synthetic

drug control  

strategy

A Focus on Methamphetamine and 

Prescription Drug Abuse

2006
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY

Washington, D.C.  20503
Table of Contents

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................1

Continuing Progress: A Status Report .....................................................................................................3

Setting Targets.....................................................................................................................................4

Methamphetamine Supply:  A Concurrent International and Domestic Focus .................................9

The Federal Government’s International Methamphetamine Strategy ........................................................11

The Domestic Focus on Methamphetamine and Other Synthetics .............................................................19

State and City Drug Control Strategies .............................................................................................20

Reducing Methamphetamine Laboratory Numbers.............................................................................22

Methamphetamine in Tribal Areas ...................................................................................................25

Improving Data on Methamphetamine Laboratories ...........................................................................25

Treating Methamphetamine Users ........................................................................................................26

Treatment and Research..................................................................................................................26

Drug Courts...................................................................................................................................26

Access to Recovery ........................................................................................................................27

Treatment in Rural Areas.................................................................................................................27

Prevention: Setting a National Standard...............................................................................................28

Research.......................................................................................................................................28

Youth Anti­Drug Media Campaign ...................................................................................................28

Strategic Prevention Framework .......................................................................................................29

Controlled Substance Prescription Drug Abuse.....................................................................................31

Doctor Shopping and Prescription Fraud ..............................................................................................32

Illegal Online Pharmacies ...................................................................................................................34

Improper Prescribing ..........................................................................................................................35

Sharing Among Family and Friends .....................................................................................................36

“AFTERMETH”:  Following the Aftermath of Methamphetamine Production..................................37

The First 24 Hours: Securing Laboratories Sites .....................................................................................38

How Clean is Clean? Understanding Remediation.................................................................................39

History: Previous Inquiries on Remediation............................................................................................40

Research Strategy Development...........................................................................................................40

Helping Child Victims of Methamphetamine..........................................................................................41

Appendix (Status of National Synthetic Drug Action Plan Recommendations) ...............................................43
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Introduction

“Meth is easy to make. It is highly addictive. It is ruining too many lives across our country...

Our nation is committed to protecting our citizens and our young people from the scourge of

methamphetamine.”

—George W. Bush, President of the United States

March 9, 2006

The President’s National Drug Control Strategy describes the

Administration’s strategic approach for reducing illicit drug use

in the United States. The Administration’s Synthetic Drug

Control Strategy is a companion to the National Strategy. It follows the main principles set out in the National Strategy: that

supply and demand are the ultimate drivers in all illicit drug

markets and that a balanced approach incorporating prevention,

treatment, and market disruption initiatives (such as interdiction, arrests, prosecutions, and regulatory interventions) is the

best way to reduce the supply of, and demand for, illicit drugs.1

The Synthetics Strategy also adheres to the format of the

National Strategy by setting ambitious goals for reducing synthetic drug use at a rate approximating 5 percent each year.

Specifically, the Synthetics Strategy outlines a strategy for

reducing past­month methamphetamine use by 15 percent over

three years and past­month prescription drug abuse

2

by 15 percent over three years. Additionally, because the production of

methamphetamine poses significant human and environmental

risks, the Administration has also set a goal of reducing domestic methamphetamine laboratories by 25 percent over three

years. 

This and past administrations have traditionally avoided

promulgating drug control strategies focused on a single drug

or a single category of drugs. However, the unique nature of

illicit markets for synthetic drugs warrants a targeted response,

partly because those markets contain unique challenges and

vulnerabilities. Unlike marijuana or cocaine, for example, either

the final synthetic drug (as with prescription drugs) or its ingredients (as with methamphetamine) are designed for legal possession and use. Other reasons include the extreme health and environmental problems associated with the production of drugs such as methamphetamine and the indisputably destructive

nature of methamphetamine use itself.

National Drug 

2002)

• 10­percent reduction in two years

• 25­percent reduction in five years

• Applies in two categories: adults 

(18+) and youth (12–17)

•

• Heal drug users

• Market Disruption: Interdiction 

and law enforcement

The 

Strategy: 

Goals for synthetic drug use

• 15­percent reduction in meth use

over three years

• 15­percent reduction in prescription

•

• Consistent with National Strategy’s

• Focus on meth and prescription 

drug abuse

•

• Strong demand reduction focus

•

understanding of meth lab safety

and response

The President’s 

Control Strategy:  An Overview

Goals for drug use (set in February

Three­prong strategy

Prevention: Stop use before it starts

Treatment:

Synthetic Drug Control

An Overview

drug abuse over three years

25­percent reduction in meth labs

over three years

Overview

three­prong approach

Supply reduction focus is both

international and domestic

Includes plan to improve 

1 2002 President’s National Drug Control Strategy, Office of National Drug Control Policy, 2002 U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, DC.

2 Throughout this document, the terms “prescription drug” and “prescription drug abuse” are intended to refer to the nonmedical use of prescription drugs which are controlled substances. 1 
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

The Synthetics Strategy is not primarily intended

to recap the history of synthetic drugs in America,

to describe the extent of the problem, or to act as a

report card on what the Federal government has

been doing in this area, although elements of those

discussions are included where relevant. A number

of documents incorporating those discussions in a

more comprehensive manner have already been

published. Among them are the National Synthetic

Drugs Action Plan (October 2004)3

and the government’s Interim Report (May 2005)4

on the implementation of that plan. The former outlined recommendations for action by the executive and legislative branches of the Federal government; the latter

reported on progress in enacting those recommendations. The Synthetics Strategy is the culmination

Prevalence Estimates: 

• Lifetime users:

• Past­month users: 19,071,000 (7.9%)

Methamphetamine

• Lifetime users: 11,726,000 (4.9%)

• 583,000  (0.2%)

Abuse

• Lifetime abusers: 48,013,000 (20%)

• Past­month abusers: 6,007,000 (2.5%)

Administration (2005). Results from the 2004 National

DHHS Pub. No. SMA 05­4062, Rockville, MD.

Drug Use in America, 2004

Overall Drug Use

110,057,000  (45.8%)

Past­month users:

Controlled Substance Prescription 

Source: Substance and Mental Health Services

Survey on Drug use and Health: National Findings

(Office of Applied Studies), NSDUH Series H­28,

of those efforts and also serves as a report on the

Action Plan. It is additionally important because of two ways in which it differs from, and

supersedes,5

the Action Plan. First, the Synthetics Strategy sets measurable goals for success.

Second, it does not simply make recommendations for government action, but in fact commits

the Administration to a concrete course of action designed to achieve the aforementioned goals

by the end of the President’s second term in office. 

The Synthetics Strategy adheres to the following outline. Following this introduction, it

describes the state of the illicit markets for methamphetamine and controlled substance prescription drugs, including progress made over the last several years. It then sets targets for

reduced numbers in three principal categories: illicit methamphetamine use, domestic methamphetamine laboratories, and the illicit use of controlled substance prescription drugs. This portion explains the fundamental principles and insights guiding the Synthetics Strategy and

describes how performance goals will be measured. Next, the document describes the strategy

itself, explaining how, given the current state of the illicit synthetic drug market, the

Administration will meet targets for use and production by the end of 2008. Here, both supply

reduction and demand reduction activities are addressed for both methamphetamine use and

controlled substance prescription drug abuse. Finally, the end of the document addresses the

problem of responding to the aftermath of methamphetamine production. Improving our

knowledge about the health and environmental consequences of methamphetamine labs is critically important toward improving the safety and security of Americans, including the children

who are found in or near toxic laboratories. 

3 National Synthetic Drugs Action Plan, October 2004, Office of National Drug Control Policy, U.S. Government Printing

Office, Washington, DC.

4 Interim Report from the Interagency Working Group on Synthetic Drugs to the Director of National Drug Control Policy,

Attorney General, and Secretary for Health and Human Services, May 23, 2005, printed by the Office of National Drug Control

Policy, Washington, DC. 5 The National Synthetic Drugs Action Plan contained 46 action recommendations. The status of these is reported in the

Appendix. The Synthetic Drugs Interagency Working Group will continue to work on implementing recommendations and 

discussing progress. 

2
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Continuing Progress: A Status Report 

The implementation of the President’s National Drug Control Strategy has produced results.

Data regarding drug use trends since 2001 support the notion that national strategies utilizing

prevention, treatment, law enforcement, and other market disruption

tools can contribute to sustained

reductions in drug use. The goal of the

Synthetics Strategy is to build upon the

successes of the National Strategy by

focusing on the use and production of

methamphetamine and on the nonmedical use of controlled substance

prescriptions. 

Recent positive developments

include decreases in the past­month use

of any illicit drug among youth6

by 

19 percent7

and past month use of

methamphetamine use by 36 percent8

since 2001. Similarly, the use of

steroids dropped dramatically among

youth from 2001 to 2004 with the use

of steroids down 38 percent, 37 percent, and 30 percent for lifetime, past

year, and past­month use, respectively.

The past­month use among teens of

hallucinogens and LSD use is down by

nearly two­thirds, as is past­month

Ecstasy (3, 4 methylenedioxy­methamphetamine, or MDMA) use. Marijuana

use has also dropped in all three categories: 13 percent for lifetime use, 

15 percent for past year use, and 

19 percent for past­month use, decreasing 28 percent among 8th graders

(from 9.2 percent to 6.6 percent), and

23 percent among 10th graders (from

19.8 percent to 15.2 percent). 

Methamphetamine Use Among

8th, 10th, and 12th Graders: 2001 and 2005

Source: 2005 Monitoring the Future study (MTF), December 2005.

0

2

3

4

5

6

Percent

Lifetime Past Year Past Month

34% lower

than 2001

30% lower

than 2001

36% lower

han 2001

Source: SAMHSA, 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (September 2005).

Percent 2002

2003

2004

Methamphetamine Use in the Past Month Among

Youth Aged 12 to 17: 2002 to 2004

0.6

Lifetime Past Year Past Month 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

1.5

1.3

1.2

0.9

0.7

0.3 0.3 0.2

5.8

3.8

3.4

.4

1.4

0.9

2001

2005

Super Lab Seizures: 2002 to 2005

144

130

137 132

160

140

120

100

80

US

California

Number of Seizures

74% reduction

2002

Methamphetamine Use Among

8th, 10th, and 12th Graders: 2001 and 2005

Source: 2005 Monitoring the Future study (MTF), December 2005.

0

2

3

4

5

6

Percent

Lifetime Past Year Past Month

34% lower

han 2001

30% lower

than 2001

36% lower

than 2001

Source: SAMHSA, 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (September 2005).

Percent 2002

2003

2004

Methamphetamine Use in the Past Month Among

Youth Aged 12 to 17: 2002 to 2004

0.6

Lifetime Past Year Past Month 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

1.5

1.3

1.2

0.9

0.7

0.3 0.3 0.2

5.8

3.8

3.4

2.4

1.4

0.9

2001

2005

Super Lab Seizures: 2002 to 2005

144

130

137 132

160

140

120

100

US

California

Number of Seizures

6 “Youth” refers to 8th, 10th, and 12th graders, the populations measured by the Monitoring the Future study. 7 2005 Monitoring the Future. Special analysis conducted for the Office of National Drug Control Policy by MTF researchers.  8 Ibid.

3
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

With respect to domestic methamphetamine production, after an increase in domestic

methamphetamine laboratories observed in the 1990s and early 2000s, domestic laboratory

numbers appear to have taken a sharp downturn in 2005, thanks largely to innovative strategies

employed by the States. After peaking with more than 17,500 laboratory incidents reported in

2004, data for the first 10 months of 20059

show a substantial and significant reduction in

methamphetamine laboratory incidents (15,203 in the first 10 months of 2004, compared to

11,189 in the first 10 months of 2005—a 26.4 percent reduction). Since 2002, the number of

domestic “super labs” reported—those methamphetamine laboratories with a production capacity estimated at 10 or more pounds within a 24­hour period—has posted a dramatic decline,

falling from 144 in 2002 to just 38 in 2005, due largely to Federal law enforcement interventions at our shared border with Canada and to cooperation with Canadian authorities to stem

the smuggling of pseudoephedrine into the United States. With a new anti­methamphetamine

law10 recently passed by the United States Congress and signed by the President—the strongest

Federal anti­methamphetamine legislation enacted in our Nation’s history—the Administration

seeks to continue such reductions.

Nationally, concern regarding the illicit use or production of methamphetamine continues,

due to the uniquely destructive nature of methamphetamine itself; the increase in domestic

methamphetamine laboratories during the late 1990s and early 2000s11 and their environmental

impact; the eastward migration of methamphetamine use and production across our Nation; the

growing presence of methamphetamine super labs in Mexico; and the growing control of the

U.S. methamphetamine market by Mexican drug trafficking organizations. Concerns also continue regarding the nonmedical use of controlled substance prescription drugs, the fastest­rising

category of drug abuse in recent years.12 The production and use of methamphetamine and the

nonmedical use of controlled substance prescription drugs are among the Administration’s foremost concerns related to illicit drugs. However, decreases in teen drug use seen since 2001 and

the drop in methamphetamine laboratory numbers are positive developments upon which to

build. The Administration is committed to continuing this momentum. 

In light of both the overall progress observed in recent years and the ongoing challenges our

Nation faces regarding the illicit use, distribution, and production of synthetic drugs, a report to

the American people on the government’s strategy to use both traditional and new tools to fight

methamphetamine and the nonmedical use of controlled substance prescriptions is timely and

important. 

Setting Targets

First released in February 2002 for this Administration, the President’s National Drug

Control Strategy set specific and ambitious targets for reducing drug use in America. The

National Strategy called for a 10­percent reduction over two years, and a 25­percent reduction

over five years, in the current (past­month) use of any illicit drug in America. It set these goals

9 Methamphetamine laboratory numbers tend to be complete after six months. As of the date of publication, methamphetamine laboratory number data were current through October 2005. 10 USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, Public Law 109­177. 11 El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC), Clandestine Laboratory Seizure System (CLSS).  12 Substance and Mental Health Services Administration (2004). Results from the 2004 National Survey on Drug use and

Health: National Findings (Office of Applied Studies), NSDUH Series H­28, DHHS Pub. No. SMA 05­4062, Rockville, MD.

4
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Marijuana: 18.0

24.7

22.1

Cocaine: 20.0

Heroin

Age Of Initiation: 

When drug users start using drugs

Prescription Drugs:

Methamphetamine:

24.4

Source: 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and

Health/Monitoring the Future.

for two age categories: youth (those aged 12 to 17) and

adults (those aged 18 and older). 

Comparably, the Synthetics Strategy contains three

primary goals. The first two are a 15­percent reduction

in both methamphetamine use and prescription drug

abuse in the overall population (ages 12 and up) by the

end of 2008, using 2005 as the baseline. These two

goals are set for the following reasons. First, these targets adhere to the goals of the National Strategy in that they are focused on decreasing use by

approximately five percent a year. Second, recent statistics on drug use are encouraging and

indicate that these goals are achievable, as noted in the section above detailing recent trends in

drug use and production. Unlike the National Strategy, the Synthetics Strategy does not consider

youth synthetic drug use a separate performance measure, because the average age of methamphetamine initiation is 22.1 years.13 Similarly, for most prescription drug abuse, the average age

of initiation is in the 23–25 age range. Like the National Strategy, future reports on the

Synthetics Strategy will measure trends in the illicit use of methamphetamine and prescription

drugs using data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

The Synthetics Strategy will measure declines in the

use of two synthetic drug groups—methamphetamine

and illicit prescription drugs—as primary indicators for

performance measurement. It will not include as a primary performance measure other synthetic drugs, such

as Ecstasy and LSD. This is for two reasons. First,

methamphetamine and prescription drugs currently constitute the primary synthetic drugs of national concern.

