National Drug Intelligence Center

U.S. Department of Justice
U.S. Department of Justice

National Drug Intelligence Center

National Drug Intelligence Center

319 Washington Street, 5th Floor

Johnstown, PA 15901-1622

(814) 532-4601

National Drug Threat Assessment

2002

Product No. 2002-Q0317-001

December 2001
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

From the Director:

I am pleased to present the National Drug Threat Assessment 2002, the culmination of dedicated work 

by the National Drug Intelligence Center in partnership with federal, state, and local agencies and 

organizations. In accordance with the provisions of the General Counterdrug Intelligence Plan, the National 

Drug Threat Assessment integrates foreign and domestic counterdrug intelligence and information on 

domestic drug consumption trends in a single report.

This report is a comprehensive assessment of the threat posed to our society by illicit drugs. It integrates 

the most recently available reporting from national-level law enforcement, intelligence, and health and 

human service agencies including the Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Customs Service, El Paso Intelligence Center, Financial Crimes Enforcement 

Network, Crime and Narcotics Center, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Substance Abuse and Mental 

Health Services Administration, and National Institute of Justice. It incorporates data from current national 

drug abuse indicators—Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program, Drug Abuse Warning Network, 

Monitoring the Future Study, National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, Parents’ Resource Institute on 

Drug Education Survey, and Treatment Episode Data Set—to accurately and reliably depict the current 

domestic drug abuse situation.

The National Drug Threat Assessment draws on information provided by nearly 2,600 state and local 

law enforcement agencies throughout the country to document the current threat and emerging trends in 

drug trafficking and related criminal activity in the United States. Information was collected through 

our National Drug Threat Survey 2001 and through interviews conducted by our Field Program Specialists.

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

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

contributed have been invaluable. I encourage readers to review this report and provide comments on the 

enclosed Product Survey form. I look forward to collaborating on future projects.

Michael T. Horn

December 2001

National Drug Intelligence Center

v

National Drug

Threat Assessment

2002

Executive Summary 

Illicit drugs are largely available throughout the United States and have an impact on 

all segments of society, although adolescents and young adults appear to be most 

affected. Of the more than 24 million individuals aged 12 and older (nearly 11% of the 

U.S. population) reported by the 2000 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse as 

using an illicit drug in the past year, more than two-thirds were between 12 and 35 years 

old. And of these, over half (54%) were between the ages of 15 and 22. 

Regional variations in illicit drug use exist in terms of availability, price, purity or 

potency, and user preference largely because of factors such as law enforcement focus, 

educational and health programs, and user demographics. However, cocaine, heroin, 

methamphetamine, and marijuana pose the greatest concern for law enforcement and 

treatment providers nationwide. Emerging substance abuse trends are of growing concern, 

such as the rise in the availability of MDMA, other dangerous drugs such as GHB, and 

diverted pharmaceuticals.

Cocaine. Cocaine, in both powdered and crack forms, is the primary drug threat to the 

United States. High demand for and availability of the drug, expansion of cocaine distribution markets, high rates of overdose and collateral crimes, and endemic violence all 

contribute to the magnitude of the threat. Countering the threat posed by cocaine consumes 

enormous domestic counterdrug resources, particularly since international cocaine trafficking organizations have demonstrated an ability to modify trafficking operations, shift 

smuggling routes, and improve concealment techniques in response to multinational 

interdiction efforts. Further, distribution groups, of which gangs are the most prominent, 

are continually developing more effective and more secure distribution methods to 

counter domestic law enforcement efforts while steadily expanding to new market areas. 

The expansion of crack cocaine distribution in suburban and rural communities has 

caused violence to spread to some of these areas, raising the concern of state and local law 

enforcement officials. The level of violence associated with the trafficking of cocaine—

especially crack—exceeds that of all other drugs and is largely due to competition 

between violent gangs over market share, although it does not compare to the level of 

violence in the 1980s. 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

vi

Cocaine is transported to the United States and distributed at the wholesale level 

primarily by Colombian and Mexican drug trafficking organizations. Colombian trafficking 

organizations control most wholesale distribution in the New England, New York/New 

Jersey, and Mid-Atlantic regions, while Mexican trafficking organizations largely control 

wholesale distribution in the Pacific, Southwest, West Central, and Great Lakes regions. 

There are indications, however, that Mexican trafficking organizations are expanding 

distribution operations in the New York/New Jersey and Mid-Atlantic regions. Gangs 

control most retail distribution of powdered cocaine and crack in every region of the 

country. Local independent dealers figure prominently in retail distribution in suburban 

and rural areas. 

Heroin. Heroin is the second greatest drug threat facing the United States. The drug is 

widely available, and the user population is growing to include an increasing number of 

young people. This widespread availability and increasing use heighten the threat of 

lifelong physiological dependency, overdose, and death among users.

Heroin from all major source areas—South America, Mexico, Southeast Asia, and 

Southwest Asia—is available in various locations throughout the country. The drug trafficking organizations or criminal groups responsible for the transportation and distribution 

of heroin vary by source area, and the degree to which the different types of heroin are 

available also varies by region of the country. 

South American heroin is the most widely available type, and because of its high 

purity and relatively low price, it is, in large part, the cause of current high levels of 

nationwide heroin abuse. Two general but distinct heroin markets appear to exist, however. East of the Mississippi River, highly pure white powdered heroin from South 

America is the predominant type available; heroin from Southeast and Southwest Asia 

also is available but to a much lesser extent. West of the Mississippi, heroin from Mexico, primarily black tar, is the predominant type. Black tar heroin is available in the East, 

and white powdered heroin is available in the West, but in limited quantities.

Methamphetamine. The threat posed to the United States by methamphetamine lies in 

its availability and the severe physiological effects associated with its use. The violence 

and environmental damage attendant to the production, distribution, and use of the drug, 

as well as the involvement of international drug trafficking organizations, further 

threaten the country and render methamphetamine the third greatest drug threat.

