heights Police Department

Stone Harbor Police Department

Summit Police Department

Sussex County Prosecutor

Teaneck Police Department

Tewksbury Township Police Department

Trenton Police Department

Union City Police Department

Union County Prosecutor

Narcotic Strike Force

Union Township Police Department

Vernon Township Police Department

Verona Police Department

Vineland Police Department

Wanaque Police Department

Warren Township Police Department

Washington Township Police Department

Wayne Police Department

West Long Branch Police Department

West Milford Township Police Department

West New York Police Department

West Orange Township Police Department

Wildwood Crest Police Department

Willingboro Township Police Department

Winslow Township Police Department

Woodbridge Police Department

Wood-Ridge Police Department

Wyckoff Police Department

New Mexico

Albuquerque Police Department

Aztec Police Department

Bernalillo County Sheriff

Farmington Police Department

Grant County Sheriff

Hidalgo County Sheriff

Lea County Sheriff

Lincoln County Sheriff

New Mexico Department of Public Safety

New Mexico State Police

Otero County Narcotics Enforcement Unit

HIDTA Interdiction Task Force

Pecos Valley Drug Task Force

Region I Drug Enforcement Task Force

Region II Drug Enforcement Task Force

Region III Drug Enforcement Task Force

Region IV Drug Enforcement Task Force

Region V Drug Enforcement Task Force

Region VI Drug Enforcement Task Force

Lea County Unit

Region VII Drug Enforcement Task Force

Rio Arriba County Sheriff

Rio Rancho Department of Public Safety

Ruidoso Police Department

San Juan County Sheriff

Santa Fe Police Department

Sierra County Sheriff

Silver City Police Department

Taos Police Department

New York

Albany County Sheriff

Albany Police Department

Albion Police Department

Amherst Police Department

Amityville Village Police Department

Baldwinsville Police Department

Binghamton Police Department

Blooming Grove Police Department

Briarcliff Manor Police Department

Broome County Sheriff

Buffalo Police Department

Canastota Police Department

Catskill Police Department

Cattaraugus County Sheriff

Chautauqua County Sheriff

Cheektowaga Police Department

Chenango County Sheriff

Chester Village Police Department

City of Batavia Police Department

City of Beacon Police Department

City of Hudson Police Department

City of Newburgh Police Department
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