The destructive nature of methamphetamine use and

production is well documented.14 Prescription drugs, as

noted earlier, constitute the most prevalent drug use category in the area of synthetic drug abuse. Second, the

National Survey on Drug Use and Health, an annual

government report, already measures use for all drugs,

including club drugs, on an annual basis.15 For those

reasons, future reports outlining the progress of the

The 

•

•

•

18–25)

•

abuse (12–17, 18–24)

• Decrease in meth ER admissions

• Decrease in prescription drugs ER admissions

• I

•

• I

Synthetic Drug Control Strategy:

Setting Targets and Measuring Progress

Primary Measuring Tools

National Survey on Drug Use and Health

El Paso Intelligence Center, Clandestine

Laboratory Seizure System

Secondary Indicators

Decline in past­year initiates of meth (12–17,

Decline in past­year initiates, prescription drug

ncrease in age of initiation for meth

Increase in age of initiation for prescription drugs

ncrease in perception of risk

13 The President’s National Drug Control Strategy, by contrast, considers youth illicit drug use a separate goal, partly because

the age of initiation for the most commonly used drug, marijuana, averages 18.0 years, and also occurs at younger ages. 14 See, e.g., White, S.R. Amphetamine toxicity. Semin. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2002 Feb; 23(1):27­36; Hanson, G.R. et al. The

methamphetamine experience: a NIDA partnership. Neuropharmacology. 2004;47 Suppl. 1:92­100; Thompson, P.M. et al.

Structural abnormalities in the brains of human subjects who use methamphetamine. J. Neurosci. 2004 Jun 30;24(26):6028­36;

Meredith, C.W., et al. Implications of chronic methamphetamine use: a literature review. Harv. Rev. Psychiatry. 2005 MayJun;13(3):141­54; Richards, J.R. and Brofeldt, B.T. Patterns of tooth wear associated with methamphetamine use. J. Periodontol.

2000 Aug;71(8):1371­4; Caldicott, D.G. et al. Clandestine drug laboratories in Australia and the potential for harm. Aust. N.Z. J.

Public Health. 2005 Apr;29(20):155­62; Lineberry, T.W. and Bostwick, J.M. Methamphetamine abuse: a perfect storm of complications. Mayo Clin. Proc. 2006 Jan;81(1):77­84; Santos, A.P. et al. Methamphetamine laboratory explosions: a new and emerging

burn injury. J. Burn Care Rehabil. 2005 May­Jun;26(3):228­32; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Acute public

health consequences of methamphetamine laboratories­­16 states, January 2000­June 2004. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep.

2005 Apr 15;54(14):356­9.  15 Gammahydroxy­butate (GHB) and ketamine were added in 2006. Only lifetime measures, as opposed to current 

(past­month) drug use measures, will be available. 

5
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Synthetics Strategy will include information on use trends for these other synthetic drugs, but

will not utilize that data as a primary performance measurement tool. 

It is important, however, to acknowledge the difficulty of accurately measuring a 15­percent

change in the use of methamphetamine and prescription drugs. Methamphetamine users and

prescription drug abusers account for only 0.2 percent and 2.5 percent of the population,

respectively. A 15­percent change, therefore, is equivalent to a fluctuation of 0.03 percent and

0.375 percent, respectively, of the overall population. The actual numbers—a reduction in

87,000 methamphetamine users and 901,000 prescription drug abusers—would save thousands

of lives and be momentous for individuals, their families, their communities, and the Nation as

a whole. However, measuring fluctuations of this degree in the overall population of the Nation

is rather challenging from a statistical perspective. 

Future reports on the Synthetics Strategy will also cite additional data to help identify

progress toward the goals for reducing the illicit use of methamphetamine and controlled substance prescription drugs. Although the National Survey will be the primary tool utilized in performance measurement, future reports from the government on the implementation of the

Synthetics Strategy will also include secondary indicators that will add additional dimensions to

understanding and measuring the Administration’s performance. The following seven trends will

also be used to evaluate the overall success of the Administration’s Synthetics Strategy:

1. A decline in the number of past­year initiates in the 12–17 and 18–25 age ranges for

methamphetamine (Source: National Survey on Drug Use and Health)

2. A decline in the number of past­year initiates in the 12–17 and 18–25 age ranges for 

prescription drugs (Source: National Survey on Drug Use and Health)

3. A decrease in the number of emergency room admissions related to methamphetamine

(Source: Drug Abuse Warning Network)

4. A decrease in the number of emergency room admissions related to prescription drug

abuse (Source: Drug Abuse Warning Network)

5. An increase in the average age of initiation for methamphetamine 

(Source: National Survey on Drug Use and Health)

6. An increase in the average age of initiation for prescription drug abuse 

(Source: National Survey on Drug Use and Health)

7. An increase in the percentage of youth who report perceived risk associated with both

methamphetamine and prescription drug abuse (Source: Monitoring the Future)

Meanwhile, there are several other data sets that merit observation but contain inherent limitations. The concern with some data sets—indicators such as the numbers of arrests, treatment

admissions, and drug seizures—is that a rise in those numbers could arguably be interpreted as

a positive development or a negative one, depending upon the circumstances; the same is true

for a decline in those numbers. For example, an increase in methamphetamine­related arrests in

a given city might be due to enhanced law enforcement focus on the problem, but it also might

6
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

be because there is more methamphetamine in that city.

For this reason, monitoring of three commonly used indicators—arrests related to synthetic drugs, methamphetamine seizures at the Southwest border, and the number or

rate of treatment admissions for synthetic drugs—will be

interpreted in a context that explains some larger trend.

Increases or decreases in these numbers, standing alone,

will not be considered indicative of more or less synthetic

drug use in America. 

The third primary performance objective of the

Synthetics Strategy—reducing domestic methamphetamine

laboratories by 25 percent—will measure laboratories

seized within our borders in 2008, using 2005 as a baseline. The Administration is concerned about the uniquely

destructive and poisonous nature of methamphetamine

laboratories. Much of the national concern over methamphetamine pertains as much to its domestic production as

to its use. There were approximately 17,50016 methamphetamine laboratory incidents17 in

2004 within our borders—up from about 9,000 in 2000. Final numbers for 2005 will not be

available until later in 2006, but early figures indicate a 26.4­percent reduction (January to

October 2005, compared to the same 10­month period a year earlier). The Administration is

committed to continuing this positive trend by working with States to effectuate significant

and dramatic reductions in methamphetamine laboratory numbers by the end of the President’s

second term in office. If the 26.4­percent reduction is continued for the remainder of 2005, the

Administration estimates that there will have been 12,000–13,000 methamphetamine laboratory incidents in the United States during 2005. The Administration aims for laboratory incident

numbers of approximately 10,500 or less in 2008, which would represent a nearly 25­percent

reduction in lab numbers over three years, or a 40­percent reduction from 2004—the year in

which aggressive State­level restrictions on the retail sale of pseudoephedrine were effective in

several States. 

Meth Labs in America

•

•

•

• 2000: 9,056

•

•

•

•

• Jan–Oct 2004:

• Jan–Oct 2005:

• Reduction: 26.4 percent

What’s Included

Actual “live” laboratories

Dumpsites

Glassware and chemical preparations

Annual Laboratory Seizures

2001: 13,551

2002: 16,224

2003: 17,458

2004: 17,500 (est.)

Preliminary Outlook for 2005

15,203 lab incidents

11,189 lab incidents

Source: El Paso Intelligence Center,

Clandestine Laboratory Seizure System

The chief means of measuring the number of domestic laboratories within the United States

will be the Clandestine Laboratory Seizure System (CLSS), a function performed by the Drug

Enforcement Administration’s (DEA’s) El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC).

16 Reports from States regarding the number of labs seized in 2004 are not yet complete—an issue discussed in this report. For

the purposes of this section discussing targets, we note that at the time this document was drafted, lab numbers for 2004 stood at

about 17,450 and were not expected to go above 17,600 once final figures were tallied.  17 The EPIC CLSS definition of “methamphetamine laboratory incident” includes operational methamphetamine laboratories,

chemical dumpsites, and combinations of glassware and chemical precursors to methamphetamine that appear to have been organized in contemplation of producing the drug. 

7
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Methamphetamine Supply: 

A Concurrent International and Domestic Focus

The most urgent priority of the Federal government toward reducing the supply of methamphetamine in the United States will be to tighten the international market for chemical precursors,

such as pseudoephedrine and ephedrine,18 used to produce the drug. Most of the methamphetamine used in America—probably between 75 and 85 percent—is made with chemical precursors

that are diverted at some point from the international stream of commerce. The remainder of the

methamphetamine is produced from chemical precursors that are purchased at the wholesale or

retail level and diverted for use in illicit production in the United States. Although domestic

enforcement continues to be a priority, the impact of State laws controlling retail access to precursors, together with Federal, State, and local enforcement efforts, has had a significant impact on

the domestic production of methamphetamine. As a result, a larger proportion of methamphetamine consumed in the United States is now coming across the border as a final product, compared to that which is produced domestically in small, toxic laboratories (STLs).19

Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Status as of April 2006

WA

NH

The International Market: Methamphetamine Precursors

United States

Canada

Mexico

China

India

Burma

See

Inset

Left

See Inset

Below

See Inset

Below

Germany

Switzerland

Italy

France

Belgium

Pseudoephedrine/ephedrine producers

Methamphetamine source countries

Pseudoephedrine/ephedrine exporters

Taiwan

Philippines

Singapore

18 This document will frequently use the term pseudoephedrine to generically describe three chemicals commonly used as

methamphetamine and amphetamine precursors: pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine.  19 STLs are defined as laboratories with a methamphetamine production capacity of less than 10 pounds in a 24­hour period.

9 
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Until May 2005, when the Interim Report was released, the domestic methamphetamine market was generally described as being sourced from two types of methamphetamine laboratories:

domestic and foreign superlabs,20 which were estimated to account for 80 percent of the

methamphetamine used in the country, and STLs, which were estimated to account for approximately 20 percent of the methamphetamine used in the country.21 Despite the small proportion

produced by the STLs, the small labs themselves constituted more than 99 percent of all

methamphetamine laboratory incidents within the United States. A point of concern was the

indisputable rise in domestic laboratory seizures, peaking at approximately 17,500 in 2004. 

Starting with Oklahoma in April 2004, States began to respond to the methamphetamine lab

problem by enacting a variety of restrictions on the retail sale of over­the­counter cold remedies

containing pseudoephedrine. Some States, including Oklahoma, restricted the sale of pseudoephedrine to pharmacies. At the time the May 2005 Interim Report was released, reliable

data regarding the impact of these laws was just beginning to emerge from a handful of these

States. Federal policy makers began to reassess the methamphetamine market, and were asked

to reevaluate the relative market share of superlabs and STLs using data which were recent but

not yet wholly affected by the new State­level regulations. Three general factors were considered: the relative numbers of each type of domestic laboratory seized, the estimated production

capacity of each of those laboratories, and the amount of methamphetamine seized at the

United States border. Based on these data, the Administration estimated in the Interim Report

that 65 percent of the methamphetamine used in the United States came from the larger labs,

both domestic and foreign, and

up to 35 percent came from

STLs that were solely domestic.

These data suggested that small

labs were collectively gaining

and operators of larger labs

were losing market share. This

was consistent with what communities were reporting: more

methamphetamine labs.

With the passage of restrictions in 2005 on the retail sale

of pseudoephedrine in about 

35 States, along with continued

law enforcement efforts by

Federal, State, and local authorities, the percentage of methamphetamine consumed in the United States originating from STLs appears to have decreased, and

law enforcement is reporting that much more of the methamphetamine seized appears to be

coming from superlabs. Although new State­level restrictions have proven to be successful, they

nevertheless affect primarily the STLs, not the domestic and foreign superlabs. Both anecdotal

ource: 2005 Monitoring the Future study (MTF), December 2005.

0

2

3

4

Lifetime Past Year Past Month

36% lower

han 2001

ource: SAMHSA, 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (September 2005).

Percent 2002

2003

2004

Methamphetamine Use in the Past Month Among

Youth Aged 12 to 17: 2002 to 2004

0.6

Lifetime Past Year Past Month 0.0

0.5

1.0

. 5

2.0

1.5

1.3

1.2

0.9

0.7

0.3 0.3 0.2

3.4

2.4

1.4

0.9

Super Lab Seizures: 2002 to 2005

Source: El Paso Intelligence Center; Clandestine Laboratory Seizure System.

144

130

137 132

55

30

38

2002 2003 2004 2005

160

140

120

100

80

60

20

40

0

US

California

Number of Seizures

74% reduction

since 2002

20 Laboratories with a production capacity exceeding 10 pounds in a 24­hour period. 21 For a more detailed discussion on these analyses, see the Interim Report.

10
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

information from law enforcement and emerging quantitative data suggest that the ratio may be

moving back in the direction of an approximate 80–20 breakdown of superlab supply to STL

supply. An associated dynamic appears to be the move of those superlabs to outside our country. This is bolstered by the decline in domestic superlab seizures between 2002 and 2005. 

Restricting the methamphetamine supply requires coordinated efforts by Federal and State

authorities. The Federal government provides significant assistance to State and local law

enforcement in responding to STLs, and will continue to do so. But the Federal government carries the primary responsibility for disrupting the share of the market belonging to the operators

of the larger laboratories in foreign settings. Federal, State, and local governments share responsibility for attacking the large domestic laboratories.

Although effective precursor control can and does work to limit supply, the methamphetamine market is so fluid that it is critical to inhibit supply concurrently at both the international

and local levels to prevent the shifting of market share among superlab and STL operators.

The Federal Government’s International Methamphetamine Strategy

There are three fundamental aspects to the Federal government’s strategy to tighten the international market for pseudoephedrine and similar precursor chemicals: first, acquisition of better

information about the international trade in pseudoephedrine and similar chemicals; second,

swift and effective implementation of the methamphetamine­related provisions included in the

Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act (“Combat Meth Act”) of 2005; and third, continued

law enforcement and border control activities, in particular, continued partnership with Mexico. 

In order to more effectively address the trafficking of methamphetamine, Federal law enforcement needs better information about the trade in precursor chemicals. Law enforcement has

found that when a producer country exports the precursor chemical, shipments may be intercepted or diverted to another country. After leaving the exporting country, precursor chemicals

will often be diverted to a transit country and leave the legitimate stream of commerce. From

that point, the chemicals are made available to clandestine lab manufacturers for the production

of methamphetamine. The methamphetamine comes across the border into the United States as

a finished product. The more that the DEA and its foreign law enforcement counterparts know

about where these chemicals are produced, how much is produced, where the shipments are

supposed to go, and—just as critically on the receiving end—how much of the chemical a country realistically needs to meet health and industrial needs, the more effective law enforcement

can be in working with counterparts in other nations to ensure that these chemicals do not end

up in methamphetamine laboratories. 

There are established methods of acquiring this information when the United States is a party

to a transaction involving methamphetamine precursor chemicals. The more difficult problem

lies in law enforcement acquiring this information when the United States is not a party to the

transaction. Generally speaking, when the United States is neither the recipient nor the sender of

the original precursor chemicals, United States law enforcement does not have access to information about the transactions. Such information would allow law enforcement to conduct more

effective investigations, starting at the source of an otherwise legal product. 

11
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

The State Department and the DEA currently work with the International Narcotics Control

Board (INCB) to acquire more complete, accurate, and timely information about international

chemical transactions to which the United States is a party. The INCB regularly publishes annual assessments of the legitimate scientific and medical needs that countries have for substances

classified as Schedules I through V drugs under the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of

1971 and the Single Convention on Narcotics of 1961. This information is helpful to exporting

and importing countries because if a country is attempting to export more than the amount

published in the annual assessment for the receiving country, the INCB may request that the

exporting country suspend the shipment until the authorities of the receiving country confirm

the legitimacy of the import request and authenticate the import documents. 