Methamphetamine is readily available throughout the western half of the country 

and is becoming increasingly available in areas of the eastern United States. It is produced domestically and in foreign source areas, primarily Mexico and, to a lesser extent, 

Canada and Southeast Asia. Domestic production is dominated largely by Mexican 

criminal groups who also dominate wholesale distribution and share control of retail distribution with local independent distributors, outlaw motorcycle gangs, and street gangs. 

Violence associated with methamphetamine trafficking and use is increasing. Federal, 

state, and local law enforcement reporting reveals increases in methamphetaminerelated child neglect, child and spousal abuse, sexual abuse, homicide, and property 

crime, especially mail and check fraud. In addition, methamphetamine production has a 

profound environmental impact. In California, for example, chemicals from large methamphetamine laboratory dump sites have killed livestock, contaminated streams, and 

destroyed large areas of trees and vegetation in that state.
National Drug Intelligence Center

vii

Marijuana. The ready availability and popularity of marijuana render the drug a 

significant threat to the country. Traffickers in foreign source areas and in the United 

States supply users with marijuana of varying potency, ranging from high-grade 

marijuana produced in the United States and Canada to lower potency marijuana, 

much of which is produced in Mexico. High-grade marijuana is increasingly attracting 

attention in the United States; however, use of lower potency marijuana appears to 

be more common at this time.

Mexican drug trafficking organizations and criminal groups dominate the transportation 

and wholesale distribution of the foreign-produced marijuana available in the United States, 

while independent Caucasian traffickers appear to control wholesale distribution of domestic 

marijuana. Retail distribution is not dominated by any particular criminal group but is 

handled by groups and individuals that generally reflect the surrounding area’s population. 

The demand for marijuana far exceeds that for any other illicit drug, and the large 

user population in the United States equates to steady profits for traffickers. The profit 

potential is so high that drug trafficking organizations, criminal groups, and gangs 

involved in trafficking drugs such as cocaine or heroin traffic marijuana as well to help 

finance their drug operations.

MDMA. The threat associated with MDMA trafficking and use has increased greatly 

over the past year because of several factors. The growing number of pills and capsules 

being marketed as MDMA but containing drugs like methamphetamine, PCP, amphetamine, 

ketamine, and PMA—with or without MDMA—have increased the dangers associated 

with MDMA use. The spread of MDMA use to all regions of the country and the drug’s 

prevalence among a diverse user population further contribute to the threat. The recent 

involvement of Colombian, Mexican, Asian, and Dominican drug trafficking organizations and criminal groups in MDMA production and transportation, and of African 

American and Hispanic street gangs in MDMA distribution, has increased competition at 

each trafficking level and exacerbated the domestic MDMA situation. This rivalry is contributing to a marked increase in violence among distributors and against law enforcement. 

MDMA is available in every state, and the number of MDMA users in the country 

has increased sharply since the mid-1990s. MDMA use, once principally centered at 

raves and dance clubs, has spread outside these venues to private homes, high schools, 

college campuses, private parties, and street corners. Distribution has also spread, 

involving more distributors from a growing number of ethnic backgrounds.

Other Dangerous Drugs. Other Dangerous Drugs include club drugs such as GHB, 

ketamine, and Rohypnol as well as hallucinogens such as LSD, PCP, and psilocybin. In 

past years, these drugs were not considered as great a threat as other illicit drugs. However, they are now available nationwide and are increasingly drawing law enforcement 

attention as more communities confront increased use of these drugs.

The primary outlets for club drugs are raves and dance clubs in metropolitan areas 

and, increasingly, in suburban and rural communities. Club drugs are an integral part of 

the rave culture, and many who attend raves use club drugs and advocate their use, 

wrongly believing that they are not harmful if they are used “responsibly” and their 

effects are managed properly. Hallucinogens are increasingly being encountered by 

law enforcement at raves and dance clubs since they reportedly are often used in 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

viii

combination with MDMA, GHB, and ketamine. The use of hallucinogens peaked in the 

mid-1990s and has since stabilized or decreased slightly; however, the increasing presence 

of hallucinogens at raves may signal an increase in availability and use in the near future.

Pharmaceuticals. The illegal abuse of pharmaceuticals, medicinal drugs legally 

available by prescription or over the counter, is the lowest threat among the major 

drug categories. However, increasing demand for illegally diverted pharmaceuticals, 

particularly prescription pain relievers, has heightened concerns among the law 

enforcement and treatment communities. 

Users can acquire pharmaceuticals as they might other illicit drugs. More often, 

though, those who abuse pharmaceuticals steal prescription medication from friends or 

family members, forge physician’s prescriptions, obtain prescriptions from unscrupulous physicians and pharmacists, feign illness to receive prescriptions, and burglarize 

pharmacies and physician’s offices.

Money Laundering. Drug money laundering occurs throughout the United States, 

particularly in cities that have large drug user populations and the financial infrastructure 

necessary to facilitate the laundering of drug proceeds. Mexican and Colombian drug 

trafficking organizations are the primary drug money launderers operating in the United 

States. Mexican and, to a lesser extent, Colombian traffickers smuggle bulk cash to 

Mexico primarily by vehicle. Colombian traffickers often move their drug proceeds to 

Colombia by couriers traveling on commercial flights, via air and maritime cargo, or 

through the Black Market Peso Exchange. Other techniques used to launder drug proceeds 

include illicitly using money services businesses, structuring bank deposits and money 

order purchases, commingling drug proceeds with legitimate funds, purchasing real 

estate and vehicles, and exploiting the gaming industry.
National Drug Intelligence Center

ix

National Drug

Threat Assessment

2002

Scope and Methodology 

The National Drug Threat Assessment 2002 is a comprehensive assessment of the 

threat posed to the United States by the trafficking and abuse of illicit drugs. It was 

prepared through detailed analysis of the most recently available reporting from law 

enforcement, intelligence, and health and human service agencies. A critical component 

of this undertaking was information provided by nearly 2,600 state and local law 

enforcement agencies, of which more than 1,250 were respondents to NDIC’s National 

Drug Threat Survey 2001. The survey is a directed research project that polls state and 

local law enforcement agencies in urban, suburban, and rural areas regarding the illicit 

drug situation within their jurisdictions. The National Drug Threat Survey 2001 specifically 

targeted state police and investigative agencies, major city chiefs of police, county sheriffs, 

and a sampling of local law enforcement agencies across the country, including all 

agencies at ports of entry. State and local law enforcement agencies also provided information through personal interviews with NDIC’s Field Program Specialists, a network of 

law enforcement professionals assembled by NDIC to promote information sharing 

among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.