110

City of Poughkeepsie Police Department

Clarkstown Police Department

Corinth Village Police Department

Cortland City Police Department

Dobbs Ferry Police Department

Dolgeville Police Department

Dryden Police Department

Dutchess County Drug Task Force

East Greenbush Police Department

East Hampton Town Police Department

East Hampton Village Police Department

Elmira City Police Department

Erie County Sheriff

Fairport Police Department

Floral Park Police Department

Fort Plain Village Police Department

Freeport Police Department

Greece Town Police Department

Greenburgh Police Department

Guilderland Police Department

Hamburg Village Police Department

Hempstead Village Police Department

Highland Falls Police Department

Hyde Park Police Department

Ilion Police Department

Ithaca Police Department

Kingston Police Department

Lake Placid Police Department

Lakewood-Busti Police Department

Livingston County Sheriff

Lynbrook Police Department

Lyons Police Department

Malverne Police Department

Monroe County Sheriff

Mount Pleasant Police Department

Mount Vernon Police Department

Nassau County Police Department

New Castle Police Department

New Hartford Town Police Department

New Rochelle Police Department

New York City Police Department

New York State Police

Niagara Falls Police Department

North Castle Police Department

North Tonawanda Police Department

Northport Police Department

Ogden Police Department

Oneida County Sheriff

Onondaga County Sheriff

Ontario County Sheriff

Orange County Sheriff

Orangetown Police Department

Otsego County Sheriff

Pelham Manor Police Department

Pleasantville Police Department

Poughkeepsie Town Police Department

Putnam County Sheriff

Quogue Village Police Department

Ramapo Police Department

Rochester Police Department

Rockland County Sheriff

Rockville Centre Police Department

Rome Police Department

Saratoga County Sheriff

Saugerties Town Police Department

Schenectady Police Department

Schodack Police Department

Schuyler County Sheriff

Smithtown Department of Public Safety

Southampton Town Police Department

Steuben County Sheriff

Stony Point Police Department

Suffolk County District Attorney

Suffolk County Police Department

Sullivan County Sheriff

Syracuse Police Department

Tarrytown Police Department

Tioga County Sheriff

Town of Colonie Police Department

Town of Ellicott Police Department

Town of Hamburg Police Department

Town of Kent Police Department

Town of Mamaroneck Police Department

Town of Tonawanda Police Department

Troy Police Department

Utica Police Department

Village of Haverstraw Police Department

Village of Spring Valley Police Department

Village of Suffern Police Department

Washington County Sheriff

Watertown Police Department

Wayne County Sheriff

Wellsville Police Department

Westchester County Police Department

White Plains Police Department

Yonkers Police Department

North Carolina

Alexander County Sheriff

Anson County Sheriff

Asheboro Police Department

Ayden Police Department

Belhaven Police Department

Benson Police Department

Brunswick County Sheriff

Burke County Narcotics Task Force

Cabarrus County Sheriff

Carrboro Police Department

Cary Police Department

Chapel Hill Police Department

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department

Chatham County Sheriff

Cleveland County Sheriff

Concord Police Department

Durham County Sheriff

Durham Police Department

Edenton Police Department

Fayetteville Police Department
National Drug Intelligence Center

111

Franklin County Sheriff

Gaston County Police Department

Gaston County Sheriff

Gastonia Police Department

Greensboro Police Department

Guilford County Sheriff

Halifax County Sheriff

Harnett County Sheriff

Haywood County Sheriff

Henderson County Sheriff

Hendersonville Police Department

High Point Police Department

Highlands Police Department

Jacksonville Police Department

Johnston County Sheriff

Kinston Police Department

Leland Police Department

Lenoir Police Department

Louisburg Police Department

Maiden Police Department

Marion Police Department

Matthews Police Department

Maxton Police Department

Mitchell County Sheriff

Montgomery County Sheriff

Morganton Department of Public Safety

New Bern Police Department

North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation

North Carolina State Highway Patrol

Northampton County Sheriff

Oak Island Police Department

Orange County Sheriff

Pitt County Sheriff

Raleigh Police Department

Randolph County Sheriff

Richmond County Sheriff

Roanoke Rapids Police Department

Rocky Mount Police Department

Rowan County Sheriff

Roxboro Police Department

Sanford Police Department

Shelby Police Department

Siler City Police Department

Southern Pines Police Department

Spencer Police Department

Stanley Police Department

Stanly County Sheriff

Tarboro Police Department

Union County Sheriff

Wadesboro Police Department

Wake County Sheriff

Wayne County Sheriff

Wilkes County Sheriff

Wilmington Police Department

Wilson County Sheriff

Wilson Police Department

Wingate Police Department