Previously, the INCB collected information on pseudoephedrine and similar methamphetamine precursors, but it was able to provide the information only to the countries that were parties to the international transaction. An additional problem is that the prevailing interpretation

of the applicable international convention makes it optional for countries to regulate pharmaceutical preparations containing precursor chemicals (products that contain those chemicals in

combination with other chemicals). This is unfortunate, for diversion of pills containing pseudoephedrine is the predominant means of supplying almost all small labs and many large labs in

North America. Pseudoephedrine is easily extracted from these over­the­counter drugs.

Due to these concerns, the Administration has worked with allies in the international community to draft, promote, and adopt a resolution on synthetic drug precursors, particularly

methamphetamine precursors, at the annual meeting of the United Nations Commission on

Narcotic Drugs (CND), which is the central policy­making body within the United Nations system dealing with drug­related matters. The CND is charged with analyzing the world drug situation and developing proposals to strengthen the international drug control system. In March

2006, the CND adopted the synthetic drug precursor resolution proposed by the United States

and cosponsored by a number of CND member nations. 

The resolution requests countries to permit the INCB to share shipment information on pharmaceutical preparations containing methamphetamine precursors with law enforcement and

regulatory authorities to prevent or interdict diverted shipments. The resolution also requests

countries to provide information on all shipments of these chemicals and the associated pharmaceutical preparations. Moreover, the resolution encourages all countries to provide estimates of

legitimate requirements for pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, and phenyl­2­propanone as well as

pharmaceutical preparations. Finally, the resolution requests importing countries to ensure that

imports of these substances and preparations containing the substances are commensurate with

legitimate requirements. 

Acquiring information about an international transaction to which the United States is not a

party is not without precedent. For example, the United States and Mexico have obtained a

commitment by Hong Kong to prenotify the receiving country before shipment and not to ship

chemicals to the United States, Mexico, or Panama until receiving an import permit or equivalent documentation. This is important because Hong Kong has in the past been a source of

pseudoephedrine tablets diverted to methamphetamine labs in Mexico. Using this model, it is a

12
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

priority of the Synthetics Strategy for the United States to reach similar agreements with other

producing countries, the most significant of which are Germany, China, and India. The State

and Justice Departments will continue to develop procedures with producer countries in order to

obtain general information about global precursor chemical transactions. Chemicals diverted

anywhere in the world can and do end up as methamphetamine consumed in America. 

The Administration’s efforts to develop these procedures have already begun and will continue throughout 2006. Twice in December 2005—at the United States/European Union Troika

meeting on December 7 and subsequently at the meeting of the Joint Chemical Working Group

established by the United States/European Community Chemical Control Agreement on

December 16—the Administration laid the groundwork for a higher level of information sharing. These central concerns have also been raised in subsequent international meetings. The

Administration has set a goal of reaching agreement on these points by the end of 2006 or earlier if possible. 

While the relevance of such information to law enforcement is paramount, the Administration

recognizes that it may also be considered commercial. As such, the United States will pledge to

use this information only for law enforcement purposes and not in the furtherance of any commercial objectives. Many countries that are already fighting the methamphetamine problem,

including those in the Asian region, recognize the importance of sharing such information. 

The second prong of the Federal government’s strategy to tighten the international precursor

market involves implementation of the Combat Meth Act. This important legislation, passed by

Congress and recently signed by the President, contains a comprehensive set of regulations

designed to help tighten the market for pseudoephedrine and other chemical precursors to

methamphetamine. The provisions in some States’ chemical control laws were adapted, setting a

Federal regulatory floor while allowing more aggressive State restrictions. In addition to setting

a nationwide baseline standard for the retail sale of products containing pseudoephedrine, the

new law eliminates loopholes in the law that methamphetamine traffickers exploited.

The Combat Meth Act contains other important provisions that are relevant to international

efforts. Among the provisions of the new law that will affect large lab operators are enhanced

criminal penalties for methamphetamine cooks and traffickers; requirements for estimates of the

import and export market for pseudoephedrine, which help the Administration better understand and restrict the illegal international trade of pseudoephedrine; and new requirements

regarding production quotas for precursor chemicals. The Administration is committed to implementing and utilizing the new tools provided by Congress in the Combat Meth Act. 

The new law contains a number of provisions that address retail sellers and purchasers of

products containing pseudoephedrine and ephedrine, requiring, among other provisions, that

these products be kept behind store counters or in a locked cabinet not accessible to customers;

that the retail seller maintain a written or electronic list of transactions involving these products;

that the purchaser display a government­issued identification card and sign the logbook; that the

seller may not sell more than 3.6 grams of the products in a daily period, or 7.5 grams of the

product in a 30­day period to the same customer; and that an individual may not knowingly or

intentionally purchase more than 9 grams in a 30­day period. As of April 8, 2006, nonliquids

13
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

(tablets, capsules, and gel capsules) of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine

may no longer be sold in bottles at the retail level; instead, they must be sold in blister packs.

While some of these provisions have already taken effect, others will take effect on 

September 30, 2006. 

The Combat Meth Act further requires the Department of Justice (DOJ) to issue regulations

and criteria, such as criteria for the written or electronic logbook maintained by the seller and

regulations establishing an Internet­based program to provide employee training criteria to

retailers and allow retailers to certify compliance with the training requirements. The DOJ is

working expeditiously to publish these criteria and regulations.

Additionally, the Combat Meth Act provides the DEA with additional control over the spot

market for pseudoephedrine products. Currently, importers or exporters must notify the DEA

about shipments coming into the United States, as well as the amount and purchaser of the

product. Prior to the passage of the Combat Meth Act, once a transaction had been approved

by the DEA, the importer or exporter could substitute a purchaser without notifying the DEA if

the original purchaser dropped out of the transaction. Under the new law, if the originally

declared sale by the importer or exporter falls through, and if the transaction would otherwise

require 15 days advance notice (i.e., not to a “regular customer” abroad or a “regular

importer” at home), the importer or exporter will be required to file a second notice with the

DEA identifying the new proposed purchaser. The DEA will then have 15 days to review the

new transaction and decide whether it presents a sufficient risk of diversion to warrant suspension of the transaction. 

The Combat Meth Act further provides the DOJ with the authority to establish production

quotas for ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine, utilizing the preexisting

model for production quotas of controlled substances listed in Schedules I and II.22 In establishing the Aggregate Production Quota (APQ) each year for other controlled substances, the

Department, through the DEA, relies on the following sources of information and will do so for

pseudoephedrine, ephedrine, and phenylpropanolamine (defined as scheduled listed chemical

products under the Act) as well: industry data provided through applications for procurement

quota and manufacturing quota, which includes information relating to inventory, production,

and sales data; information from DEA­registered manufacturers regarding product development

and research efforts; export requirements; information on medical need as provided by the Food

and Drug Administration (FDA); prescription and sales data provided by various vendors; and

information relating to diversion and abuse. Once the APQ is established, the DEA can provide

DEA­registered manufacturers with manufacturing and procurement quotas, thereby fulfilling

its requirements under the Act.

In accordance with the requirements of the Combat Meth Act, the DOJ will submit on a

semiannual basis a report to Congress that describes the allocation of the resources of the DEA

and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for the investigation and prosecution of violations

of the Controlled Substances Act involving methamphetamine and describes the measures being

taken to give priority in the allocation of resources involving these violations. Similarly, the

22 See 21 U.S.C. 826.

14
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Department of Transportation (DOT) will submit biennial reports regarding the designation of

chemical precursors as hazardous materials. Additionally, the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) will submit a report based upon information collected from law enforcement, States, and

other relevant stakeholders identifying byproducts of the methamphetamine production process

and identifying those byproducts that constitute hazardous waste.

Also, the new law requires the State Department to identify the five largest exporting countries and the five largest importing countries of chemicals such as pseudoephedrine.23 The

Combat Meth Act also requires the State Department to issue a report certifying these countries’

cooperation with the United States in the area of methamphetamine chemical precursor control;

noncompliant countries will, under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, be subject to penalties.

In these cases, the State Department will submit a report to Congress, within 180 days after the

determination is made, outlining a comprehensive plan to address the diversion of chemicals

from these countries. As of the time of this publication, the Administration had already begun

work on these estimates. Briefly stated, 19 companies export ephedrine to the United States, and

20 export pseudoephedrine to the United States. These are located in India, Germany, France,

Declared Pseudoephedrine and Ephedrine Imports: 1990 to 2004

 (Bulk and Combo Products)

Kgs

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004

PSE CP and Bulk

Ephedrine CP and Bulk

Source: Drug Enforcement Administration.

23 The Administration notes that the United States reexports significant amounts of products containing pseudoephedrine and

ephedrine and is expected to rank among the top five exporters. 

15
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Switzerland, Canada, China, Singapore, Taiwan, Belgium, and Italy. Consistent with the

Combat Meth Act, the first report will be provided to Congress no later than March 2007. 

In addition to the resolution at the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs previously referenced,

the United States will continue to raise the importance of better estimating the legitimate need

each country has for pseudoephedrine and other precursors. Mexico has determined its legitimate need and sharply reduced its authorized imports for 2006. As indicated above, the

Administration will also begin the process of determining the legitimate domestic need for 

such products, consistent with the Combat Meth Act. The target date for completing this is

January 1, 2007. 

Accurately estimating the legitimate market in the United States for pseudoephedrine and similar chemicals will be a challenge. However, data already available indicate a correlation

between the growth in methamphetamine labs in America and the growth in imports of pseudoephedrine. Between 1990 and 2004, the population of the United States rose 19 percent,

while pseudoephedrine imports rose 262 percent, and ephedrine imports were up 59 percent.24

There is a legitimate and lawful need for these products, and some portion of the increased

demand may be due to the popularity and effectiveness of products containing pseudoephedrine.

However, to suggest that the acceleration in the increase in pseudoephedrine imports compared

to population growth is entirely due to legitimate demand, or is because of a staggering increase

in the number of cold sufferers, ignores the simple fact that methamphetamine production in the

United States went up during this time period. Clearly, some percentage of the increase in pseudoephedrine imports was fueled by the demand for methamphetamine in our own country. 

The third prong of the international precursor strategy is to continue working closely with

Mexico through aggressive law enforcement activities against precursor trafficking and methamphetamine production and trafficking, and to strengthen border protection at our shared border

with Mexico. Improving our bilateral efforts with Mexico to prevent methamphetamine smuggling, working with Mexican law enforcement, and encouraging the Mexican government to

reduce precursor chemical diversion are also called for in the Combat Meth Act. Toward that

end, the United States has been helping Mexico train and equip methamphetamine­focused law

enforcement teams to combat the spread of methamphetamine production in Mexico. The

Administration will continue its efforts to assist Mexico with its enforcement efforts by providing laboratory cleanup and investigation training for Mexican law enforcement. Thus far, the

DEA has provided three training courses on methamphetamine to 80 Mexican investigators and

18 prosecutors, as well as chemical equipment for the purpose of responding to methamphetamine labs. The DOJ Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section and the DEA offices in Mexico, with

assistance from several U.S. Attorney offices, conducted two workshops for selected Mexican

prosecutors in early 2004 and late 2005. 

Another important development involves Mexico’s own regulatory strategy to restrict access

to the ingredients used in methamphetamine. Through its Federal Commission for the

Protection Against Sanitary Risks (COFEPRIS), Mexico is implementing several important 

24 Source: Drug Enforcement Administration. Companies importing these products are required to submit import figures to the

DEA under 21 USC. 

16
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

controls on pseudoephedrine. Those already in effect include limiting retail sales to pharmacies,

placing pseudoephedrine behind pharmacy counters, and limiting sales quantities. In addition,

Mexico has recently imposed a policy of limiting imports of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine to

manufacturers. Wholesale distributors are barred from importing raw pseudoephedrine and

ephedrine. Also, importers can import only shipments of no more than 3,000 kilograms at any

one time. Such restrictions will assist in denying ingredients to the large clandestine labs.

Mexico has also taken the important step of imposing import quotas tied to estimates of licit

demand, or the actual national need for pseudoephedrine. A recent study conducted by

Mexico’s government revealed that there was a significant excess of pseudoephedrine imports

over Mexico’s estimated licit needs. Accordingly, authorities are working to restrict pseudoephedrine imports to those that are actually needed for medical and industrial purposes. 

As called for by the Combat Meth Act, the Administration will submit an annual report to

Congress regarding cooperation with Mexico in this area. The first report will be submitted by

the State Department to Congress no later than March 2007. 

Meanwhile, United States law

enforcement agencies continue to

seize increasing amounts of methamphetamine at our Southwest Border.

Seizures have almost doubled between

2000 and 2004. Federal, State, and

local law enforcement agencies have

had several initiatives in recent years

specifically designed to target

methamphetamine superlabs and precursor suppliers in Mexico.

Continued aggressive law enforcement efforts, implemented concurrently with efforts to tighten the market

for chemicals used to make methamphetamine, are critical toward permanently impairing the methamphetamine market. 

Iowa Meth Incidents by Year: 1994 to 2005

0

500

1000

1500

2000

19 5

19 6

19 7

31 63

320

805

661

794

1021

1209

1500

763

19 8

19

20

20 1

20 2

20 3

20 4

20 5*

19 4

Meth Seizures Along Southwest Border: 2000 to 2004

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

1,390

1,170 1,130

1,790

2,320

Kgs

Source: DEA / EPIC

*January through September 2005.

Number of Incidents

ource: Iowa Office of Drug Control Policy.

Another aspect of the Administration’s strategy is to support the important role that Federal,

State, and local law enforcement have in combining intelligence against the operators of the

large laboratories and trafficking networks. Specifically, American law enforcement agencies are,

through traditional law enforcement activities and intelligence sharing, well placed to identify

and target methamphetamine trafficking operations by analyzing the pattern of illicit chemical

shipments.

In May 2004, Federal, State, and local investigators met in California to address the

increased methamphetamine market share of Mexican drug traffickers. Law enforcement studied current Mexican drug trafficking operations in California, utilizing intelligence from various agencies. Although investigations about a single methamphetamine lab often may reveal

17
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

limited information, combining information gleaned from other investigations allows a bigger

picture to emerge as to the source of the ingredients. 

This intelligence­driven law enforcement approach is the concept behind the Organized Crime

Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) Fusion Center. The OCDETF Fusion Center is creating a comprehensive data center containing the drug and drug­related financial intelligence

information from the OCDETF­member agencies, the National Drug Intelligence Center

(NDIC), EPIC, and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. The OCDETF Fusion Center is

designed to conduct cross­agency integration and analysis of drug and related financial data, to

create comprehensive intelligence pictures of targeted organizations, and to pass actionable leads

through the multiagency Special Operations Division (SOD) to field investigators. Ultimately, by

"fusing" the investigative information that has traditionally been stovepiped in each investigative agency, one complete picture of these organizations will emerge, resulting in the development of coordinated multijurisdictional investigations of the most significant drug trafficking

and money laundering networks. As a result, the OCDETF Fusion Center will be a critical component in identifying the major methamphetamine trafficking organizations in the United States

and those chemical suppliers that facilitate methamphetamine manufacturing. Guided by the

analysis of the OCDETF Fusion Center, the OCDETF Program can bring the collective

resources of its Federal, State, and local partners to bear against those producing or facilitating

the production of methamphetamine destined for the United States. 

This shared intelligence approach, also utilized by High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area

(HIDTA) program Intelligence Centers, is important because it responds to a simple truth about

the illicit methamphetamine market: those organizations that are making the largest amounts of

methamphetamine have a clear vision of the entire production and distribution scheme, starting

from the point the pseudoephedrine is legally produced, to its smuggling, conversion into

methamphetamine, distribution, and ultimate consumption, as well as the financial aspects associated with this process. To succeed in disrupting this market, law enforcement cannot limit its

understanding or efforts to individual market segments–but must understand, and respond to,

the complete market plan of the traffickers. Intelligence­based initiatives that capture, assess,

coordinate, and share information from Federal, State, and local agencies are the most effective

means of accomplishing this objective. 