This report addresses several issues of national concern including the trafficking and 

use of primary substances of abuse, adolescent drug use, and drug money laundering. 

Major substances of abuse are ranked in terms of the threat each substance poses to the 

nation. This ranking was accomplished through the evaluation and analysis of quantitative 

and qualitative information concerning the availability, demand, production and cultivation, transportation, and distribution of illicit drugs.

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

indictments, sentencing, drug purity or potency, and price. Qualitative data, such as the 

subjective views of individual agencies on availability and the relationship between individual drugs and crime, particularly violent crime, were also considered.

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

was based on accepted interagency estimates and data captured in national drug abuse 

indicators. Quantitative and qualitative information compared include the estimated 

number of total users, prevalence of drug use among various age groups, admissions to 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

x

treatment facilities, influence of drugs on crime and the penal system, emergency department information, and drug-related deaths. The differing methodologies applied by 

national drug abuse indicators, as well as the inherent limitations of the indicators, 

were considered and addressed in assessing domestic drug demand. Data from selected 

national drug abuse indicators are provided in the Appendix for reference purposes.

Production and Cultivation. To evaluate the threat posed by production and cultivation, analysts considered accepted interagency estimates of production and cultivation. 

Qualitative information pertaining to the presence and level of domestic activity, general 

trends in production or cultivation levels, involvement of organized criminal groups, toxicity and other related safety hazards, environmental effects, and associated criminal 

activity were also considered.

Transportation. To evaluate the transportation threat, analysts evaluated interagency 

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

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

changes in smuggling and transportation methods.

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

entirely qualitative. Analysts considered the involvement of organized criminal groups and 

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

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

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

their distribution activities. 

Because of limitations inherent in available data, this assessment avoids making any 

definitive numerical estimates of the availability of illicit drugs in the United States. Various 

estimates, with varying degrees of accuracy and reliability, have been developed by the 

counterdrug community and have been cited herein when applicable. 

This report cites trademarked names such as OxyContin and Rohypnol in discussing 

the illicit abuse of such substances. The use of any trademarked names does not imply 

any criminal activity, criminal intent, or misdealing on the part of the companies that 

manufacture these drugs. All such citations are made for reference purposes only.
National Drug Intelligence Center

xi

ALASKA
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

xii

This page intentionally left blank.
Table of Contents

National Drug Intelligence Center

xiii

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

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

Adolescent Drug Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Cocaine and Crack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Demand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

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

Transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Transportation within the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

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

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

Distribution Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Key Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Heroin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Demand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

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

Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Distribution Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

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

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

Methamphetamine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

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

Demand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Domestic Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Foreign Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Transportation Hubs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Distribution Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

Key Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Marijuana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Demand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

Production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

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

Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Key Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

xiv

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

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

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

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

Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

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

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

Key Developments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Other Dangerous Drugs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Club Drugs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

GHB . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Ketamine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Rohypnol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Hallucinogens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

LSD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

PCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

2C-B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Psilocybin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Pharmaceuticals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Narcotics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Depressants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Stimulants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Other Pharmaceuticals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Money Laundering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Appendix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
National Drug Intelligence Center

1

December 2001

Adolescent Drug Use

Adolescent drug use in the United States 

declined steadily throughout the 1980s after peaking 

in 1979. Adolescent use began to increase again in 

the early 1990s and continued until 1997, at which 

time it appeared to stabilize. Since then, overall 

adolescent use has been relatively stable but may be 

starting to decline. According to the 2000 National 

Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA), 

past year use of any illicit drug among youth aged 

12 to 17 decreased from 1999 (19.8%) to 2000 

(18.6%).1

 Past month use also declined from 9.8 to 

9.7 percent during this period.

Results of the Monitoring the Future (MTF) 

Study are somewhat similar to those of the 

NHSDA. According to MTF data, past year use 

of any illicit drug among eighth, tenth, and 

twelfth graders was at its lowest point around 

1991–1992, rising in subsequent years to reach a 

peak in 1996 for eighth graders (23.6%) and in 

1997 for tenth (38.5%) and twelfth graders 

(42.4%).2 Since 1997, past year use among all 

three grades has remained relatively stable with 

slight downward trends. Among eighth graders, 

past year use of any illicit drug declined to 

19.5 percent by 2000. Among tenth graders, past 

year use dropped to 35.0 percent in 1998 but then 

climbed to 36.4 percent in 2000, and among 

twelfth graders, past year use fluctuated between 

1998 and 2000 when it was reported at 40.9 percent. 

Most of the year-to-year changes in use rates in 

specific grades, including those from 1999 to 

2000, were not significant, however. 

Despite relatively stable to slightly decreasing 

rates of adolescent use overall, youth surveys and 

law enforcement sources suggest that drugs 

continue to have a strong presence in schools 

across the country. Responses from the 1999 

Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) indicate that 

30.2 percent of high school students (9–12 grade) 

were offered, sold, or given an illegal drug on 

1. The NHSDA is the only survey that regularly estimates drug use among members of the U.S. civilian, noninstitutionalized 

population aged 12 or older.

This assessment refers to three rates of use. Lifetime use is defined as use of a drug at least once in a user’s life; past year use, at least 

once in the preceding 365 days; current use, at least once in the preceding 30 days.

2. The MTF Study is an ongoing study of the behaviors, attitudes, and values of students and young adults in the United States.

MTF annually surveys a representative sample of eighth, tenth, and twelfth graders in public and private schools in the coterminous 

United States and a subsample of college students and young adults from previous graduating classes who participated in the survey 

as seniors.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

2

school property during the 12 months preceding 

the survey.3

 According to responses to the 

National Drug Threat Survey 2001, state and local 

law enforcement agencies in Arizona, California, 

Connecticut, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, 

Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode 

Island, Texas, and Utah reported an increase in 

drug presence in schools in their areas. 