Winston-Salem Police Department

Yadkin County Sheriff

Zebulon Police Department

North Dakota

Bismarck Police Department

Fargo Police Department

Grand Forks Police Department

Minot Police Department

North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation

North Dakota Highway Patrol

Valley City Police Department

Williams County Sheriff

Northern Mariana Islands

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

Department of Public Safety

DEA/Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Narcotic Task Force

Ohio

Akron Police Department

Alliance Police Department

Aurora Police Department

Austintown Police Department

Bay Village Police Division

Beachwood Police Department

Bedford Heights Police Department

Bellefontaine Police Department

Berea Police Department

Boardman Police Department

Brecksville Police Department

Brimfield Police Department

Bryan Police Department

Butler County Sheriff

Canfield Police Department

Canton Police Department

Carlisle Police Department

Centerville Police Department

Chardon Police Department

Cincinnati Police Department

Clark County Sheriff

Clermont County Sheriff

Cleveland Police Department

Clinton Township Police Department

Columbiana County Sheriff

Columbiana Police Department

Columbus Police Department

Conneaut Police Department

Cuyahoga County Sheriff

Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority Police Department

Darke County Sheriff

Dayton Police Department

East Cleveland Police Department

Elyria Police Department
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

112

Fairview Park Police Department

Fayette County Sheriff

Franklin Township Police Department

Gates Mills Police Department

Geauga County Sheriff

Genoa Township Police Department

Granville Police Department

Greene County Agencies for Combined Enforcement

Task Force

Greene County Sheriff

Hamilton Police Department

Hamilton County Sheriff

Independence Police Department

Johnstown Police Department

Kent Police Department

Kettering Police Department

Lake County Sheriff

Lakewood Police Department

Liberty Township Police Department

Lima Police Department

Lincoln Heights Police Department

Lockland Police Department

Lorain Police Department

Lyndhurst Police Department

Madison Township Police Department

Madison Village Police Department

Mahoning Valley Drug Task Force 

Mansfield Police Department

Marion Police Department

Marlboro Township Police Department

Massillon Police Department

Meigs County Sheriff

Middleburg Heights Police Department

Middletown Police Department

Montgomery County Sheriff

Moraine Police Department

Mount Healthy Police Department

Munroe Falls Police Department

Muskingum County Sheriff

Northwood Police Department

Norton Police Department

Oakwood Village Police Department

Oberlin Police Department

Obetz Police Department

Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation

Ohio HIDTA Caribbean/Gang Drug Task Force

Ohio HIDTA Money Laundering Intelligence Initiative

Ohio State Highway Patrol

Parma Police Department

Pickerington Police Department

Pike County Sheriff

Preble County Sheriff

Rocky River Police Department

Shaker Heights Police Department

Sharon Township Police Department

Shelby Police Department

Shelby County Sheriff

Sidney Police Department

Solon Police Department

Spencerville Police Department

Springfield Police Department

St. Bernard Police Department

Stark County Sheriff

Stark Metro Narcotics Unit

Stark County Violent Crimes Initiative 

Steubenville Police Department

Streetsboro Police Department

Strongsville Police Department

Sugarcreek Police Department

Summit County Drug Unit

Sylvania Police Division

Sylvania Township Police Department

Tipp City Police Department

Toledo Police Department

Metro Drug Task Force

Tuscarawas County Sheriff

Twinsburg Police Department

Upper Arlington Police Department

Van Wert County Sheriff

Van Wert Police Department

Warren County Drug Task Force

Warrensville Heights Police Department

Wayne County Sheriff

Westshore Enforcement Bureau

Narcotics/Vice/Diversion Task Force 

Williams County Sheriff 

Wilmington Police Department

Wyoming Police Department

Youngstown Police Department

Oklahoma

Bixby Police Department

Broken Arrow Police Department

Carter County Sheriff

Choctaw Police Department

Coweta Police Department

Cushing Police Department

Custer County Sheriff

District II Drug Task Force

Elk City Police Department

Edmond Police Department

Enid Police Department

Guymon Police Department

Healdton Police Department

Lawton Police Department

Lone Grove Police Department

Midwest City Police Department

Moore Police Department

Norman Police Department

Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics

Oklahoma City Police Department

Oklahoma County Sheriff

Oklahoma Department of Public Safety

Okmulgee Police Department

Owasso Police Department

Ponca City Police Department

Purcell Police Department
National Drug Intelligence Center

113

Rogers County Sheriff

Tulsa County Sheriff

Tulsa Police Department

Wagoner Police Department