Finally, also on the international front, the Departments of State and Health and Human

Services (HHS) will work with the World Health Organization to promote private­sector

research and development of substances that are capable of replacing precursors used in

methamphetamine production. The chief example of this is phenylepherine, which is currently

marketed in over­the­counter cold and allergy medications and, unlike products containing

pseudoephedrine, cannot be used in the methamphetamine production process. The speedy

replacement on a global scale of methamphetamine precursors with substances that are safe and

effective in treating the symptoms of allergies and colds (and that meet the other industrial uses

of pseudoephedrine) but cannot be used to make methamphetamine would significantly impair

the international market for methamphetamine. 

18
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

The Domestic Focus on Methamphetamine and Other Synthetics

The Administration will continue to partner with State, county, tribal, and city governments

over the next three years to attack the illicit use of methamphetamine. State and local partners

are crucial in carrying out the Administration’s strategy for the synthetic drug problem, utilizing

law enforcement, treatment, and prevention. After all, the overwhelming number of drug arrests

and prosecutions—certainly above 90 percent—are handled by State and local authorities,

rather than by Federal agents or prosecutors. Most government­supported treatment, although

often funded by Federal grants, is implemented by State or local officials. In addition, States

have taken the lead in enacting regulations of precursor chemicals, such as pseudoephedrine,

that are used in the production of methamphetamine. A

substantial amount of the credit for the recent reductions

in methamphetamine labs seen in some States belongs to

those State policymakers. 

In order for the Synthetics Strategy to be effective, there

must be a coordinated strategic response among Federal,

State, and local governments, and some degree of cohesiveness between the Federal strategy and State and local

strategies. The Administration recognizes, however, that

the manifestation of the synthetic drug problem in one

State may be different from that in another State. The right

balance is for the Federal government to work with States

and local governments to encourage and assist in the development of State and local drug control strategies that

include a focus on synthetic drugs, provide information

where available, and allocate resources where possible. 

The Administration will strengthen its partnerships with

State and local officials through the following efforts over the next three years, and will: 

2006 and Beyond: Strategic Goals

•

• Identify and share best practices

•

• Expand Drug Endangered Children training

•

•

•

Programs 

• Cosponsor four regional methamphetamine

•

•

• Expand methamphetamine toxicity 

knowledge base

Working with State Policy Makers in

Support State drug control strategies

Expand Drug Endangered Children programs

Support treatment and prevention programs

Improve reporting of meth lab data

Expand Prescription Drug Monitoring

conferences

Continue law enforcement training

Provide resources for methamphetamine lab

cleanup, treatment, and prevention

• Encourage States to include in their comprehensive drug control strategies a plan to

address regional methamphetamine and controlled substance prescription drug abuse

threats. 

• Identify and share the most effective State­level approaches for reducing methamphetamine production and use, as well as controlled substance prescription drug diversion

• Work to expand Drug Endangered Children programs and training to all 50 States by

the end of 2008. 

• Continue support of treatment and prevention programs (e.g., by expanding drug

courts and student drug testing programs). 

• Improve data collection related to methamphetamine use and production. 

• Work to expand prescription drug monitoring programs to all 50 States by the end 

of 2008. 

19
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

• Cosponsor and fund four regional methamphetamine conferences (with HHS and DOJ)

in 2006 to coordinate the efforts set forth above.

• Continue ambitious training programs for law enforcement (e.g., DEA­led training at

Quantico).

• Provide funds for laboratory seizure and clean up through the Community Oriented

Policing (COPS) program.

• Provide procedures and standards for laboratory cleanup, and improve our national

knowledge base as to toxicity. 

State and City Drug Control Strategies

A coordinated drug control strategy can assist State

and local governments in focusing attention and

resources on the specific drug problem facing their State

or region. The creation of a State drug control strategy

defines the precise nature of the problem; generates

“buy­in” among various agencies, private entities, and

individuals to a collective solution; and assists at budget

time in allocating resources most effectively. Some States

have drug control strategies; most do not.

An example of one State with a drug control strategy

is Iowa. Like the National Strategy, Iowa’s Drug

Control Strategy is released annually by the chief drug

policy official (the director of the Governor’s Office of

Drug Control Policy) and describes the current state of

drug use in Iowa, the State

administration’s plan to combat

drug use, and the resources

committed to addressing the

problem. Each year, the Iowa

Strategy is developed and

released in collaboration with

the Drug Policy Advisory

Council, a group of drug policy

experts in Iowa representing

prosecutors, treatment specialists, law enforcement, prevention specialists, judges, corrections officials, educators, public

health specialists, human services professionals, and juvenile

justice officials. In 2006, for

Iowa Meth Incidents by Year: 1994 to 2005

0

500

1000

1500

2000

19 5

19 6

19 7

31 63

320

805

661

794

1021

1209

1500

763

19 8

19

20

20 1

20 2

20 3

20 4

20 5*

19 4

Meth Seizures Along Southwest Border: 2000 to 2004

Kgs

*January through September 2005.

Number of Incidents

Source: Iowa Office of Drug Control Policy.

20
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

example, the Iowa Strategy focuses on the problem of methamphetamine production and use,

noting that the new law passed in Iowa restricting the retail sale of chemical precursors to

methamphetamine was part of a strategy to reduce the supply of the drug, but not necessarily

the demand. The Iowa Strategy subsequently describes the state of treatment and prevention

efforts in the State related to methamphetamine, as well as new efforts to stem controlled substance prescription drug abuse through the administrative implementation of a Prescription

Drug Monitoring Program. The Iowa Strategy also discusses alcohol, cocaine, marijuana, 

heroin, and the problem of drug­endangered children, describing both the nature of the 

problem and the State administration’s plan to address it. 

Over the next three years, the Administration will work with State drug control officials to

assist in providing information regarding the most effective State strategies for responding to the

methamphetamine threat. As a forum for doing this, the Administration will hold four regional

summits on methamphetamine, followed by a National Methamphetamine Summit sponsored by

the White House. The purpose of these summits will be to review and consolidate all pertinent

information about methamphetamine use and production to date, to invite States to share best

practices in reducing use and production, to provide a forum for States to share information with

the Federal government, and to encourage States to craft drug control strategies that are responsive to the methamphetamine problem.

In the period leading up to these summits, the Administration will make available to the

appropriate State officials the various State drug control strategies, especially those which include

a focus on methamphetamine or controlled substance prescription drug abuse. Also, the

Administration will develop a summary of State and local best practices in developing methamphetamine strategies and harnessing resources to confront the problem. Several States have

already developed key legislative and policy approaches to address methamphetamine through

prevention, enforcement, treatment, and related efforts. 

Additionally, many local prevention, treatment, and law enforcement efforts

occur at the city level. Through the Major Cities Initiative, Office of National

Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) has facilitated partnerships of Federal, State,

and local officials from the prevention, treatment, and law enforcement communities to collaboratively respond to city drug challenges. In these cities,

ONDCP has convened government and agency officials, community leaders,

and educators to develop strategic action plans based on thorough assessments

of the specific drug threats in their communities, which often include methamphetamine and controlled substance prescription drugs. This initiative has

assisted city leaders in leveraging existing resources for more effective, focused

efforts. Additionally, ONDCP published Cities Without Drugs: The Major

Cities Guide to Reducing Substance Abuse in Your Community as a resource

to guide communities through this process. 

There are several specific policy areas in which Federal, State, and local governments need to

partner in order to address the problem of synthetic drug abuse. 

21
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Reducing Methamphetamine Laboratory Numbers

Any effective State strategy on methamphetamine must include a plan to reduce the number

of methamphetamine labs—or, in the limited number of States (primarily in New England)

where methamphetamine labs are few, a plan to prevent their emergence. This is also a critical

objective of the Administration’s Synthetics Strategy, which has set a goal of a 25­percent reduction in domestic methamphetamine lab incident numbers by the end of 2008. The role of the

Administration on this issue is twofold: first, to provide reliable data to the States regarding the

impact and effectiveness of various State­level approaches; second, to implement the new provisions of the Combat Meth Act, which sets national restrictions on the retail sale of products

containing pseudoephedrine. 

In 2005, several States directly addressed the problem of local methamphetamine production

and dramatically reduced the number of methamphetamine labs in their own States. In doing

so, State policy makers had to balance the needs of law enforcement with the need for legitimate consumer access to cold remedies. 

Thirty­three States enacted legislation25 in 2005 that imposed various restrictions on the retail

sale of pseudoephedrine. One State, Oklahoma, enacted such legislation in 2004. In addition,

Virginia accomplished a similar result through Executive Directive by the Governor. The

Administration’s Action Plan noted this new law in Oklahoma, the first State to limit pseudoephedrine sales to pharmacies. Subsequently, the Interim Report cited early data from two

States that had implemented strict approaches, Oklahoma and Oregon. Since that time, more

comprehensive data has become available. 

The exact nature of the regulations implemented in these 35 States varies. As a general 

matter, most of these States already restricted, prior to the Combat Meth Act, the amount of

pseudoephedrine that could be purchased in a particular time period (e.g., only allowing the

purchase of up to 3.6 grams in the course of a single transaction or over a 30 day period). The

strictest regulations limited sales of pseudoephedrine products to pharmacies, required that the

products be kept behind the counter, and instructed pharmacists to ask for identification and

have the customer sign a logbook. Other States adopted some, but not all, of the strictest regulations. For example, some States have allowed nonpharmaceutical outlets to sell the products

but require placement of products behind the counter. 

In order to provide State policy makers with more rigorous detail about the impact of the

various types of restrictions and to compare the effect of each of the 35 States’ new regulations

in detail, the National Institute of Justice has approved an 18­month study to analyze which

provisions in which States appear to have had the most impact. 

Even in advance of the publication of the National Institute of Justice study, provisional data

suggest that States that adopted more stringent restrictions generally saw steeper declines in

methamphetamine lab numbers. The State data demonstrate that reasonable restrictions on the

retail sale of pseudoephedrine are effective mechanisms for reducing methamphetamine production in a given State. Emerging downward trends in national lab incidents are largely due to the

lab reductions in the States with retail sale restrictions.

25 This information is current as of April 2006. 

22
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Number of Number of

incidents incidents

during time same time period, Percent

Enacted Until period previous year change 

04/06/04 May­04 May­05 400 1088 –63

Oregon 11/15/04 Dec­04 Oct­05 194 449 –57

Arkansas 02/22/05 Oct­05 218 547 –80

Kentucky 03/18/05 Oct­05 307 308 0

Iowa 03/22/05 Oct­05 323 659 –51

03/30/05 Oct­05 404 786 –49

Kansas 04/15/05 May­05 Oct­05 110 224 –51

Montana 05/02/05 Jun­05 Oct­05 9 36 –75

05/02/05 Jun­05 Oct­05 68 57 19

Minnesota 06/01/05 Jul­05 Oct­05 17 50 –66

06/14/05 Jul­05 Oct­05 0 1 –100

Missouri 06/15/05 Jul­05 Oct­05 509 889 –43

Lesser Restrictions

South Dakota 02/25/05 Oct­05 12 20 –40

Mississippi 03/03/05 Oct­05 114 198 –42

03/15/05 Oct­05 7 13 –46

03/26/05 Oct­05 23 47 –51

Georgia 04/19/05 May­05 Oct­05 50 119 –58

04/22/05 May­05 Oct­05 52 121 –57

Arizona 04/27/05 May­05 Oct­05 28 64 –56

Indiana 05/10/05 Jun­05 Oct­05 319 388 –18

05/11/05 Jun­05 Oct­05 140 402 –65

Alabama 05/24/05 Jun­05 Oct­05 72 135 –47

Colorado 05/27/05 Jun­05 Oct­05 59 82 –28

Nebraska 05/31/05 Jun­05 Oct­05 56 78 –28

Florida 06/01/05 Jul­05 Oct­05 75 82 –9

06/07/05 Jul­05 Oct­05 19 22 –14

06/15/05 Jul­05 Oct­05 81 129 –37

Maine 06/23/05 Jul­05 Oct­05 1 3 –67

Hawaii 07/05/05 * * * * *

Louisiana 07/12/05 * * * * *

Michigan 07/19/05 * * * * *

Illinois 08/12/05 * * * * *

New Jersey 08/24/05 * * * * *

09/27/05 * * * * *

10/04/05 * * * * *

Date

State From

Schedule V­type restrictions

Oklahoma

Mar­05

Apr­05

Apr­05

Tennessee Apr­05

West Virginia

Delaware

Mar­05

Mar­05

Wyoming Apr­05

Virginia (Exec directive) Apr­05

North Dakota

Washington

Wisconsin

Texas

North Carolina

California

State Methamphetamine Laboratory Incidents by Restriction Level

*Statutory restrictions in these states are too recent for reliable data.

Note: “Schedule V­type restrictions” refers to states which have formally included pseudoephedrine as a Schedule V controlled substance under that state’s Controlled Substance scheduling scheme, or states which have adopted the same general restrictions (limiting

sales of pseudoephedrine to pharmacies, placing the products behind pharmacy counters, requiring customers to show identification and

sign a logbook) without formally rescheduling pseudoephedrine. 

Source: EPIC CLSS.

23
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

As more conclusive data from the States

became available, the Administration urged

Congress to pass Federal legislation that

would balance the needs of law enforcement

while ensuring that legitimate consumers continued to have access to cold remedies. The

Federal government recognizes that the

methamphetamine problem is not uniform

across the country—some States, such as

California, Nevada, and Missouri, have wrestled with high numbers of methamphetamine

labs, while other States, such as Rhode Island

and Connecticut, continue to see relatively

low numbers of labs. Under the Combat Meth

Act, State lawmakers retain the right to decide

whether the national baseline standard is sufficient or whether more restrictive regulations

limiting sales to pharmacies are warranted in

their State. In addition, because the Act

imposes a uniform baseline floor across the

Nation, it will deter methamphetamine producers from crossing State lines to purchase

precursor chemicals or set up their labs. 

The Administration will monitor the effect

of the new national baseline restrictions, as

well as trends in States such as Oklahoma and Oregon, which have more restrictive regulations.

ONDCP will work with State legislators seeking to introduce precursor­related legislation to

provide the most updated and informative scientific research available. For example, in 2005,

some States exempted from regulation gelatin capsules or liquid products containing pseudoephedrine, believing that these products could not be converted into methamphetamine.26

Although it is more difficult to use these products in the production of the drug, law enforcement chemists have in fact been able to use these products to produce methamphetamine. Such

information is important for State policy makers to consider.

Identifying Meth Chemical Buyers

i

phetamine production in the United States. For

example, in 2001, it developed the Precursor

chemicals and reduce the manufacture of methamers and by funding multimedia public awareness

relationships between law enforcement and precursor chemical retailers and wholesalers.

Oregon State Police have designed a methamphetamine precursor database that houses precursor

available 24 hours a day for law enforcement

ized by county of purchase. The database feeds the

identify suspicious purchases by persons who may

The Central Valley HIDTA has spearheaded several

nitiatives that create partnerships among retailers

and law enforcement agencies to reduce methamVendor Program to identify buyers of precursor

phetamine. Additionally, many HIDTAs have supported retail watch programs by supplying

brochures and other educational materials to retailtraining programs in an effort to support working

In another related initiative, the Oregon HIDTA and

chemical sales records that can be queried and

used to identify patterns of abuse. The database is

investigators and analysts, while reports are itemprecursor chemical tracking program by helping to

be producing methamphetamine.