Anecdotal reporting from substance abuse 

counselors corroborates the presence of drugs in 

schools, indicating that teens acquire drugs at 

school—as well as in homes and at parties, among 

other locations—and use them before school and 

during lunch hours. Afternoon and evening hours 

after school and weekends were identified as the 

times of most frequent use, however. Teens were 

reported as acquiring drugs typically through 

friends, peers, and family members. 

The substances with which adolescents first 

experiment often are alcohol, tobacco (both illegal 

for adolescents), inhalants, and marijuana. Overall 

use of these substances by adolescents appears to 

be relatively stable, with declines primarily among 

the youngest users. Stable or declining use rates do 

not carry over to all drugs, however. Adolescent 

use of club drugs such as MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, often referred to as 

“ecstasy”), some narcotics (including heroin, 

oxycodone, and hydrocodone), barbiturates, and 

tranquilizers has increased, while use of cocaine 

and methamphetamine among adolescents generally 

has declined. Of particular note are increases in 

adolescent use of MDMA and heroin. Details on 

the use and trafficking of these and other drugs are 

contained in individual sections of this assessment.

Of concern, too, are law enforcement and 

anecdotal reports of adolescents involved in both 

drug-related violence and drug trafficking. 

According to reporting from the U.S. Department 

of Justice Organized Crime Drug Enforcement 

Task Forces (OCDETF), drug dealers are recruiting 

children as young as 11 years old to transport or 

sell drugs for them. Some of these youths become 

involved in other criminal activity such as assault, 

robbery, theft, and rape. According to responses 

to the National Drug Threat Survey 2001, state 

and local law enforcement agencies in Arizona, 

Arkansas, California, Georgia, Illinois, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming 

reported that the number of youths manufacturing 

and dealing methamphetamine has increased. 

Also, border officials are reporting an increase in 

the number of minors hired by drug trafficking 

organizations to smuggle large quantities of 

marijuana, heroin, steroids, methamphetamine, 

and MDMA into the United States. The number 

of seizures along the U.S.–Mexico border in 

which youth are involved is small; however, the 

U.S. Customs Service (USCS) indicates an 

increase in juvenile arrests along the California–

Mexico border and in El Paso.

Adolescents are involved in the drug trade not 

only as individuals but also as members of gangs. 

According to respondents to a national youth gang 

survey, 46 percent of youth gang members were 

involved in street drug sales to generate profits for 

their gangs in 1999. Moreover, the percentage of 

youth gangs considered drug gangs (organized 

specifically to traffic drugs) increased from 

34 percent in 1998 to 40 percent in 1999. 

3. The YRBS is conducted every 2 years on a nationally representative sample of ninth through twelfth graders in public and private 

schools. It measures six priority health-risk behaviors including alcohol and other drug abuse.
National Drug Intelligence Center

3

Cocaine and Crack

Cocaine, in both powdered and crack forms, 

is the primary drug threat to the United States. 

The magnitude of the threat is due to high demand 

and availability, expanding distribution to new 

market areas, high rates of overdose and collateral 

crimes, and endemic violence. Powdered cocaine 

and crack are easily administered—by snorting 

(powdered), smoking (crack), or injecting (either) 

—and very addictive. Powdered cocaine and crack 

often are used in combination with other drugs such 

as heroin (referred to as “speedballing,” see Text 

Box), leading to further dependencies and contributing to higher rates of overdose death. Cocaine 

users in the United States come from a wide range 

of social and ethnic backgrounds. According to 

Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) 

estimates, there are more than 3.3 million hardcore cocaine users in the United States at present 

and nearly 2.2 million occasional users.4

Combating cocaine transportation, distribution, 

and abuse consumes enormous domestic counterdrug resources. International cocaine trafficking 

organizations have demonstrated an ability to shift 

smuggling routes and improve concealment techniques in response to multinational interdiction 

efforts. Distribution groups, of which gangs are the 

most prominent, are continually developing more 

effective and more secure distribution methods to 

counter domestic law enforcement efforts while 

steadily expanding to new market areas.5

“Speedballing” traditionally referred to a method 

of administration that involved the injection of a 

mixture of cocaine and heroin. Recently, the 

term has been broadened and now refers more 

generally to the simultaneous use, via injection, 

inhalation, or snorting, of a stimulant such as 

cocaine or methamphetamine with a depressant 

such as heroin, oxycodone, or hydrocodone.

The level of violence associated with the trafficking of cocaine—especially crack—exceeds 

that of all other drugs and is largely due to competition between violent gangs over market share. 

While in some cities cooperation among rival 

gangs involved in retail crack distribution has led 

to decreased street-level violence, other cities 

have experienced recent increases in violence, 

including several prominent crack-related murders. 

The expansion of crack cocaine distribution in 

suburban and rural communities has caused violence to spread to some of these areas, raising 

the concern of state and local law enforcement 

officials. The level of violence today, however, 

does not compare to that of the 1980s.

4. A hardcore user is defined as one who uses an illicit drug (e.g., cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine) more than 10 days per month.

5. This assessment refers to gangs, which are defined by the National Alliance of Gang Investigators Associations as groups or associations of 

three or more persons with a common identifying sign, symbol, or name—the members of which individually or collectively engage in criminal 

activity that creates an atmosphere of fear and intimidation.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

4

Availability

Powdered cocaine and crack are readily 

available in all regions of the country.6 Federal, 

state, and local law enforcement and epidemiologic 

sources throughout the country report that powdered 

cocaine and crack are readily available and rank 

first or second as a drug threat in their areas. State 

and local law enforcement agencies that 

responded to the National Drug Threat Survey 

2001 also indicated overwhelming availability of 

cocaine in their jurisdictions. Of 1,261 survey 

respondents, 994 identified the availability of 

either powdered or crack cocaine as high or 

medium, and 457 survey respondents identified 

cocaine as the greatest drug threat in their areas—

more than for any other drug mentioned. 