Woodward County Sheriff

Oregon

Albany Police Department

Ashland Police Department

Beaverton Police Department

Bend Police Department

Clatsop County Interagency Narcotics Task Force

Coos County Sheriff

South Coast Interagency Narcotics Team

Crook County Sheriff

Curry County Sheriff

Dallas Police Department

Deschutes County Sheriff

Douglas County Sheriff

Eugene Police Department

Forest Grove Police Department

Gresham Police Department

Hillsboro Police Department

Hood River County Sheriff

Jackson County Narcotics Enforcement Team

Josephine Interagency Narcotics Team 

Keizer Police Department

Klamath County Sheriff

Lane County Sheriff

Lebanon Police Department

Linn County Sheriff

Malheur County Sheriff

Medford Police Department

Monmouth Police Department

Multnomah County Sheriff

Oregon City Police Department

Oregon State Police

Criminal Investigation Services Division

Portland Police Department

Salem Police Department

Sandy Police Department

Stayton City Police Department

Sutherlin City Police Department

Troutdale Police Department

Washington County Sheriff 

Westside Interagency Narcotics Team

Pennsylvania

Abington Township Police Department

Allegheny County Police Department

Beaver Police Department

Bensalem Township Police Department

Bethel Park Police Department

Bethlehem City Police Department

Bloomsburg Police Department

Braddock Hills Police Department

Brentwood Police Department

Butler Township Police Department

California Borough Police Department

Cheltenham Township Police Department

Chester City Police Department

Colonial Regional Police Department

Duryea Police Department

East Hempfield Township Police Department

East Lampeter Township Police Department

East Norriton Township Police Department

Easttown Township Police Department

Edwardsville Borough Police Department

Ellwood City Police Department

Emmaus Police Department

Ephrata Township Police Department

Erie Police Department

Findlay Township Police Department

Grove City Police Department

Hampden Township Police Department

Harrisburg Police Department

Hermitage Police Department

Homestead Borough Police Department

Jeannette Police Department

Jefferson Borough Police Department

Jenkintown Police Department

Kennedy Township Police Department

Lansdowne Police Department

Lower Merion Township Police Department

Lower Pottsgrove Township Police Department

Lower Saucon Township Police Department

Manor Township Police Department

McCandless Police Department

McKees Rocks Police Department

Meadville Police Department

Montgomery Township Police Department

Murrysville Police Department

Nanticoke Police Department

North Strabane Township Police Department

Office of Attorney General

Bureau of Narcotics Investigation

Allentown Regional Office

Butler Regional Office

Erie Regional Office

Greensburg Regional Office

Harrisburg Regional Office

Philadelphia Regional Office

State College Regional Office

Wilkes-Barre Regional Office

Old Forge Police Department

Penn Hills Police Department

Pennsylvania State Police

Bureau of Drug Law Enforcement

Area I Tactical Narcotics Team

Area II Tactical Narcotics Team

Area III Tactical Narcotics Team

Area IV Tactical Narcotics Team

Perkasie Borough Police Department

Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

114

Philadelphia Police Department

Narcotics Field Unit – East

Narcotics Strike Force

Pittsburgh Police Department

Plains Township Police Department

Plum Borough Police Department

Richland Township Police Department

Salisbury Township Police Department

Sandy Township Police Department

Sayre Police Department

Scranton City Police Department

Sewickley Police Department

Somerset Borough Police Department

South Strabane Township Police Department

Trainer Borough Police Department

Upper Darby Township Police Department

Upper Merion Township Police Department

Upper Moreland Township Police Department

Uwchlan Township Police Department

Warminster Township Police Department

Waynesboro Township Police Department

West Chester Police Department

West Conshohocken Borough Police Department

West Norriton Township Police Department

West Shore Regional Police Department

Whitehall Township Police Department

Whitemarsh Township Police Department

Wilkes Barre Township Police Department

Wilkins Township Police Department

York City Police Department

Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico Department of Justice

Special Investigation Bureau

Rhode Island

Charlestown Police Department

Coventry Police Department

Cranston Police Department

East Providence Police Department

Jamestown Police Department

Lincoln Police Department

Middletown Police Department

Newport Police Department

North Kingstown Police Department

North Providence Police Department

Pawtucket Police Department

Providence Police Department

Rhode Island Department of Attorney General

Rhode Island State Police

Warren Police Department

Warwick Police Department

Westerly Police Department

Woonsocket Police Department

South Carolina