Additionally, the Administration will continue to monitor alternative sources of pseudoephedrine, including the acquisition of pseudoephedrine over the Internet. This may be particularly relevant in States with more stringent restrictions on in­person sales of pseudoephedrine

than the Federal restrictions impose. Anecdotal information from a few law enforcement 

agencies suggests that some methamphetamine cooks are looking to the Internet to purchase

pseudoephedrine; no data yet indicate, however, that this is emerging as a primary source of

chemicals. The limits on amounts of pseudoephedrine sold to any individual in the Combat

26 See Restrictions on Over­the­Counter Sales/Purchases of Products Containing Pseudoephedrine, Alliance for Model State

Drug Laws, March 8, 2006, available at <www.natlalliance.org>.    

24
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Meth Act apply to Internet transactions and include verification and reporting requirements.

Such tools will assist law enforcement in responding to illicit Internet sales of pseudoephedrine

Methamphetamine in Tribal Areas

Included in the Administration’s efforts to work with State governments will be its partnership with tribal authorities. Tribal law enforcement officers are steadily coming into contact

with methamphetamine and methamphetamine labs. The DOJ will expand training for tribal

law enforcement officers in methamphetamine use and laboratory awareness, recognition, and

investigation and in officer­safety issues related to methamphetamine. The DOJ, supported by

the National Narcotics Officers Association, will work with other Federal agencies, such as the

DOT and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, to coordinate and support this training.

Improving Data on Methamphetamine Laboratories

The collection of data regarding the number of methamphetamine laboratories found every

month in each State is critical to keeping Federal and State policy makers apprised as to which

State approaches work best to reduce local methamphetamine production. These data can also

influence funding and is central to identifying strategies that can best address the problem of

methamphetamine production. 

The central mechanism for tracking domestic methamphetamine laboratory numbers is the

CLSS, part of the DEA’s EPIC and funded by the HIDTA program. EPIC’s CLSS relies on State

policy and police officials to quickly and accurately report laboratory seizures into this central

database. However, there is sometimes a disparity in the timeliness and completeness of reporting from states. Problems include:

• Time lag in reporting. Methamphetamine laboratory numbers tend to “stabilize”—in

other words, the reporting from States is mostly complete—after six months or even

longer. States should set a goal of reducing the stabilization period to three months or

less.

• Decentralized/incomplete reporting. Not all State, county, and city law enforcement

agencies report laboratory numbers, leading to an incomplete picture of methamphetamine lab trends in that State. The Administration will encourage all States to centralize

their reporting process, using a common definition of what constitutes a methamphetamine lab incident.

Toward this end, ONDCP has already released voluntary standards to top drug policy officials in all 50 States. ONDCP and the DEA will work closely with these State officials over the

coming year to improve data collection in this area.27

Improved reporting may result in an artificial rise in reported methamphetamine labs to EPIC’s CLSS. As States improve the

speed and completeness of their reporting, EPIC will be counting a greater proportion of methamphetamine labs that actually

exist, including those that might not have previously been reported to EPIC. ONDCP and the DEA will evaluate, at some point

near the end of 2006, whether improvements in the reporting of methamphetamine lab incidents are significant enough to warrant

a “data­break” in our counting of methamphetamine labs (meaning that data after 2006 may not be comparable to earlier years).    

25

27
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Treating Methamphetamine Users

A critical element in reducing demand for methamphetamine is to ensure that those who need

treatment get the help they need. The Federal government supports State efforts in this area

through grants and other programs. The Administration will continue to support State and local

treatment activities as part of the national strategy to reduce demand for methamphetamine and

other synthetic drugs. 

Treatment and Research

There is a common misperception that methamphetamine is so addictive that it is impossible

to treat. There is no doubt as to the addictive nature of the drug or that in many cases, longer

and more committed intervention is necessary. The Administration is committed to increasing

support to State and local programs that work, such as model drug court and treatment programs. At the same time, the Administration is working to enhance scientific understanding of

effective treatment options for synthetic drug treatment. 

The National Institute for Drug Abuse (NIDA) is continuing to research the most effective

way of treating methamphetamine addiction. At present, the most effective treatments for

methamphetamine addiction appear to be cognitive behavioral interventions, similar to those

used for cocaine abusers. These approaches are designed to help modify the patient's thinking,

expectations, and behaviors and to increase life skills. Additionally, methamphetamine recovery

support groups also appear to be effective adjuncts to behavioral interventions that can lead to

long­term drug­free recovery. 

Additionally, in spring 2006, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

(SAMHSA) held two regional meetings with States on methamphetamine.28 The summits were

specifically designed for those State agency staff involved in developing, regulating, and funding

methamphetamine treatment. The summits were geared toward program administrators and clinicians responsible for frontline treatment. A major aim of the summits was to help participants

better connect science to practice and thus strengthen the likelihood of positive outcomes for

clients with methamphetamine problems. 

Drug Courts

As noted in the 2006 National Strategy, the Administration continues to support drug courts

as an innovative approach for helping nonviolent offenders achieve drug­free lives. The coercive

power of the courts, together with the support of family, friends, and counselors, has been

shown to be an effective mechanism for achieving drug abstinence and reducing recidivism. One

study has shown that 43.5 percent of offenders who did not participate in drug court programs

are rearrested for a serious offense, while only 16.4 percent of drug court graduates are rearrested.29 For Fiscal Year 2007, the President has requested a significant increase in support to States

for drug courts above the enacted Fiscal Year 2006 level. 

28 April 5­7 and May 23­25. 29 J. Roman, W. Townsend, and A. Bhati (2003, July). National estimates of drug court recidivism rates. Washington, DC:

National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. These figures are for all drug court participants, not just those with a 

history of methamphetamine use. 

26
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Access to Recovery

In 2003, President Bush announced the Access to Recovery (ATR) program. ATR is a 

voucher­based program intended to expand consumer choice and access to effective substance

abuse treatment and recovery support services, including faith­based providers. In August of

2004, SAMHSA awarded grants to 14 States and one tribal organization. It is estimated that this

cohort of grantees will serve approximately 125,000 individuals over the three­year life of the

grants.

Two examples of States specifically focusing on methamphetamine as part of their ATR program are Tennessee, which has a special focus on persons abusing or addicted to methamphetamine in rural and Appalachia areas, and Wyoming. 

In the President’s 2007 budget, the ATR program has been expanded to include approximately

$25 million in vouchers for methamphetamine treatment that will fund approximately 10 grants

to State applicants whose epidemiological data indicate high methamphetamine prevalence.

Treatment in Rural Areas

In August 2005, SAMHSA’s Programs of Regional and National Significance (PRNS)

announced 11 new, three­year grants to provide treatment for methamphetamine abuse and

other emerging drugs for adults residing in rural communities. These grants total $5.4 million for

the first year and approximately $16.2 million for all three years.

These new grants, as well as the six PRNS grants awarded in 2004 through this program, support treatment in rural areas that have been particularly hard­hit by methamphetamine abuse.

Although studies indicate that the prevalence of methamphetamine use has remained roughly

constant, the number of persons obtaining treatment for methamphetamine abuse has increased

dramatically—up nearly 8 percent from 2002 to 2003, continuing a trend seen since 1993.30 In

Arkansas, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Utah, more than 20 percent of

drug treatment admissions were due to methamphetamine abuse; Iowa’s rate is just over 19 percent. In comparison, methamphetamine and amphetamine account for 7.4 percent of substance

abuse treatment admissions nationally.31

30 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Treatment Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies. Treatment Episodes Data

Set (TEDS): 1993­2003. National Admissions to Substance Abuse Treatment Services, DASIS Series: S­29, DHHS Publication No.

(SMA) 05­4118, Rockville, MD, 2005.  31 Ibid.

27
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Prevention: Setting a National Standard

Research

The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) continues to support research to develop effective drug abuse prevention programs. In 2003, NIDA revised its Preventing Drug Use Among

Children and Adolescents: A Research­Based Guide for Parents, Educators, and Community

Leaders, which presents updated research­based prevention principles, an overview of program

planning, and critical first steps for those learning about prevention. Because the goal of drug

abuse prevention efforts is to prevent the initiation of drug use, most of these prevention efforts

are not targeted toward any specific drug. However, recent results also demonstrate that these

universal prevention programs can be effective at reducing methamphetamine abuse specifically.

32

National Youth Anti­Drug Media Campaign

The commercials supported by ONDCP and the Partnership for a Drug­Free America (PDFA)

have been an important tool in reducing youth drug use by 19 percent since 2001. The concept

is simple: Using television, the Internet, and other media to disseminate information, youth and

parents are given tools and information to make better decisions about illicit drugs. 

The National Youth Anti­Drug Media Campaign has primarily disseminated information

about marijuana because it is overwhelmingly the drug of choice for most youth.33 Starting in

advertising campaign to highlight

the dangers of methamphetamine.

The anti­methamphetamine media

campaign and the utilization of these

commercials by the communities

late 2005, however, ONDCP and

PDFA launched a new television

most affected by methamphetamine are important components of the Administration’s plan to

prevent the use of the drug among both youth and the general population. 

32 Spoth et al., in press, Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine. 33 Source: Monitoring the Future study.

28
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

The anti­methamphetamine campaign was launched in Springfield, Missouri, and is being

expanded to 23 cities nationwide. The campaign challenges individuals to learn more about the

threats methamphetamine poses to both their families and communities with two main themes:

“So, Who Has the Drug Problem Now?” and “End Meth in Your Town.” The real­life stories

of people affected by methamphetamine are combined with scenarios that depict the unique secondhand threat methamphetamine poses to communities at large. An important component of

the ultimate success of this campaign will be for local radio and television stations to continue

to voluntarily air these commercials.

Strategic Prevention Framework

SAMHSA’s Strategic Prevention Framework (SPF) is an ambitious effort to decrease substance

use and abuse, promote mental health, prevent mental disorders, and reduce disability, comorbidity, and relapse related to substance abuse and use. The SPF implements a five­step process to

promote positive youth development, reduce risk­taking behaviors, build assets and resilience,

and prevent problem behaviors. Adopting this approach to prevention can assist communities

and families that are potentially vulnerable to methamphetamine and its negative consequences.

29
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Controlled Substance

Prescription Drug Abuse

The Administration has set a goal of a 15­percent reduction in the abuse, sometimes called the

nonmedical use, of prescription drugs by the end of 2008. This is an ambitious goal. Prescription

drugs account for the second­most commonly abused category of drugs, behind marijuana and

ahead of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and other drugs. Achieving this goal will require

reducing the number of those abusing prescription drugs as well as reversing a rising trend.

The Administration’s approach to this problem strives to balance two general policy concerns.

The first is to be aggressive in reducing controlled substance prescription drug abuse. The second

is to avoid overreaching and making the lawful acquisition of controlled substance prescription

drugs unduly cumbersome. The Administration is committed to balancing the need for prevention,

education, and enforcement with the need for legitimate access to controlled substance prescription drugs. 

Age 12 or Older Age 12 to 17 Age 18 to 25 Age 26 to Older

Number Number Number Number

(in millions) (in millions) Percent (in millions) Percent (in millions) Percent

Prescription Drugs

Past Month 6.0 2.5 0.914 3.6 2.0 6.1 3.1 1.7

14.6 6.1 2.2 8.8 4.8 14.8 7.7 4.2

Pain Relievers

Past Month 4.4 1.8 0.751 3.0 1.5 4.7 2.1 1.2

11.3 4.7 1.9 7.4 3.8 11.9 5.6 3.0

Past Month 1.6 0.7 0.161 0.6 0.566 1.8 0.889 0.5

5.1 2.1 0.532 2.1 1.7 5.2 2.9 1.6

Drug Category Percent

Past Year

Past Year

Tranquilizers

Past Year

Controlled Substance Prescription Drug Abuse by Category and Age Group*

*Nonmedical use of prescription­type pain relievers, tranquilizers, stimulants (including methamphetamine), or sedatives;

does not include over­the­counter drugs.

Source: National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2005.

In developing a strategy to balance these priorities, the Administration has worked to acquire

better data as to how people who abuse controlled substance prescriptions acquire the drugs. This

question highlights an important difference between drugs such as heroin or marijuana and controlled substance prescription drugs. The former, being presumptively illegal, are often obtained

through secretive and dangerous transactions. However, controlled substance prescription drugs

are available for legitimate purposes through one’s physician and pharmacy. Mechanisms that are

otherwise legal are often manipulated to acquire controlled substance prescription drugs for illegal

purposes. As such, typical drug control strategies focused on clandestine drugs do not necessarily

lend themselves to a strategy for controlled substance prescription drugs. 

31 
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Common methods of controlled substance prescription drug diversion include: 

• Doctor shopping or other prescription fraud

• Illegal online pharmacies

• Theft and burglary (from residences, pharmacies, etc.)

• Stereotypical drug dealing (selling pills to others)

• Receiving from friends or family, often for little or no cost

• Overprescribing (negligent or occasionally even intentional overprescribing by physicians or other prescribers) 

Although general methods of diversion have been identified, what is not yet adequately

understood is the relative proportion of these methods of diversion (which methods are the

most common, which are less so, and in what proportion). Helpful data of this sort is just

beginning to emerge. To improve the national understanding of this problem, the 2005 National

Survey on Drug Use and Health for the first time asked questions attempting to delineate these

methods of diversion. These data are expected to be released in September 2006. The 2006

Survey will seek even more detailed data from respondents. 

Doctor Shopping and Prescription Fraud

The 2004, 2005, and 2006 National Strategies recognized the problem of prescription drug

diversion via “doctor shopping.” Generally, this term refers to the visit by an individual—who

32

Prescription Drug Monitoring Program Status as of April 2006

Source: ONDCP, State and Local Affairs, April 2006

FL

NM

DE

MD

TX

OK

KS

NE

SD

MT ND

WY

CO

UT

ID

AZ

NV

WA

CA

OR

KY

ME

NY

PA

MI

VTNH

MA

RI

CT

WV VA

OH IL IN

NC TN

SC

MS AL

AR

LA

MO

IA

MN

WI

NJ

GA

HI

AK

PDMP Status

(as of April 2006)

Active

Proposed

No Legislation

Approved

The International Market Methamphetamine Precursors

United States

Canada

Mexico

hina

ndia

urma

See

nset

Left

ee Inset

Below

See Inset

Below

Germany

Switzerland

taly

rance

elgium

Pseudoephedrine/ephedrine producers

Methamphetamine source countries

Pseudoephedrine/ephedrine exporters

Taiwan

hilippines

Singapore
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

may or may not have legitimate medical needs—to several doctors, each of whom writes a prescription for a controlled substance. The individual will visit several pharmacies, receiving more

of the drug than intended by any single physician, typically for the purpose of feeding an addiction. Associated illegal activities may include the forgery of prescriptions, further multiplying the

extent of diversion, or the sale or transfer of the drug to others. Unfortunately, in many States,

physicians and pharmacists have not been able to automatically cross­check other prescriptions

given to the same patient.

In 2004, the Administration announced its intent to respond to this problem by supporting

Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs). That commitment continues as part of the

Synthetics Strategy. PDMPs help cut down

on prescription fraud and doctor shopping

by giving physicians and pharmacists more

complete information about a patient’s controlled substance prescriptions. These programs vary by State, but generally share the

characteristic of allowing prescribers (e.g., a

physician) and dispensers (e.g., a pharmacist) to input and receive accurate and timely controlled substance prescription history

information while ensuring patient access to

needed treatment. Most States also have

some mechanism for law enforcement to

receive this information in cases where

criminal activity is suspected. Health care

providers can use this information as a tool

for the early identification of patients at risk for addiction in order to initiate appropriate medical interventions, and the justice system can use this information to assist in the enforcement of

laws controlling the sale and use of controlled substance prescription medication.