The level of availability of powdered cocaine 

and crack is stable overall, although it has 

declined in some regions over the past year and 

increased in others. Law enforcement reporting 

indicates that cocaine availability is highest in 

urban areas in the Florida/Caribbean, Great 

Lakes, New England, New York/New Jersey, and 

Southeast regions and lowest in areas of the West 

Central region such as Montana and North Dakota. 

Respondents to the National Drug Threat Survey 

2001 indicated that use may have decreased in 

some areas of California and Nevada, which may 

be the result of a shift in user preferences toward 

methamphetamine in these areas. This notion is 

supported by OCDETF indictment data which 

show that the regions with the highest number of 

methamphetamine indictments—West Central, 

Pacific, and Southwest—had the lowest number 

of powdered cocaine-related indictments. 

State and local law enforcement and drug treatment reporting indicate that the availability of 

cocaine, particularly crack, is increasing in suburban 

and rural areas, especially in the Southeast and 

Mid-Atlantic regions. Distributors reportedly are 

seeking out new market areas where there is less 

competition and less market saturation and where 

new user groups may be developed easily.

The immense impact of cocaine availability on 

the country is illustrated in the numbers of 

OCDETF investigations against cocaine traffickers 

and indictments obtained for cocaine offenses. Of 

the 1,441 OCDETF investigations initiated in fiscal 

year (FY) 2000, 64 percent involved powdered 

cocaine trafficking and nearly 27 percent involved 

crack distribution. Of the 4,219 drug indictments 

obtained as a result of OCDETF investigations 

during that same period, over 38 percent referenced powdered cocaine as the primary drug and 

nearly 29 percent referenced crack. Each of these 

percentages is more than for all other drug references. The U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) 

reports that approximately 23 percent of all federal drug sentences in FY2000 involved powdered cocaine and over 21 percent involved 

crack. The average length of sentence for federal 

convictions related to powdered cocaine was 6.5 

years, and for crack cocaine, 10 years.

Federal-wide Drug Seizure System (FDSS) 

data for cocaine have fluctuated over the last few 

years.7 In 1998, 118,000 kilograms of cocaine 

were seized. This number increased in 1999 to 

132,000 kilograms and then decreased to 104,000 

kilograms in 2000. 

According to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the price of powdered cocaine 

ranged nationally from $12,000 to $35,000 per 

kilogram, $400 to $2,000 per ounce, and $40 to 

$200 per gram. The lowest average prices were in 

Miami and Los Angeles. Average nationwide 

purity of powdered cocaine in 2000 was 72 percent 

for kilogram quantities and 63 percent for ounce 

and gram quantities. Prices for crack cocaine 

ranged nationally from $12,000 to $35,000 per 

kilogram, $500 and $1,500 per ounce, $20 and 

$125 per gram, and $3 to $100 per rock. 

6. The nine regions reported in this assessment correspond to those of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces: New England, 

New York/New Jersey, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, Florida/Caribbean, Great Lakes, West Central, Southwest, and Pacific (see Map page xi).

7. The FDSS contains information on drug seizures made by the Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. 

Customs Service, U.S. Border Patrol, and U.S. Coast Guard. Seizures by other federal agencies are included in FDSS if custody of the drug 

evidence is transferred to one of the agencies listed above.
National Drug Intelligence Center

5

Demand

The level of cocaine use in the United States 

has remained high and relatively stable since the 

mid-1990s, with a slight indication of downward 

trends for most age groups. According to the 

2000 NHSDA, past year use of powdered cocaine 

for all age groups declined from 1.7 percent in 

1999 to 1.5 percent in 2000, while past year use 

of crack cocaine decreased significantly from 0.5 

to 0.3 percent.

According to MTF data, the rates of past year 

use of powdered cocaine among eighth, tenth, and 

twelfth graders trended downward between 1999 

and 2000; the decline for twelfth graders—6.2 

percent to 5.0 percent—was statistically significant. 

The 2000 rates for powdered cocaine use are well 

above the lowest levels recorded for eighth graders 

(1991) and for tenth and twelfth graders (1992). 

Regarding crack cocaine, the MTF further reveals 

that past year use remained stable among eighth 

graders at 1.8 percent between 1999 and 2000. 

Among tenth graders, past year use of crack 

declined from 2.4 percent to 2.2 percent, although 

the change was not statistically significant. Past 

year use of crack among twelfth graders for the 

same period did show a significant decrease from 

2.7 to 2.2 percent. As with powdered cocaine, the 

2000 rates for crack cocaine are well above the 

lowest recorded rates in 1991.

The 2000 Parents’ Resource Institute on Drug 

Education (PRIDE) Survey supports MTF findings.8

 According to PRIDE, past year cocaine use 

between the 1998–1999 and 1999–2000 school 

years decreased among junior and senior high 

school students as well as twelfth graders. Use 

decreased from 2.7 to 2.2 percent among junior 

high students, 6.1 to 5.3 percent among senior 

high students, and 8.0 to 7.1 percent among 

twelfth graders. 

While cocaine use among students appears 

to have declined between 1999 and 2000, most 

national-level demand indicators show that the 

perception of risk regarding cocaine use has 

remained consistent. The 2000 NHSDA reports 

that the percentage of youths aged 12 to 17 who 

believe there is great risk of harm in using 

cocaine once a month was relatively stable 

between 1999 (55.3%) and 2000 (55.4%). MTF 

data show a general leveling in the rate of perceived harmfulness of cocaine and crack use 

among eighth, tenth, and twelfth graders 

between 1999 and 2000, following significant 

declines for all groups between 1991 and 1999. 

The Partnership Attitude Tracking Study (PATS) 

also reports stability in the rate of perceived 

harmfulness of cocaine use among seventh 

through twelfth graders. In 2000, 82 percent of 

students agreed there was great risk in using 

cocaine/crack regularly and 47 percent agreed 

there was great risk in trying cocaine/crack once 

or twice. In 1995, the rates were 82 percent and 

48 percent, respectively, and there was little 

fluctuation between 1995 and 2000.