Abbeville County Sheriff Narcotics Office

Aiken County Sheriff

Aiken Department of Public Safety

Anderson Police Department

Andrews Police Department

Bamberg Police Department

Barnwell Police Department

Beaufort County Sheriff

Calhoun County Sheriff

Camden Police Department

Charleston Police Department

Charleston County Sheriff

Chester Police Department

Clinton Police Department

Conway Police Department

Dillon Police Department

Easley Police Department

Fairfield County Sheriff

Florence County Sheriff

Florence Police Department

Goose Creek Police Department

Hampton County Sheriff

Horry County Police Department

Manning Police Department

Marlboro County Sheriff

Mount Pleasant Police Department

Myrtle Beach Police Department

Orangeburg Department of Public Safety

South Carolina Highway Patrol

Spartanburg County Sheriff

Spartanburg Public Safety Department

Saint George Police Department

Sumter County Sheriff

Sumter Police Department

York County Multijurisdictional Drug Enforcement Unit

South Dakota

Huron Police Department

Pennington County Sheriff

Rapid City Police Department

Sioux Falls Area Drug Task Force

Sioux Falls Police Department

South Dakota Division of Criminal Investigation

South Dakota Highway Patrol

Sturgis Police Department

Unified Narcotics Enforcement Team

Watertown Police Department
National Drug Intelligence Center

115

Tennessee

3rd Judicial District Drug Task Force

4th Judicial District Drug Task Force

5th Judicial District Drug Task Force

18th Judicial District Drug Task Force

19th Judicial District Drug Task Force

Alcoa Police Department

Ashland City Police Department

Bartlett Police Department

Campbell County Sheriff

Carroll County Sheriff

Chattanooga Police Department

Cheatham County Sheriff

Cleveland Police Department

Cocke County Sheriff

Collegedale Police Department

Cumberland County Sheriff

Dayton Police Department

Dyersburg Police Department

Erwin Police Department

Franklin Police Department

Goodlettsville Police Department

Greene County Sheriff

Grundy County Sheriff

Hamblen County Sheriff

Hamilton County Sheriff

Hancock County Sheriff

Hawkins County Sheriff

Henderson Police Department

Hendersonville Police Department

Jefferson County Sheriff

Johnson City Bureau of Police

Kingsport Police Department

Kingston Police Department

Knox County Sheriff

Knoxville Police Department

Lawrence County Sheriff

Lawrenceburg Police Department

Lenoir City Police Department

Lewisburg Police Department

Livingston Police Department

Lookout Mountain Police Department

Marion County Sheriff

Maryville Police Department

McMinn County Sheriff

Memphis Police Department

Metropolitan Nashville Police Department

Morristown Police Department

Mount Pleasant Police Department

Murfreesboro Police Department

Newport Police Department

Obion County Sheriff

Paris Police Department

Portland Police Department

Rutherford County Sheriff

Scott County Sheriff

Sevier County Sheriff

Sewanee Police Department

Shelby County Sheriff

Narcotics Unit

Tennessee Bureau of Investigation

Tennessee Highway Patrol 

Cookeville District

Fall Branch District

Jackson District

Knoxville District

Lawrenceburg District

Tipton County Sheriff

Unicoi County Sheriff

Weakley County Sheriff

White County Sheriff

White House Police Department

Whitwell Police Department

Wilson County Sheriff

Winchester Public Safety Department

Texas

Alamo Police Department

Allen Police Department

Alpine Police Department

Amarillo Police Department

Angleton Police Department

Anthony Police Department

Arlington Police Department

Atascosa County Sheriff

Austin County Sheriff

Austin Police Department

Bandera County Sheriff

Bastrop Police Department

Beaumont Police Department

Beeville Police Department

Bell County Sheriff

Bellaire Police Department

Bexar County Sheriff

Brenham Police Department

Brewster County Sheriff

Brownsville Police Department

Bryan Police Department

Burnet Police Department

Calhoun County Sheriff

Cameron County Sheriff

Narcotics Division

Carrollton Police Department

Cedar Park Police Department

College Station Police Department

Collin County Sheriff

Colorado County Sheriff

Comal County Sheriff

Conroe Police Department

Coppell Police Department

Copperas Cove Police Department

Corpus Christi Police Department

Crowley Police Department

Culberson County Sheriff

Dallas County Sheriff

Special Investigative Division

Dallas Police Department
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

116

Decatur Police Department

Deer Park Police Department

Del Rio Police Department

Denton Police Department

Diboll Police Department

Dogwood Trails Narcotics Task Force 

Duval County Sheriff

Eagle Pass Police Department

Ector County Sheriff

Edinburg Police Department

El Paso County Metro Narcotics Task Force

El Paso Police Department

Ellis County Sheriff

Euless Police Department

Fort Bend County Narcotics Task Force

Fort Stockton Police Department

Fort Worth Police Department

Fredericksburg Police Department

Freestone County Sheriff

Garland Police Department