Drug Abuse Prevention

address the growing abuse of OxyContin® and

monitored Schedule II controlled substances in one

State­defined health district. By November 2004,

the database contained over 460,000 prescriptions, and over 1,000 requests for data had been

successful in addressing diversion that legislation

was passed in 2005 to extend the program to the

entire State beginning in FY 2006. The program

will capture data for all Schedule II–IV prescriptions.

Virginia: Investing in Prescription

In 2003, the State of Virginia implemented a limited

PDMP in the southwestern portion of the State to

other prescription drugs. Virginia’s limited PDMP

processed. Virginia’s limited PDMP proved to be so

At the beginning of this Administration, approximately 15 PDMPs were in existence in the

Nation. The program has steadily expanded, such that today, there are 28 States with active or

planned PDMPs—nearly double the number in existence in 2001. The Administration will

encourage all States to adopt these programs by the end of 2008. 

A critical avenue of Federal support for States is through the Harold Rogers Prescription

Drug Monitoring Grants Program at the DOJ. These grants can be used to implement or

enhance PDMPs at the State level. The President has requested that Congress provide $9.9 million for the program in Fiscal Year 2007 in order to expand the program to new States and

enhance the program where it already exists.34 The priorities of the Administration with respect

to PDMPs are to:

• Work with States that have PDMPs to obtain better data as to the extent and nature of

the controlled substance prescription drug abuse threat.

States can receive up to $350,000 to launch a PDMP—an amount most States have found more than adequate for start­up

costs and the first year of operation. 

33

34
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

• Encourage the expansion of the PDMP program nationwide (as indicated by the map

on page 32, in addition to the 28 States with active or planned PDMPs, several other

States, shown in yellow, have introduced legislation to authorize a PDMP). 

• Share best practices information with States that already have PDMPs (e.g., on costeffectiveness, the benefits to monitoring all scheduled controlled substances, and measuring performance). 

In addition, HHS will, as required by law, issue a report regarding whether the implementation of these programs has had a substantial negative effect on patient access to treatment,

including therapy for pain or controlled substance abuse; pediatric patient access to treatment;

or patient enrollment in research or clinical trials in which, following the protocol that has been

approved by the relevant institutional review board for the research or clinical trial, the patient

has obtained a controlled substance from either the scientific investigator conducting such

research or clinical trial or the agent thereof. The Administration will work to ensure that controlled substance prescription drug monitoring efforts in the States balance and support the

needs of individual patients, the health care system, and law enforcement. 

Illegal Online Pharmacies

As the number of Americans with Internet access has increased, so too have opportunities for

individuals to acquire controlled substance prescription drugs over the Internet. There are

strong societal benefits from allowing individuals with a valid prescription to get their prescriptions over the Internet, as long as the Internet pharmacy is a legitimate one. This may be helpful

in rural areas or for individuals who are homebound due to illness or other factors. However,

the anonymity of the Internet and the proliferation of Web sites that facilitate illicit transactions

for controlled substance prescription drugs have given drug abusers the ability to circumvent the

law as well as sound medical practice.

There are legitimate pharmacies that provide services over the Internet and that operate well

within the bounds of both the law and sound medical practice. However, they are far outnumbered by the legion of rogue online pharmacy Web sites and other sites that link Internet users

to those sites where controlled substances can actually be ordered without a valid prescription.

The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy has established a registry of pharmacies that

operate online and meet certain criteria, including compliance with licensing and inspection

requirements of their State and each State to which they dispense pharmaceuticals. 

By contrast, other Web sites used by Internet facilitators will often advertise themselves as

pharmacies, but they do not operate in the same manner as brick­and­mortar pharmacies. Many

of these Web sites advertise controlled substances without a prescription. Such online Web sites

usually act as a facilitator, or middleman, between an individual seeking controlled substance

prescription drugs and a doctor and a pharmacy willing to provide these drugs without determining whether the individual has a legitimate medical need. 

Of particular concern is the cursory and abbreviated nature of the medical interaction. The

Internet facilitator will provide only a cursory doctor consultation by computer or telephone for

34
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

customers, which is not meant to elicit meaningful health information. The doctor writing the

prescription will never actually see the patient to verify the information provided by the individual. As such, many Web sites have no way of verifying the age of the recipient. Unlike when the

patient sees the doctor, a minor can easily log onto a Web site and fill out an inaccurate age.

Doctors, who are often paid by the number of prescriptions they sign in these situations, have

no incentive to spend time seeking additional patient information. Law enforcement has discovered Web site­affiliated doctors who sign hundreds or thousands of prescriptions a day. After

receiving the prescription from the doctor, the facilitator will then submit the prescription to a

cooperating pharmacy. Because there is no identifying information on the Web site, it is difficult

for law enforcement to track any of the individuals behind the Web site. 

The Administration is already using available tools, conducting investigations of rogue

Internet­facilitator Web sites and working to intercept controlled substance prescriptions illegally sent into the United States through the mail system. For example, the DEA’s Internet investigation unit at its Special Operations Division continues to coordinate Internet cases, and the

DEA has issued immediate suspensions of numerous Internet pharmacies. DOJ has prosecuted

doctors and pharmacies who illegally distribute via the Internet. However, in the

Administration’s Interim Report, this problem was identified as one for which Federal legislation is required.35 States can also play a significant role in addressing the problem of online facilitators, particularly through PDMPs. As part of the Administration’s work with States regarding

PDMPs over the next three years, States will be encouraged to consider addressing, either by

statute, regulation, or interstate agreement, situations in which:

• Pharmacies in the State dispense or deliver controlled substance prescription drugs to 

an address of a patient in another State.

• Pharmacies or other dispensers located in another State dispense or deliver controlled

substance prescription drugs to an address of a patient in their own State.

• Pharmacies or other dispensers in another State that dispense or deliver controlled substance prescription drugs to a patient with an official address in their own State.

The Administration will continue to use the tools at its disposal to target, investigate, prosecute, and dismantle illicit online pharmacies. 

Improper Prescribing

The overwhelming majority of prescribing in America is conducted responsibly, but the small

number of physicians who overprescribe controlled substances—carelessly at best, knowingly at

worst—help supply America's second most widespread drug addiction problem. Although the

problem exists, the number of physicians responsible for this problem is a very small fraction of

those licensed to prescribe controlled substances in the United States.

35

The 2005 Interim Report of the Synthetic Drug Interagency Working Group stated “Federal legislation [is] necessary to

ensure that online pharmacies adequately identify themselves to consumers. The law must be clarified to ensure that controlled

substances are only dispensed for a legitimate medical purpose in the usual course of a doctor’s professional practice, and not on

the basis of a suspect online questionnaire where the doctor never sets eye on the consumer.”  35
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

While conducting investigations related to improper prescribing, among other things, law

enforcement looks to whether the prescribing is consistent with sound medical judgment and

prevailing medical standards. As part of the Administration's strategy to reduce opportunities to

divert controlled substance prescriptions, law enforcement will continue to examine situations

where prescribers write prescriptions for an unusually and obviously high number of controlled

substances absent legitimate circumstances. 

Sharing Among Family and Friends

Preliminary data suggest that the most common way in which controlled substance prescriptions are diverted may be through friends and family.36 For example, a person with a lawful

and medical need for some amount of a controlled substance uses only a portion of the prescribed amount. Then a family member complains of pain, and the former patient shares excess

medication. Alternatively, for a family member addicted to controlled substance prescription

drugs, the mere availability of unused controlled substance prescriptions in the house may prove

to be an irresistible temptation.

The solution to this problem lies both with the medical community and in a renewed public

commitment to dispose of unused and unneeded medications quickly and safely. With respect to

the medical community, it is important that prescribers consider the potential for abuse of controlled substances and prescribe only the amount of a controlled substance required medically.

Patients must also be educated about the legal and social ramifications of providing a controlled

substance to a friend or family member. It is not merely illegal, but could feed, or lead to, an

addiction. 

The Administration’s strategy in this area involves a closer partnership with the medical community, as well as a public education campaign. In 2006, the Administration will call together

representatives of the medical and pharmaceutical communities to discuss the problem and to

encourage medical professionals and pharmaceutical companies to take a leading role in educating patients as to the importance of quickly and safely disposing of unneeded medications. 

36 Special data run for ONDCP, Preliminary data from the 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health; data are for the

first half of the year and are unweighted. 

36
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

“AFTERMETH”: Following the Aftermath 

of Methamphetamine Production

As noted at the beginning of the Synthetics Strategy, the core objectives of both this document and the National Strategy relate to reducing drug use and/or production. Until this section, discussion has been limited to initiatives and policy developments that will contribute

directly or indirectly to those core objectives. Improving the national understanding of how to

respond to methamphetamine laboratories in American neighborhoods will not directly contribute to those core performance measures, but it is nevertheless critically important. 

The Administration aims for a dramatic decline in methamphetamine laboratories over the

next three years, but even one methamphetamine laboratory carries potentially severe consequences that last far beyond the production process, both to human health and the environment. Those affected may include first responders to methamphetamine laboratories, such as

police, firefighters, and medical personnel; those who transport chemicals away from the laboratory site; current owners and subsequent purchasers of real or personal property; neighbors;

and children found at or near laboratory sites. Also, improper disposal of the byproducts of

methamphetamine production can adversely impact the environment. 

The purpose of this section of the Synthetics Strategy is not to describe the dangers associated

with methamphetamine laboratory production. Those hazards have been well noted in other

publications.37 Rather, this section commits the Administration to a plan to expand and improve

the knowledge base regarding the proper environmental response to methamphetamine laboratories, based on the best scientific research available.

This section focuses on three areas of inquiry:

• What we currently know about securing methamphetamine laboratory sites: the 

short­term response to methamphetamine laboratories by police, cleanup personnel,

firefighters, and medical personnel; the subsequent response by cleanup personnel; 

and the safe transport of chemicals seized and removed from the sites.

• What we know about remediation, and developing a national standard or guideline for

“how clean is clean” based on a better understanding of acceptable levels of risk 

at former methamphetamine laboratories. 

• Our national response when children are found in or near methamphetamine 

laboratories.

This section also discusses the state of the science and technology of site securing, cleanup,

transportation, and remediation and proposes practices and/or policies that reflect the latest

understanding of the associated health risks, methodologies, and technologies available to site

responders. Some of the States and agencies most affected by methamphetamine abuse and laboratory remediation have written detailed guidelines for responding to the toxic hazards associated with post­production discoveries. 

See Footnote 13. 

37 

37
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

The First 24 Hours: Securing Laboratory Sites

In the National Synthetic Drugs Action Plan and subsequent Interim Report, the

Administration committed to updating and releasing the “Red Book,”38 DEA’s compendium of

procedures for how to approach and secure clandestine laboratories, making them as safe as

possible for police, firefighters, medical personnel, and other officials with an immediate need to

enter the site. Following through on this promise, the Red Book, originally published in March

1990, has been updated and will be re­released this year.39

The Synthetics Strategy discussion relating to this topic is necessarily brief and is not intended

as a substitute for a comprehensive review of the Red Book by first responders. States and localities are urged to review the Red Book in its entirety for a detailed review of procedures to 

Chemical Flammability*

Acetic anhydride Moderate Moderate

Anhydrous Ammonia High N/A Rapid asphyxia

Benzene Moderate­High High Blood Disorders; Carcinogen

Moderate Low Disorientation, unconsciousness; 

Probable carcinogen

Cyclohexane Low High

Ethyl Ether N/A High

Ethanol Low High Disorientation

Hydrogen Cyanide Extreme Low Rapid asphyxia

High Low

Hydriodic Acid High Low Irritant; Corrosive

N/A Mod

Iodine N/A Mod Oxidizer; Corrosive

Lead Acetate High Low Blood Disorders

Lithium Aluminum Hydride Moderate High

High Low Irritant; Corrosive

Methylamine High Extreme

Petroleum Ether Low Extreme Disorientation, unconsciousness

Phenylacetic Acid Low Low Irritant

Piperdine Moderate High Corrosive

Low Low Reactive; Explosive

High Low May cause cancer

Sodium (metal) High Low

N/A N/A

Thionyl Chloride High Low

Typical Chemicals Found in Clandestine Drug Laboratories

Toxicity* Other Properities/Effects

Irritant; Corrosive

Chloroform

Irritant

May form peroxides; Irritant

Hydrochloric Acid Irritant; Corrosive

Hypophosphorus Acid Corrosive

Water reactive; Explosive

Mercury Chloride

Corrosive

Red Phosphorus

Safrole

Water reactive; Corrosive

Sodium hydroxide Corrosive

Water reactive; Corrosive

* Based primarily on National Fire Protection Association Standards

38 “Guidelines for the Cleanup of Clandestine Drug Laboratories ­ 2005 Edition,” Drug Enforcement Administration.  39 When released, the Red Book will be available on the DEA’s Web site <www.dea.gov>. 

38
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

follow when securing these sites. What is important to note is that the Red Book describes recommended procedures for responding to clandestine laboratories, contains substantial information about who to contact in various situations, and also discusses the support that the DOJ,

through the DEA, provides to State and local authorities in securing and cleaning up clandestine

drug laboratories. 

How Clean is Clean? Understanding Remediation

The previous several paragraphs dealt primarily with the immediate response to clandestine

drug laboratories. Compared to first responder issues, a more complicated and less understood

area of science is the optimal set and sequencing of response actions at former methamphetamine lab sites that may possess residual chemical contamination. Remediation occurs after the

chemicals and gross contamination have been removed, and the site is secured and no longer

subject to criminal investigation. Currently, remediation involves utilizing recognized procedures

and technology­based standards to restore former methamphetamine labs to a State in which

the property can be inhabited again—or instead identify properties that are not yet ready for

reoccupation and must undergo further treatment. 

It is important to better develop this science. Some recent studies have highlighted the length

of time that chemicals used in methamphetamine production can remain in carpet, walls, floorboards, or other structures.40 The attendant and continuing toxicity of these chemicals are

potentially a significant health hazard for subsequent inhabitants of the property, many of

whom may be unaware as to the status of the property and its use as a former methamphetamine laboratory. 

Although defining acceptable levels of risk for the presence of individual chemicals is important, more pressing challenges include understanding how long the chemicals may remain after

methamphetamine production, what signs should alert a property owner to the existence of

these chemicals, and the best means of assessing risk and at what junctures. Even more complicated are questions related to the various legal implications attendant to ownership or control

over a former methamphetamine lab site, including the duty to disclose a former lab site, the liability of a current or former owner as well as culpable renters, insurance­related issues, and the

duty of agents of property sellers to disclose pertinent information.

Much of the development of law and policy in this area has occurred and will likely continue

to occur in States, counties, and cities, including questions of liability and responsibility.41

However, the onus for scientific inquiry will largely belong to the Federal government and private researchers. As part of the Administration’s Synthetics Strategy, the Government aims to

improve our national understanding of identifying the point at which former methamphetamine

laboratories become clean enough to inhabit again. By January 2008, the Administration, led by

the EPA in close coordination with the DEA, will publish guidelines identifying the best practices (beyond the compilation of State guidelines that currently exists) and include any relevant

findings from the research effort described below for the remediation of former methamphetamine laboratories. 

40 See, e.g., A 24­hour Study to Investigate Chemical Exposures Associated with Clandestine Methamphetamine Laboratories,

August 11, 2005, Martyny, Erb, et. al., National Jewish Medical and Research Center.  41 See, e.g., Washington State Senate Bill 6239.

39
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

The Federal government also aims to release by January 2011 draft Federal health­based

guidelines for remediation. Once again, the scientific basis for these guidelines will rely on the

results of the research effort described below. The EPA, in close coordination with DEA,42 will

be primarily responsible for developing these guidelines. 