Results from national-level studies reflecting 

the consequences of cocaine use generally mirror 

those from national-level prevalence indicators 

such as NHSDA and MTF. Data from the Drug 

Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) indicate that 

the number of emergency department (ED) mentions for cocaine were high and relatively stable 

over the reporting years 1998 (172,014) through 

2000 (174,896).9 DAWN ED mentions for 

cocaine in 2000 were predominantly male (65%), 

African American (43%), and aged 35 and older 

8. The PRIDE Survey presents information on substance abuse among sixth- through twelfth-grade students that is derived from 

data collected between August and June of the school year. The survey is designated by federal law as a measurement of the 

effectiveness of the National Drug Control Strategy.

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

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

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

drug. DAWN ME data include information on drug abuse deaths and the drugs mentioned in connection with the deaths reported by 

141 participating medical examiners in 42 metropolitan areas.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

6

(53%). In 2000, the two reasons most cited for 

seeking emergency treatment related to cocaine 

were detoxification (28%) and an unexpected 

reaction (25%). 

Cocaine was the drug most frequently mentioned in drug-induced or drug-related deaths in 

1996 (47%), 1997 (45%), 1998 (45%), and 1999 

(42%), according to DAWN medical examiner 

(ME) data. Also, cocaine and heroin/morphine 

was the most common drug combination mentioned 

in drug-related deaths that involved multiple drugs 

in 1999. Of the 4,864 DAWN ME mentions for 

cocaine in 1999, 46 percent were Caucasian, 40 

percent were African American, and 12 percent 

were Hispanic. 

The Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) shows 

that the number of admissions to publicly funded 

treatment facilities for cocaine use (smoked and 

nonsmoked) increased slightly from 1997 (230,129) 

to 1998 (233,493).10 But these figures are still 

well below the highest number of total cocaine 

admissions recorded since 1994. According to 

TEDS, cocaine accounted for nearly 15 percent of 

all admissions to publicly funded treatment 

facilities in 1998. Of admissions for cocaine in 

1998, 73 percent sought treatment for smoked 

cocaine and 27 percent sought treatment for nonsmoked cocaine. In 1998, the typical admission to 

publicly funded treatment facilities for nonsmoked 

cocaine use was male (66%), Caucasian (50%), 

and between 30 and 34 years old (23%), while the 

typical admission for smoked cocaine use was 

male (58%), African American (59%), and 

between 30 and 34 years old (26%). TEDS data 

also reveal the use of cocaine in combination with 

other illegal drugs. Admissions to publicly 

funded treatment for nonsmoked cocaine in 1998 

reported secondary drug use of marijuana (34%), 

heroin (7%), and methamphetamine (5%). 

Data from the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring 

(ADAM) Program show that the percentage of 

adult arrestees who tested positive for cocaine 

was unchanged from 1998 to 1999 at most ADAM 

sites.11 Cocaine was the most prevalent drug 

among both male and female arrestees from 1990 

to 1998; however, during 1998, marijuana surpassed cocaine as the most prevalent drug among 

male arrestees at a majority of ADAM sites. 

Production

Cocaine consumed in the United States is produced in South America, where it is extracted 

from coca plants grown primarily in Colombia, 

Peru, and Bolivia. At least three-quarters of the 

coca cultivated for processing into cocaine is now 

grown in Colombia. Colombian drug trafficking 

organizations are responsible for most of the 

cocaine production. 

Interagency estimates of potential cocaine 

production have ranged between 765 and 950 

metric tons per year since the mid-1990s. 

Annual variations are due to environmental, 

economic, political, and enforcement factors.

Recent terrorist activity against the United 

States and the concerted response of U.S. law 

enforcement and intelligence agencies likely 

has caused a shift in law enforcement focus 

and a redeployment of interdiction assets from 

transit zones to border checkpoints and ports 

of entry. Traffickers can be expected to make 

adjustments in their operations, not only for 

cocaine but for all drugs smuggled into the 

country from foreign sources.

10. TEDS comprises data on treatment admissions that are routinely collected by states to monitor their individual publicly funded 

substance abuse treatment systems. TEDS consists of a minimum data set of 19 items collected by nearly all states and a supplemental 

data set of 15 items collected by some states. The minimum data set consists of demographic information, route of administration, 

ethnicity, and age.

11. The ADAM Program involves two components: a questionnaire administered by a trained interviewer to an arrestee in a booking

facility within 48 hours of arrest, and a urine sample collected from the arrestee that is used to corroborate claims about recent drug 

use. Currently, data are collected at 35 ADAM sites and 4 affiliated ADAM sites.
National Drug Intelligence Center

7

According to the Interagency Assessment of 

Cocaine Movement, an estimated 768 metric tons 

of cocaine were potentially produced in 2000, of 

which some 645 metric tons were detected 

departing South America moving toward the 

United States. Approximately 87 metric tons were 

seized en route to the United States and 43 metric 

tons were seized at U.S. borders, leaving an estimated 515 metric tons potentially smuggled into 

the country before subtracting domestic federal, 

state, and local seizures, consumption in the Transit 

Zone, and transshipment to non-U.S. markets.

Transportation

Numerous drug trafficking organizations and 

criminal groups using a variety of smuggling routes 

and transportation methods transport cocaine from 

source countries in South America to the United 

States. Colombian transporters control the movement of cocaine from Colombia directly to the 

United States by sea and air as well as to intermediate stops in Central America, Mexico, and 

the Caribbean. Mexican drug trafficking organizations control shipments of cocaine through Mexico 

and into the United States across the U.S. southwestern border. Dominican, Jamaican, Haitian, 

Puerto Rican, and Bahamian criminal groups, often 

under the supervision of Colombian traffickers, 

move cocaine shipments from Caribbean islands 

to Puerto Rico, Florida, and other destinations 

throughout the eastern half of the country.

Approximately 66 percent of the estimated 

645 metric tons of cocaine detected departing 

South America toward the United States in 

2000 was shipped through the Mexico–Central 

America Corridor. Approximately 31 percent 

was transported through the Caribbean Corridor, 

while 3 percent was shipped directly to the 

United States (see Map 1).

Cocaine transported through the Mexico–

Central America Corridor typically is moved first 

by sea through the eastern Pacific or the western 

Caribbean and then brought ashore in Mexico or 

Central America. Transport also occurs by private 

aircraft flown into southern Mexico or Guatemala. 