Gatesville Police Department

Gladewater Police Department

Grand Prairie Police Department

Grapevine Police Department

Gun Barrel City Police Department

Hamilton County Sheriff

Harris County Sheriff

Hays County Sheriff

Helotes Police Department

Hidalgo County Sheriff

Hidalgo Police Department

Highland Village Police Department

Hill County Sheriff

Hillsboro Police Department

Horizon City Police Department

Houston Police Department

Howard County Sheriff

Hutchinson County Sheriff

Independence Narcotics Task Force

Irving Police Department

Jim Wells County Sheriff

Johnson County Sheriff

Kerrville Police Department

Lacy-Lakeview Police Department

Lampasas County Sheriff

Lancaster Police Department

Laredo Police Department

Lavaca County Sheriff

League City Police Department

Livingston Police Department

Longview Police Department

Lubbock Police Department

Luling Police Department

McAllen Police Department

McKinney Police Department

McLennan County Sheriff

Mercedes Police Department

Mesquite Police Department

Midland County Sheriff

Midland Police Department

Midlothian Police Department

Monahans Police Department

Montgomery County Sheriff

Moore County Sheriff

Nassau Bay Police Department

North Richland Hills Police Department

Odessa Police Department

Office of the Texas Attorney General

Orange County Sheriff

Orange Police Department

Palmview Police Department

Panola County Sheriff

Pearland Police Department

Pecos County Sheriff

Pecos Police Department

Perryton Police Department

Pharr Police Department

Plainview Police Department

Plano Police Department

Presidio County Sheriff

Refugio County Sheriff

Richardson Police Department

Rio Grande City Police Department

Rockwall County Sheriff

Roma Police Department

Sachse Police Department

Saginaw Police Department

San Angelo Police Department

San Antonio Police Department

San Marcos Police Department

Santa Fe Police Department

Seagoville Police Department

Seguin Police Department

Seminole Police Department

Smith County Sheriff

Smithville Police Department

Snyder Police Department

South Padre Island Police Department

Sugar Land Police Department

Tarrant County Sheriff

Taylor Police Department

Terrell County Sheriff

Terrell Hills Police Department

Texarkana Police Department

Texas City Police Department

Texas Department of Public Safety

Criminal Law Enforcement Division

Narcotics Service

Tom Green County Sheriff

Travis County Sheriff

Universal City Police Department

University Park Police Department

Uvalde County Sheriff

Victoria County Sheriff

Victoria Police Department

Waco Police Department

Watauga Department of Public Safety

Webb County Sheriff

Weslaco Police Department

Wharton Police Department
National Drug Intelligence Center

117

Wichita Falls Police Department

Williamson County Sheriff

Willow Park Police Department

Wilmer Police Department

Yoakum County Sheriff

 Utah

American Fork Police Department

Davis County Sheriff

Davis Metro Narcotics Strike Force

Kaysville Police Department

Grand County Sheriff

Heber City Police Department

Hurricane Police Department

Iron County Sheriff

Midvale Police Department

Nephi Police Department

Ogden Police Department

Orem Department of Public Safety

Price Police Department

Provo Police Department

Salt Lake City Police Department

Salt Lake County Sheriff

Sandy City Police Department

Springville Police Department

St. George Police Department 

Tooele County Sheriff

Tooele Police Department

Utah County Major Crimes Task Force

Utah County Sheriff

Utah Department of Public Safety

State Bureau of Investigation

Wasatch Range Task Force

Washington County Drug Task Force

Washington Terrace Police Department

West Jordan Police Department

West Valley City Police Department

Vermont

Bellows Falls Police Department

Bennington Police Department

Brattleboro Police Department

Burlington Police Department

Caledonia County Sheriff

Essex Police Department

Milton Police Department

Montpelier Police Department

Newport Police Department

Rutland Police Department

Springfield Police Department

St. Johnsbury Police Department

Vermont State Police

Williston Police Department

Windham County Sheriff

Virginia

Albemarle County Police Department

Alexandria Police Department

Arlington County Police Department

Ashland Police Department

Blacksburg Police Department

Blackstone Police Department

Buena Vista Police Department

Campbell County Sheriff

Charlottesville Police Department

Chesapeake Police Department

Chesterfield County Police Department

Culpeper Police Department

Danville Police Department

Fairfax County Police Department

Fredericksburg Police Department

Hampton Police Division

Hanover County Sheriff

Harrisonburg Police Department

Henrico County Police Department

Lynchburg Police Department

Manassas City Police Department

Newport News Police Department

Norfolk Police Department

Narcotics Division

Petersburg Police Department

Portsmouth Police Department

Prince William County Police Department

Radford Police Department

Richlands Police Department