History: Previous Inquiries on Remediation

In 1990, a Joint Federal Task Force, made up of representatives from the DEA, the EPA, and

the United States Coast Guard and established under the Anti­Drug Abuse Act of 1988, issued

guidelines to assist State and local officials conducting clandestine laboratory cleanups. These

guidelines presented a framework for the entire process of cleaning up clandestine laboratories

and integrated EPA approaches for cleaning up hazardous waste sites with the experiences of

DEA field investigators and EPA emergency response staff. 

Since the release of those guidelines, some States have issued standards, guidelines, and suggested practices for remediation. The primary emphasis and focus of State strategies is on the

suitability of the property for unrestricted rehabitation or use. Typically, the State lead agency or

local health department assumes responsibility for evaluating the site and associated documentation to determine the need for remediation action. 

As with the 1990 endeavors, recommended practices will be crafted as part of a collaborative

effort with other Federal agencies. The recommendations will reflect commonalities and lessons

learned from State­specific guidelines, as augmented by the latest science and research developed

by the EPA with support from the DEA and other agencies. 

Research Strategy Development

Within six months, the Administration, led by the EPA in cooperation with the DEA, will

publish a “Laboratory Aftermeth” research strategy, which will identify the types of research

needed to support Federal health­based guidelines for remediating methamphetamine laboratories. This strategy will, in addition to other topics, include:

• Evaluation of existing methods and development of new methods to quantify residual

concentrations and associated environmental exposures associated with different 

methods of producing methamphetamine (e.g., red phosphorous, lithium/ammonia) in

different types of structures (e.g., single family homes, apartments, hotel rooms) with

different types of furnishings (e.g., furniture, flooring, wall treatments).

• Evaluation of existing methods and development of new methods to assess potential

contamination in mechanical systems (e.g., ventilation systems, plumbing, septic tanks)

and the surrounding environment (e.g., soil, wells) and associated exposure risks. 

42 As noted in the Red Book, one of the two enduring policies that have guided and driven the DEA Clandestine Laboratory

Cleanup Program, sent to the President in 1989 in a joint letter from the Administrators of DEA and EPA, presented the two agencies’ agreement that law enforcement’s job is complete with respect to the cleanup of a clandestine laboratory after 1) the removal

of the evidence, chemicals and contaminated apparatus; 2) posting of a notice at the site; and 3) written notification to the 

property owner, health department, and environmental agency. Remediation of the property, although a potentially significant

health and environmental concern, is not within the purview of the law enforcement agency seizing an illegal drug laboratory.  

40
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

• Comparison of environmental contamination levels and exposures to existing toxicity

(human and ecological) data on methamphetamine, its precursors, and its byproducts;

where needed, providing new toxicity data for those exposures anticipated to pose the

greatest potential risks.

• Evaluation of the effectiveness and unintended byproducts of different approaches for

reducing residual methamphetamine and associated exposures (e.g., elevated temperature and ventilation rates, bleaching).

Completing this program of research expeditiously will require a combination of field work,

chamber studies, and modeling. The Administration will work with and draw upon the research

of others in accomplishing this ambitious effort. Upon completion of this effort, a workshop

will be held to discuss the respective roles of both Federal agencies and others in implementing

this strategy. 

Helping Child Victims of Methamphetamine

Over the last several years, a number of stories in the media have highlighted the toll that

methamphetamine production takes on young children—uniquely vulnerable to toxicity and

poisoning and victims of, not participants in, their parents’ or other adults’ illegal production of

methamphetamine. A core element of the Administration’s response to this has been the support

of Drug Endangered Children (DEC) alliances within States and training throughout the Nation.

DEC programs train first responders and other authorities on the best way to help and protect

children who are found in the vicinity of methamphetamine production or who are identified

through methamphetamine investigations. At present, this training has been provided in 28

States. To improve and enhance support of this program:

• ONDCP will work with State legislatures and policy makers throughout the Nation to

encourage all 50 States to have personnel trained in DEC procedures by 2008.

• DOJ will continue support for DEC training carried out by the National Alliance for

Drug Endangered Children and will disseminate information on best practices to professionals in relevant multiple disciplines; DOJ will also establish a National DEC

Coordinating Council, which will be cochaired by HHS, to improve collaboration

between Federal and State DEC partners; additionally, DOJ will establish DEC protocols and expand training in conjunction with tribal authorities to address DEC issues in

Indian Country.

• HHS will continue to emphasize issues related to the well­being of drug endangered

children. For example:

• SAMHSA, through its Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, will continue to

require coordination with DEC programs as a component of the Juvenile and

Family Drug Court grants. 

41
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

• SAMHSA and the Administration on Children, Youth, and Families (ACYF),

through their jointly funded National Center on Substance Abuse and Child

Welfare (NCSACW), will provide, if requested, technical assistance to communities and/or States that are providing DEC trainings.43

• Additionally, SAMHSA and ACYF held a national conference,

Methamphetamine: Child Welfare Impact and Response, May 8–9, 2006 which

addressed DEC issues, and included participation from State Alcohol and Drug

Abuse Directors, State Child Welfare Directors, and other related disciplines.

• In order to better understand the developmental consequences of prenatal

methamphetamine exposure, NIDA is supporting a large­scale study evaluating

methamphetamine effects on cognition, social relationships, motor skills, and

medical status and is comparing outcomes to well­matched controls for socioeconomic status and other variables in seven hospitals in Iowa, Oklahoma,

California, and Hawaii—States where methamphetamine abuse is prevalent. 

• NIDA is supporting a study, in cooperation with the Los Angeles Drug

Endangered Children Program and the Los Angeles Department of Children and

Family Services, to investigate the medical and developmental outcomes of

methamphetamine­exposed children as well as the child welfare case management services treatment and placement outcomes for these children.

The aforementioned four regional methamphetamine conferences in 2006, which are being

planned and conducted by the National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws, will include DEC

best practices and implementation.

43 Technical assistance will be provided to the extent possible using available funds. 

42
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Appendix

Status of National Synthetic Drugs Action Plan Recommendations

This appendix lists the status of the 46 recommendations of the National Synthetic Drugs

Action Plan. As in the May 2005 Interim Report to the Attorney General, Secretary of Health

and Human Service, and Director of National Drug Control Policy from the Synthetic Drug

Interagency Working Group, the Synthetic Drug Interagency Working Group (SDIWG) reports

these recommendations in three categories. Where necessary, the recommendation is followed

by a brief explanation as to its status.

Category A: Recommendations that have been completed, are in progress, or are 

ongoing (45) 

Category B: Recommendations with which there is substantial agreement in principle but

which will require Federal legislation to be fully effective (1) 

Category C: Recommendations regarding which one or more Federal agencies participating

in the SGIWG determined merit further discussion (0) 

The SDIWG is a multiagency working group that is co­chaired by the Office of National

Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services (HHS). It is additionally composed of members from the

Department of Transportation (DOT), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs

and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Substance Abuse and

Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), United States Trade Representative (USTR),

United States Department of State (DOS), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Drug

Enforcement Administration (DEA). 

Category A: Recommendations that are completed or ongoing.

1. Develop an Early Alert and Response Mechanism. Establish a comprehensive, 

interagency early warning and response system to detect the emergence of new drugs

and trends.

Status: The Early Alert and Response Mechanism is led by the DEA and utilizes a 

combination of DEA’s Methamphetamine Task Force (MTF) and other information

capabilities regarding controlled substance prescription drug abuse. The MTF collects

investigative and intelligence information concerning methamphetamine trafficking and

trends from domestic and foreign DEA offices, State, local, and foreign law enforcement

agencies, domestic and foreign regulatory counterparts and competent authorities, prosecutors, law enforcement professional groups (such as the Clandestine Laboratory

Investigators Association), and law enforcement networking groups (such as the

HIDTA­sponsored National Methamphetamine Chemical Initiative). MTF components

analyze this information on a monthly basis, focusing their efforts in such areas as

trends in chemical trafficking and manufacturing methods, clandestine laboratory

43
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

cleanup issues, changes in trafficking routes and patterns, regional abuse and distribution patterns, chemical and equipment sources and methods of procurement, foreign and

domestic precursor sources, smuggling, methods of financing, and other issues that effect

the overall methamphetamine trafficking situation worldwide. After completing the

analysis of this information, MTF components identify specific methamphetamine related issues that require action. The MTF formulates ideas and methodologies that will

provide potential solutions to address the identified issues.

With respect to investigations related to improper prescribing, among other things, law

enforcement looks to whether the prescribing is consistent with sound medical judgment

and prevailing medical standards. As part of the Administration's strategy to reduce

opportunities to divert controlled substance prescriptions, law enforcement will continue

to examine situations where prescribers write prescriptions for an unusually and obviously high number of controlled substances absent legitimate circumstances. This information also helps to identify emerging synthetic drugs of abuse. 

After recommendations are formulated and vetted through pertinent DEA Sections, they

are forwarded to the SDIWG for review and action. The SDIWG brings together all

Federal agencies that have statutory jurisdiction concerning any aspect of methamphetamine manufacture, trafficking, or abuse, and controlled substance prescription drug

diversion, and the SDIWG is charged with making policy recommendations concerning

emerging trends in the abuse of synthetic drugs. If approved by the SDIWG, the recommendations made by the MTF are forwarded to policy makers for further action and

incorporation into the Synthetic Drug Control Strategy.

2. Improve Data on Afflicted Geographic Areas. Build on existing Geographical

Information System (GIS) resources and databases to integrate federally mandated drug

test results, crime laboratory evidence analysis, population demographics, and other

meaningful data pertaining to synthetic drugs and diverted pharmaceuticals in a manner

that supports geographically based prevention and intervention efforts.

Status: Although treated as a separate recommendation in the Action Plan, this is being

incorporated into the Early Alert and Response Mechanism, as review by SDIWG member departments of drug threats and trends is continuing. 

3. Work with Manufacturers to Reformulate Abused Pharmaceutical Products. Continue to

support the efforts of firms that manufacture frequently diverted pharmaceutical products to reformulate their products so as to reduce diversion and abuse. Encourage manufacturers to explore methods to render products containing key precursors, such as pseudoephedrine, ineffective in the clandestine production of methamphetamine and pain

control products, such as OxyContin®, less suitable for snorting or injection.

Status: The DEA has engaged in discussions with pharmaceutical manufacturers on this

topic. Some manufacturers have already moved to market alternatives to chemicals that

may be used as methamphetamine precursors. The Administration will continue to be

44
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

supportive of industry efforts to reduce controlled substance prescription drug abuse

through reformulation, consistent with the requirement for FDA approval. 

4. Target Raves Where Drug Use is Facilitated. Focus attention on the promoters and operators of rave events that facilitate the trafficking and abuse of MDMA and other club

drugs, making innovative and effective use of the Federal “crack house” statute, including amendments in the Rave Act.

Status: The DEA will continue to monitor, investigate and prosecute cases presented to

Federal authorities involving raves and other social events involving open distribution of

club drugs.

5. Increase Internet Investigations. Expand investigations and prosecutions of Internetbased synthetic and pharmaceutical drug diversion and sales to include the establishment

of task forces and coordination mechanisms dedicated to this purpose. Agencies should

work with Internet Service Providers to assist them in limiting children’s access to illegal

drug sites.

Status: The DEA, with cooperation from FDA, continues to target Internet­based 

synthetic and pharmaceutical drug diversion and sales. NDIC has prioritized Document

Exploitation support to Internet diversion and narcotic analgesic investigations, which

account for nearly 30 percent of the Document Exploitation missions conducted 

annually by NDIC. 

6. Target Narcotic Analgesic Diversion. Support efforts to target individuals and organizations involved in the diversion, illegal sale, pharmacy theft, fraud, and abuse of

OxyContin® and other drug products containing oxycodone, hydrocodone, or hydromorphone, such as Vicodin® and Lorcet®.

Status: Targeting the diversion of controlled substance prescription drugs, including narcotic analgesics, is a significant focus of the Synthetic Drug Control Strategy and is discussed more fully in the body of this document. NDIC has prioritized Document

Exploitation support to Internet diversion and narcotic analgesic investigations, which

account for nearly 30 percent of the Document Exploitation missions conducted annually by NDIC. 

7. Enhance Public Outreach Efforts Focusing on Synthetic Drugs. Develop a multimedia

education campaign on the consumption of synthetic drugs, focusing initially on

methamphetamine. The program should, as appropriate, incorporate messages about the

environmental threat and risks to children from clandestine labs. Ensure adequate dissemination of all pertinent materials and information on synthetic drugs through the

Department of Education’s Office of Safe and Drug­Free Schools.

Status: ONDCP has allocated approximately $1 million of the National Youth 

Anti­Drug Media Campaign budget to outreach on synthetic drugs, including television

commercials in some of the areas most affected by methamphetamine. 

45
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

8. Develop Best Practices to Assist Drug­Endangered Children. Develop protocols for

assisting drug­endangered children that generally address staff training; roles and

responsibilities of intervening agencies; appropriate reporting; cross reporting; information sharing and confidentiality; safety procedures for children, families, and responding

personnel; interviewing procedures; evidence collection and preservation procedures;

medical care procedures; and community resource development. 

Status: Ongoing. See Helping Child Victims of Methamphetamine, 2006 National Drug

Control Strategy.

9. Research and Develop Targeted Prevention Programs. Support research on the initiation

of methamphetamine use and the progression of use leading to addiction. Programs

should be developed to target high­risk groups or communities and to increase community involvement in prevention efforts.

Status: Ongoing. See Prevention: Setting a National Standard, 2006 Synthetic Drug

Control Strategy.

10. Increase Treatment Capacity. Assess treatment needs for synthetic and diverted pharmaceutical drug addiction, and, if necessary, expand that capacity in the community and in

correctional facilities. Particular emphasis should be given to the development of additional treatment capacity for methamphetamine users, including follow­up services that

address the protracted recovery period associated with methamphetamine dependency.

Status: Ongoing. See Treating Methamphetamine Users, 2006 Synthetic Drug Control

Strategy.

11. Research Treatment for Synthetic Drug Abuse. Increase research on the physical and

psychological effects of methamphetamine and other synthetic drugs, as well as on the

development of effective treatment protocols for synthetic drugs.

Status: Ongoing. See Treating Methamphetamine Users, 2006 Synthetic Drug Control

Strategy.

12. Develop Early Response Treatment Protocols. Develop and disseminate early­response

protocols addressing requests for treatment of dependency on emerging synthetic drugs

and diverted pharmaceuticals.

Status: Ongoing. The Administration supports a screening, brief­intervention, referral,

and treatment model that is designed to identify and address a range of drug problems

in a variety of settings. This model can also be used to identify appropriate interventions

for those who are experiencing problems with emerging synthetic and controlled substance prescription drugs. See also Treating Methamphetamine Users, 2006 Synthetic

Drug Control Strategy.

13. Study Options for Criminal Justice System Treatment. Invest in additional studies on the

efficacy of various comprehensive treatment programs for synthetic drug abuse and on

their adaptability to diverse individual and community needs, especially those unique to

the criminal justice system.

46
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Status: Ongoing. See Treating Methamphetamine Users, 2006 Synthetic Drug Control

Strategy.

14. Expand Dissemination of Treatment Best Practices. Expand capabilities to disseminate

pertinent research results and best practices training techniques as part of the overall

effort to increase access to effective treatments for dependencies on synthetic and 

diverted pharmaceutical drugs.

Status: Ongoing. See Treating Methamphetamine Users, 2006 Synthetic Drug Control

Strategy.

15. Support Stronger State Controls on Precursor Chemicals. States that face significant 

levels of clandestine lab activity and chemical diversion are urged to consider the 

imposition of more stringent controls than those currently in place at the Federal level.

Several States, notably Oklahoma, have recently enacted strict retail­level controls.

Status: Completed. The President signed the USA PATRIOT Improvement and

Reauthorization Act of 2005, which included stronger national controls on precursor

chemicals through the provisions in Title VII, the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic

Act of 2005 (Combat Meth Act). 