Colombian transportation groups use go-fast boats, 

fishing vessels, and cargo ships to move cocaine 

from the North Coast of Colombia through the western Caribbean. Colombian transporters primarily 

use go-fast boats and fishing vessels to move 

cocaine from Colombia’s West Coast to rendezvous 

points off the coast of Mexico. The seizure of nearly 

12 metric tons of cocaine from the F/V Svesda 

Maru in May 2001 off the coast of Mexico following the seizure of over 8 metric tons from the F/V 

Forever My Friend in February attests to the 

significance of that particular method. The cocaine 

subsequently is moved ashore on vessels controlled 

by Mexican drug trafficking organizations. Once the 

cocaine is in Mexico, Mexican traffickers load it 

into vehicles or small aircraft for transport through 

Mexico to the U.S. border.

Mexican trafficking organizations control the 

movement of cocaine across the U.S.–Mexico 

border. Most of the cocaine is brought through ports 

of entry (POEs) in shipments of tens to hundreds 

of kilograms hidden in private and commercial 

vehicles. Many law enforcement agencies along the 

border have reported a trend toward “shotgunning”

shipments of cocaine into the country, breaking 

down larger consignments into smaller quantities 

for transport in multiple vehicles. Other agencies, 

however, report a recent return to the use of larger 

Map 1. Cocaine Flows to the United States

Source: Defense Intelligence Agency, Interagency Assessment of Cocaine 

Movement, February 2001.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

8

shipments in vehicles such as commercial and rental 

trucks and vans. Numerous other methods, including pedestrian traffic, railways, buses, and private 

aircraft are used as well. 

Colombian traffickers control the movement 

of cocaine through the Caribbean Corridor using 

a vast array of routes and methods. Direct shipments to Puerto Rico and the U.S. East and Gulf 

Coasts are supplemented by shipments sent through 

intermediate stops such as Jamaica, Haiti, and the 

Dominican Republic and up the island chain of 

the Lesser Antilles in the Eastern Caribbean. 

Colombian transporters use both commercial and 

noncommercial methods of air and sea transportation, often in combination, including go-fast 

boats, containerized cargo, coastal freighters, and 

private aircraft making airdrops. Shipments through 

intermediate stops in the Caribbean Basin are often 

subcontracted to Dominican, Jamaican, Haitian, 

or other criminal groups for final transport to the 

United States.

Colombian traffickers also control the shipment of large quantities of cocaine on commercial 

vessels directly into major Atlantic and Gulf 

Coast ports. Other criminal groups, often working 

under the auspices of Colombian traffickers, ship 

cocaine to the East Coast and Puerto Rico as well, 

using both commercial and noncommercial maritime means. For instance, Dominican traffickers 

control most of the noncommercial movement of 

cocaine into Puerto Rico as well as follow-on 

shipments to the U.S. mainland by commercial 

means. Bahamian traffickers are responsible for 

much of the noncommercial movement of cocaine 

into southern Florida, and Haitian traffickers 

move significant quantities of cocaine on coastal 

freighters into Southern Florida.

Transportation within the United States

Most of the cocaine movement within the 

United States occurs on the interstate highway 

system. Mexican traffickers direct multihundredkilogram shipments of cocaine from the Southwest to cities in the Midwest and along the East 

Coast via tractor-trailers. Mexican trafficking 

organizations, Dominican and Jamaican criminal 

groups, gangs, and other traffickers use private 

vehicles, often with sophisticated hidden compartments, to transport multikilogram quantities 

of cocaine between cities. Jamaican traffickers 

frequently use package delivery services to move 

cocaine from the western states to the East Coast. 

Buses, railways, and commercial airlines also are 

used to transport cocaine from transportation 

hubs to distribution centers.12

Mexican traffickers typically move wholesale 

quantities of powdered cocaine from transportation 

hubs in the Southwest to distribution centers 

throughout the western half of the country and, 

increasingly, in the eastern United States. Dominican traffickers control much of the transportation 

of cocaine from Miami, New York, and Puerto 

Rico to distribution centers in the eastern half of 

the country. Jamaican traffickers transport 

cocaine from the Southwest and Southeast 

regions to distribution centers along the East 

Coast. Various other transporters, including 

gangs, are active as well, moving smaller quantities of cocaine throughout the country; however, 

they usually are supplied by Mexican, Colombian, 

Jamaican, or Dominican trafficking organizations 

and criminal groups.

Crack cocaine usually is not transported in 

large quantities or over long distances because of 

more severe mandatory sentences for possession 

and distribution of crack. Instead, retail distributors 

convert powdered cocaine into crack near their 

market areas. Law enforcement reporting and 

responses to the National Drug Threat Survey 2001 

indicate, however, that some long distance crack 

transportation does occur, primarily via private 

vehicles, buses, railways, commercial airlines, and 

mail services. U.S. Postal Service (USPS) seizure 

data indicate that parcels containing crack were 

seized in 11 of 16 national divisions in FY2000. 

12. A transportation hub is defined as a city or area in the United States that is the destination of recurring shipments of wholesale 

quantities of drugs from a primary production area (foreign or domestic). Transportation hubs function as distribution centers as well. 

A distribution center is a city or area in the United States that regularly receives wholesale quantities of drugs from a domestic source 

and supplies wholesale or midlevel quantities to markets in and out of state.
National Drug Intelligence Center

9

Transportation Hubs

Powdered cocaine is shipped into the United 

States destined for one of six principal transportation hubs—Los Angeles, Central Arizona (including Phoenix and Tucson), El Paso, Houston, Miami, 

and Puerto Rico—as demonstrated by seizure data, 

investigations, and anecdotal reporting (see Maps 2 

and 3 next page). New York is a large-scale distribution center for cocaine and is increasingly being 

used as a transportation hub as well. Moreover, 

there is a strong indication from law enforcement 

reporting that Laredo and McAllen, Texas, are 

emerging as transportation hubs. Powdered cocaine 

typically is smuggled to transportation hubs in multikilogram quantities. The shipments subsequently 

are reduced to smaller quantities for local distribution or transportation to other distribution centers.