Richmond Police Department

Roanoke City Police Department

Roanoke County Police Department

Rocky Mount Police Department

Suffolk Police Department

Vienna Police Department

Vinton Police Department

Virginia Beach Police Department 

Special Investigations

Virginia State Police

Bureau of Criminal Investigation

Drug Enforcement Division

Appomattox Field Office

Chesapeake Field Office

Culpeper Field Office

Fairfax Field Office

Salem Field Office

Wyethville Field Office

Waynesboro Police Department

Wise Police Department
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

118

Washington

Aberdeen Police Department

Arlington Police Department

Asotin County Sheriff

Bainbridge Island Police Department

Bellevue Police Department

Bellingham Police Department

Bothell Police Department

Chelan County Sheriff

Cheney Police Department

Clallam County Sheriff

Clark-Skamania Drug Task Force

College Place Police Department

Cowlitz County Sheriff

Edmonds Police Department

Ellensburg Police Department

Ephrata Police Department

Everett Police Department

Federal Way Police Department

Forks Police Department

Franklin County Sheriff

Gig Harbor Police Department

Jefferson County Sheriff

Kennewick Police Department

Kent Police Department

King County Sheriff

Kittitas County Sheriff

Mercer Island Police Department

Mill Creek Police Department

Mukilteo Police Department

Ocean Shores Police Department

Orting Police Department

Pierce County Sheriff

Port Townsend Police Department

Pullman Police Department

Renton Police Department

Seattle Police Department

Snohomish Police Department

Snohomish Regional Drug Task Force

South Snohomish County Narcotics Task Force

Spokane County Sheriff

Spokane Police Department

Tacoma Police Department

Thurston County Narcotics Task Force

Union Gap Police Department

Valley Narcotics Enforcement Team

Vancouver Police Department

Walla Walla Police Department

Washington State Patrol

West Richland Police Department

West Sound Narcotics Enforcement Team

Whatcom County Sheriff

Whitman County Sheriff

Yakima Police Department

West Virginia

Berkeley County Sheriff

Bridgeport Police Department

Cabell County Sheriff

Charleston Police Department

Gilmer County Sheriff

Huntington Police Department

Huntington Violent Crime/Drug Task Force

Kanawha County Sheriff

Lewis County Sheriff

Marshall County Sheriff

Mason County Sheriff

Metropolitan Drug Enforcement Network Team

Mingo County Sheriff

Morgantown Police Department

Ohio Valley Drug Task Force

Wheeling Police Department

Parkersburg Violent Crime and Narcotics Task Force

South Charleston Police Department

Sutton Police Department

Vienna Police Department

Welch Police Department

West Virginia State Police

Danville Detachment

Gilbert Detachment

Hamlin Detachment

Logan Detachment

Point Pleasant Detachment

Sutton Detachment

Wayne Detachment

Wood County Sheriff

Wyoming County Sheriff

Wisconsin

Appleton Police Department

Ashland Police Department

Beloit Police Department

Berlin Police Department

Brown County Drug Task Force

Caledonia Police Department

Chippewa County Sheriff

Clark County Sheriff

Crawford County Sheriff

Dane County Sheriff

Eau Claire Police Department

Edgerton Police Department

Fitchburg Police Department

Fond du Lac County Sheriff

Fox Point Police Department

Green Bay Police Department

Hayward Police Department

Janesville Police Department

Jefferson County Sheriff 

Kenosha County Sheriff 

Kenosha Police Department

Kewaunee County Sheriff 
National Drug Intelligence Center

119

La Crosse Police Department

Lake Mills Police Department

Lake Winnebago Area Metropolitan Enforcement Group

Manitowoc County Sheriff 

Marathon County Sheriff

McFarland Police Department

Milwaukee County Sheriff 

Milwaukee Police Department

Monona Police Department

Mukwonago Village Police Department

New Richmond Police Department

Oconomowoc Police Department

Oshkosh Police Department

Outagamie County Sheriff 

Ozaukee County Sheriff 

Pewaukee Police Department

Pierce County Sheriff

Pleasant Prairie Police Department

Racine Police Department

Ripon Police Department

Rusk County Sheriff 

Sheboygan Falls Police Department

Sheboygan Police Department

State Line Area Narcotics Team

Stevens Point Police Department

Stoughton Police Department

Superior Police Department

Two Rivers Police Department

Vernon County Sheriff

Walworth County Sheriff 

Watertown Police Department

Waukesha Police Department

Waupaca County Sheriff

West Allis Police Department

Winnebago County Sheriff

Wisconsin Department of Justice

Division of Narcotic Enforcement

Wyoming

Campbell County Sheriff

Casper Police Department

Cheyenne Police Department

Cody Police Department

Evanston Police Department

Goshen County Sheriff

Laramie County Sheriff

Laramie Police Department

Natrona County Sheriff

Powell Police Department

Sheridan County Sheriff

Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation

Wyoming Highway Patrol
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003

120

This page intentionally left blank.