16. Strengthen Cooperation with Mexico. Solidify significant recent advancements by

Mexico to increase the effectiveness of bilateral chemical control with the United States

through continued partnership and meetings with the pertinent Mexican components,

including the drug intelligence center (CENAPI—el Centro Nacional de Planeación

Analisis y Información para el Combate a la Delicuencia), the Federal Investigative

Agency (AFI—Agencia Federal de Investigación), the Federal Commission for the

Protection from Sanitary Risk (COFEPRIS—Comisión Federal para la Protección contra

Riesgos Sanitarios), and the Health Commission, as well as the Bilateral Interdiction

Working Group, the Senior Law Enforcement Plenary, and the Binational Committee.

Status: Ongoing. See The Federal Government’s International Methamphetamine

Strategy, 2006 Synthetic Drug Control Strategy.

17. Enhance Coordination and Information Exchange with Canada. Enhance ongoing coordination with Canada Customs and Revenue Agency on border detection, targeting and

interdiction efforts, and ensure appropriate focus by Canada­U.S. joint Integrated

Border Enforcement teams on the precursor chemical and synthetic drug threats. Further

expand the ongoing exchange of information concerning Canadian businesses involved

in the importation, production, and distribution of pseudoephedrine—particularly those

firms whose products have frequently been diverted or smuggled into the United States.

Status: Ongoing. See The Federal Government’s International Methamphetamine

Strategy, 2006 Synthetic Drug Control Strategy.

18. Strengthen the Multilateral Chemical Control System. Garner international support for

making existing multilateral chemical controls more universal, formal and 

well­supported by international institutions, including UN bodies such as the INCBs, 

47
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

and regional bodies such as the Organization of American States’ Inter­American Drug

Abuse Control Commission (CICAD). Work to realize the full potential of Project

PRISM, and build support for the application of the 1988 UN Convention to pharmaceutical preparations containing precursor chemicals that can be easily recovered for use

in illicit drug production.

Status: Ongoing. See The Federal Government’s International Methamphetamine

Strategy, 2006 Synthetic Drug Control Strategy.

19. Exchange Information with Chemical Producing Countries. Continue ongoing information­sharing efforts with the countries that produce precursor chemicals used to make

amphetamine­type stimulants, particularly China, India, Germany, and the Czech

Republic.

Status: Ongoing. See The Federal Government’s International Methamphetamine

Strategy, 2006 Synthetic Drug Control Strategy.

20. Educate Store Employees. Building on efforts begun in a number of States, work to

develop a model training program for pharmacists, retail management, and store

employees concerning suspicious pseudoephedrine purchases, as well as suspicious sales

of chemicals and items used in the manufacture of methamphetamine.

Status: Programs such as Meth Watch help train store employees regarding suspicious

chemical purchases.

21. Encourage Voluntary Controls by Retail Pharmacies and Stores. Seek the voluntary participation of major retail chains in programs to control pseudoephedrine products

through restrictions on the quantity that can be purchased at a single time. Also support

the voluntary movement of pseudoephedrine products from stores’ open shelves to

behind pharmacy counters or other manned counters in retail settings where pharmacies

are not on site.

Status: The Combat Meth Act requires that products containing pseudoephedrine be

kept behind the counter or in a locked cabinet and restricts the quantity that can be sold

to any individual to 3.6 grams per day and 7.5 grams per month. 

22. Support State Prescription Monitoring Programs. Support States’ creation of prescription

monitoring programs designed to detect inappropriate prescribing patterns and prescription fraud. Law enforcement and regulatory entities should have access to information

in cases of apparent diversion or inappropriate prescribing of controlled substances, and

some provision for state­to­state communication of adverse information should be

examined. Supporting legislation should be explored.

Status: Ongoing. See Doctor Shopping and Controlled substance prescription Fraud,

2006 Synthetic Drug Control Strategy.

23. Target Pseudoephedrine and Iodine Smuggling to and from Mexico. Focus law enforcement resources on stopping the recently noted flow of suspicious shipments of precursor

chemicals, notably pseudoephedrine, from Asia to Mexico, apparently destined for 

48
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

clandestine methamphetamine labs in Mexico and the United States. Also focus on the

smuggling of iodine from Mexico. In all such cases, law enforcement should identify and

aggressively pursue the persons and firms responsible.

Status: Ongoing. See The Federal Government’s International Methamphetamine

Strategy, 2006 Synthetic Drug Control Strategy.

24. Focus on Canadian Synthetics and Chemical Smugglers. Expand joint U.S.­Canadian

investigations into the smuggling of chemicals, methamphetamine, MDMA, and other

club drugs and diverted pharmaceuticals. Assign high priority to investigations of large

seizures of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine from Canada, and develop prosecutable

cases against rogue Canadian companies and their principals.

Status: Ongoing. See The Federal Government’s International Methamphetamine

Strategy, 2006 Synthetic Drug Control Strategy.

25. Investigate Ties between Canadian and Mexican Criminals. Analyze law enforcement

reporting and intelligence with respect to Canadian pseudoephedrine and ties between

Canadian sellers and Mexican lab operators in California. Analysis of the flow of funds

generated from sales of pseudoephedrine in Canada and the United State should be

coordinated by the appropriate agencies within the concerned departments.

Status: Ongoing. See The Federal Government’s International Methamphetamine

Strategy, 2006 Synthetic Drug Control Strategy.

26. Investigate Asian and European Sources of Synthetic Drugs. Work with international

law enforcement partners and regional groups to investigate Asian criminal groups in

North America and in Asia that increasingly may be engaged in producing and trafficking synthetic drugs and their precursor chemicals. Enhance bilateral efforts with the

Netherlands and other MDMA–producing countries in Europe to build investigations,

share information, and extradite criminals where appropriate.

Status: Ongoing. 

27. Apply Updated Clandestine Lab Cleanup Guidelines. Disseminate and apply the latest

guidelines for the cleanup of clandestine methamphetamine labs, and where necessary,

coordinate environmental remediation by appropriate entities. These protocols for adulteration and destruction of precursor and essential chemicals, glassware, and methamphetamine waste should be part of clandestine laboratory certification training.

Status: Ongoing. The Red Book will be released later this year. See also AFTERMETH:

Following the Aftermath of Methamphetamine Production, 2006 Synthetic Drug

Control Strategy.

28. Share Law Enforcement Best Practices. Based on the successes achieved by local law

enforcement in Southern California using reverse­buy investigations and by communities

in the Midwest that have set more strenuous penalties and regulations regarding synthetic drugs, establish a mechanism for sharing best practices among Federal, State and local

49
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

law enforcement as well as with international partners who are confronting synthetic

drug threats.

Status: Ongoing. See The Domestic Focus on Methamphetamine and Other Synthetics,

2006 Synthetic Drug Control Strategy. In late 2005, the NDIC Document Exploitation

Division began to provide training at the Justice Training Center in Quantico to DEA

Diversion Investigators on the use of document exploitation as a best practice to support

diversion investigations. 

29. Increase Access to Civil Penalty Case Experts. The Department of Justice should develop

and disseminate a list of attorneys who have experience in civil penalty cases under the

Controlled Substances Act and who are available to assist U.S. Attorney’s Offices in districts where such cases have never or rarely been referred or pursued.

Status: Complete. This list has been disseminated to U.S. Attorneys’ offices nationwide. 

30. Enhance Methamphetamine Profiling Efforts. Increase the number of samples available

for analysis in DEA’s methamphetamine profiling program by incorporating samples of

the drug seized by State and local law enforcement at super labs or from shipments

strongly suspected of originating from such large­scale operations. Also leverage information on chemicals, adulterants, cutting agents, and equipment found at the site.

Status: Ongoing, through DEA’s National Forensic Laboratory Information System. 

31. Increase Prosecutor and LEA Training. Recognizing the unique issues presented by

chemical and methamphetamine cases, the Federal government should, as resources permit, offer training for criminal and civil prosecutors and Federal, State and local law

enforcement agents more frequently and in different regions of the country.

Status: Ongoing. In late 2005, the NDIC Document Exploitation Division began to provide training at the Justice Training Center in Quantico to DEA Diversion Investigators

on the use of document exploitation as a best practice to support diversion investigations.

32. Make Full Use of Charging and Sentencing Options. Prosecutors should make full use of

Federal Sentencing Guidelines provisions, which set a sentencing floor (of 70–87

months) for any case involving methamphetamine manufacture that creates a substantial

risk of harm to human life. Federal prosecutors should also make greater use of the

environmental enhancement for clandestine drug manufacturing involving “unlawful

discharge, emission, or release into the environment of a hazardous or toxic substance

or for the unlawful transportation, treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous waste.”

Status: Ongoing. 

33. Seek Updated Sentencing Guidelines for Club Drugs. Work with the U.S. Sentencing

Commission to review data on the impact and effectiveness of current sentences for trafficking in ketamine, GHB and its precursors and analogues, and other club drugs, and,

if advisable, propose enhanced guidelines sentences.

50
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Status: In the PROTECT Act, Congress told the U.S. Sentencing Commission last year to

look into sentencing for GHB, and as a result, the Commission increased the sentences

and also clarified how analogue offenses are sentenced. Now that the Commission has

increased the guidelines, the SDIWG will periodically monitor whether this is an item

that requires further attention.

34. Remove the Blister Pack Exemption. Support legislation that removes the blister pack

exemption and eliminates distinctions based on the form of packaging.

Status: The Administration supported this legislation, which was signed into law by the

President. 

35. Regulate Chemical Spot Market. As an extension of existing authority over imports, law

enforcement should seek the legislative authority to regulate sales of bulk chemicals on

the domestic spot market by notification and approval of any deviations in quantity or

customer from the import declaration.

Status: The Administration supported legislation accomplishing this objective. The legislation was signed into law by the President. 

36. Enable Import Controls on Bulk Ephedrine and Pseudoephedrine. Seek legislation that

would treat the post­importation handling of bulk ephedrine and bulk pseudoephedrine

in a similar manner, for regulatory purposes, as Federal laws now treat the post­importation processing of Schedule I and II controlled substances. Impose such controls on

these critical precursors as are needed to limit imports to those necessary for legitimate

commercial needs and for maintenance of effective control over chemical diversion.

Status: The Administration supported legislation accomplishing this objective. The legislation was signed into law by the President. 

37. Prevent Exploitation of Mail Services. Work with the U.S. Postal Service and private

express mail delivery services to target illegal mail­order sales of chemical precursors,

synthetic drugs, and pharmaceuticals, both domestically and internationally.

Status: Ongoing. 

38. Consider New Legislation on Club Drugs. Federal officials should continue efforts to

develop additional legislation to address legal issues that often arise with respect to club

drugs and rave­type events. For example, the distribution of imitation controlled substances could be explicitly criminalized at the Federal level, and the provisions governing

controlled substance analogues and counterfeits could be clarified.

Status: The SDIWG does not believe that legislation involving chemicals involving 

1,4 butanediol and GBL are required at this time. However, the SDIWG will continue to

periodically monitor cases involving these chemicals.

39. Develop Guidelines for Juvenile Drug Treatment. Fund research on and pursue the

development of guidelines with respect to the treatment of juveniles, who often are not

adequately served in existing drug treatment programs designed for adults.

51
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Status: Ongoing. NIDA will continue to support research on juvenile drug treatment

and, as better research becomes available, disseminate best practices information for

juvenile drug treatment, and NIDA will report back to the SDIWG on an estimated

timeline for expanded information on juvenile drug treatment best practices. 

40. Improve Education and Training on Pharmaceuticals. Ensure product labeling that clearly articulates conditions for the safe and effective use of controlled substances, including

full disclosure of safety issues associated with pharmaceuticals. Develop a mechanism

for the wider dissemination and completion of approved Continuing Medical Education

courses for physicians who prescribe controlled substances. Develop Internet public service announcements regarding the potential dangers and illegality of online direct purchase of controlled substances.

Status: The Food and Drug Administration has the responsibility for pharmaceutical

product labeling, and SAMHSA engages in a variety of education and training activities

concerning controlled substance prescription drug abuse. ONDCP will convene a meeting later this year with pharmaceutical manufacturers to discuss better labeling and

patient education regarding the disposal of controlled substance prescription drugs. 

41. Examine the Use of Prescription Narcotics. Assess the scope and magnitude of the licit

and illicit use of prescription narcotic analgesics, in particular OxyContin®, including

the pursuit of additional data sources in cooperation with the Food and Drug

Administration (FDA), the National Institute for Justice (NIJ), private entities, and 

others. 

Status: The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) has been recalibrated to

ask more detailed questions about the scope of prescription drug abuse. A high priority

of the Administration is to improve data about the sources of diversion. (e.g., regarding

the percentage of controlled substance prescription drug abuse in the United States

enabled through the Internet, through doctor shopping, through street­level drug dealing, et cetera). 

42. Determine Licit Chemical Needs. In cooperation with industry, commission a statistical

analysis to estimate the legitimate needs for pseudoephedrine and ephedrine products—

including combination products such as ephedrine with guaifenesin—both nationwide

and regionally.

Status: Pursuant to the requirements of the Combat Meth Act, the Administration seeks

to accomplish this by January 1, 2007.

43. Review Lab Cleanup Resources. Ensure adequate funding sources for clandestine 

laboratory and dumpsite cleanups, including funding for sufficient personnel to support

laboratory cleanups and hazardous waste disposal, so that cleanup costs are not a disincentive to laboratory investigations or takedowns. Federal officials, in collaboration with

state agencies, should conduct a needs assessment to identify potential program

improvements and make recommendations on the specific support needed and the funds

required.

52
SYNTHETIC DRUG CONTROL STRATEGY

Status: Both the current fiscal year budget and proposed budget for fiscal year 2007 provide adequate funding to support State laboratory and dumpsite cleanups. The container

program for seized materials—requiring about a $40,000 initial outlay per jurisdiction—

is also being expanded. 

44. Improve Intelligence Efforts Related to Synthetic Drugs. Intensify intelligence components’ focus on gathering and sharing information regarding the nature and scope of

synthetic drugs trafficking. Make full use of NDIC’s real­time analytical database for

both pre­ and post­operation link analysis and document exploitation. Strengthen mechanisms for sharing actionable intelligence, trend analysis, and information on criminal

organizations among the United States and concerned Western European countries. 

Status: The OCDETF Fusion Center, EPIC, and Methamphetamine Task Force are

among the governmental components that consider information and intelligence regarding synthetic drug control trafficking. This information is shared with the SDIWG as

appropriate. Almost one­third of NDIC’s Document Exploitation missions are conducted in support of major licit drug diversion cases. These missions have provided support

to diversion investigations that have resulted in convictions and sentences of medical

practitioners not easily obtained. Moreover, the real­time analytical intelligence databases created to support these missions have been provided to the OCDETF Fusion Center

to support its operational mission. 

45. Limit Online Chemical Sales. Continue ongoing efforts to advise the owners and operators of major online auction Web sites of the use of precursor chemicals in clandestine

labs, and urge them to consider banning the sale of precursors chemicals over their Web

sites. 

Status: Ongoing. The DEA has worked with companies such as eBay to accomplish this

recommendation. The Administration will continue to work with other online Web sites

identified as providing precursor chemicals. 

Category B: Recommendations with which there is substantial agreement in

principle but which will require Federal legislation to be fully effective.

46. Strengthen Controls on Internet Sales. Support legislation that regulates the burgeoning

business of Internet sales of drugs, particularly controlled substances, by prohibiting the

dispensing of controlled substances online without a valid prescription. 

Status: See discussion in Illegal Online Pharmacies, 2006 Synthetic Drug Control

Strategy.

Category C: Recommendations regarding which one or more Federal agencies

participating in the SGIWG determined merit further discussion.

None.

53