Los Angeles. Mexican trafficking organizations 

control the movement of cocaine from Mexico 

across the border into southern California and on 

to Los Angeles. From Los Angeles, Mexican 

traffickers ship the cocaine overland and by air to 

distribution centers throughout the United States. 

Los Angeles is the primary domestic source for 

cocaine shipped to cities all along the Interstate 5 

corridor and into British Columbia. Cocaine 

shipped from Los Angeles also supplies cities and 

distribution centers such as Atlanta, New York, 

Dallas, St. Louis, Jackson (MS), and Minneapolis. 

Central Arizona. Mexican drug trafficking 

organizations control the movement of cocaine 

from Mexico across the border into Arizona and 

on to Tucson and Phoenix. From Central Arizona, 

Mexican drug trafficking organizations supply 

cocaine to Mexican, Jamaican, and other criminal 

groups throughout Arizona. Cities and distribution 

centers supplied by the Central Arizona transportation hub include New York, Chicago, Detroit, 

and St. Louis. Central Arizona also serves as a 

supplemental source of supply for distributors in 

the Los Angeles and Houston transportation hubs.

El Paso. Mexican drug trafficking organizations 

control the movement of cocaine from Mexico 

across the border into El Paso. From El Paso, 

Mexican traffickers ship the cocaine to distribution centers located primarily in Texas and in the 

Southwest, West Central, and Great Lakes regions. 

Cities and distribution centers supplied by the El 

Paso transportation hub include Dallas, Chicago, 

Denver, Milwaukee, Salt Lake City, Santa Fe, Kansas City (MO), and St. Louis. El Paso also serves as 

a supplemental source of supply for distributors in 

the Los Angeles and Houston transportation hubs.

Houston. Mexican drug trafficking organizations 

control the movement of cocaine from Mexico 

across the border into southern Texas and on to 

Houston. Colombian traffickers control maritime 

shipments of cocaine into the area. From Houston, 

Mexican and Colombian traffickers ship cocaine 

overland and by air to distribution centers located 

primarily in the West Central, Great Lakes, MidAtlantic, New York/New Jersey, and New England 

regions. Cocaine shipped from Houston supplies 

cities such as Chicago, Atlanta, Boston, Cleveland, 

New Orleans, and St. Louis. Houston also is a 

major domestic source of supply for the New 

York transportation hub.

Miami. Colombian drug trafficking organizations 

control the movement of cocaine into Miami and 

the rest of southern Florida, shipping multihundredkilogram quantities of cocaine into major ports 

via containerized cargo. Haitian traffickers move 

cocaine to Miami from Haiti on coastal freighters, 

while Bahamian traffickers move cocaine to 

southern Florida from the Bahamas on go-fast 

boats. Colombian, Dominican, Haitian, and 

Jamaican traffickers ship cocaine overland from 

Miami to distribution centers elsewhere in Florida 

and in the Southeast, Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, 

New York/New Jersey, and New England regions. 

Cities and distribution centers supplied by the 

Miami transportation hub include New York, 

Atlanta, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Columbus 

(OH), and Minneapolis. 

Puerto Rico. Dominican criminal groups are 

responsible for much of the movement of cocaine 

into Puerto Rico on noncommercial maritime 

vessels. Colombian trafficking organizations 

control commercial shipments. Dominican and 

Colombian traffickers ship the cocaine by sea and 

air from Puerto Rico to distribution centers 

located primarily in the northeastern United 

States, particularly New York and Philadelphia.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

10

Map 2. Western Cocaine Transportation Hubs

Source: National Drug Intelligence Center, National Drug Threat Survey 2001, and El Paso Intelligence Center, Operation Pipeline (Convoy and Jetway).

Map 3. Eastern Cocaine Transportation Hubs

Source: National Drug Intelligence Center, National Drug Threat Survey 2001, and El Paso Intelligence Center, Operation Pipeline (Convoy and Jetway).
National Drug Intelligence Center

11

New York. Large amounts of cocaine are transported to New York from source areas outside the 

United States as well as from other transportation 

hubs within the country. Cocaine traffickers in 

New York are supplied by virtually every available means of transportation, including maritime 

containerized cargo, private vehicle from the 

Southwest and Southeast regions, commercial air, 

and mail services. Mexican traffickers control the 

movement of multihundred-kilogram shipments 

of cocaine across the U.S. southwestern border 

and on to New York. Colombian drug trafficking 

organizations control maritime cocaine shipments 

into the Port of New York/New Jersey. Cities and 

distribution centers supplied by the New York 

transportation hub include Philadelphia, Atlanta, 

Chicago, Boston, Cleveland, and Columbus. 

Distribution

Mexican and Colombian drug trafficking 

organizations are the primary wholesale cocaine 

distributors in the United States. Mexican trafficking organizations largely control wholesale 

cocaine distribution in the Pacific, Southwest, 

West Central, and Great Lakes regions and are 

involved in midlevel wholesale and retail distribution in every region of the country.13 DEA 

information, as well as responses to the National 

Drug Threat Survey 2001, suggests that Mexican 

trafficking organizations are expanding existing 

distribution operations in the New York/New 

Jersey and Mid-Atlantic regions. Mexican and 

Colombian drug trafficking organizations both 

control wholesale cocaine distribution in the 

Southeast. Despite the incursion of Mexican 

trafficking organizations into eastern markets, 

Colombian trafficking organizations and Dominican criminal groups control most wholesale 

cocaine distribution in the New England, New 

York/New Jersey, and Mid-Atlantic regions. 

Dominican criminal groups are expanding their 

role in midlevel wholesale and retail distribution, especially in the New England, New York/

New Jersey, and Great Lakes regions. 

Gangs control most retail distribution of 

powdered cocaine and crack in every region of the 

country. Local independent dealers are prominent in 

suburban and rural areas. Methods of retail distribution vary across the United States. Retail dealers 

often sell powdered cocaine and crack from 

inexpensive, low-income housing units. Some 

urban areas have open-air drug markets where 

cocaine and other drugs such as heroin and marijuana are readily available, while in other areas, 

including in Los Angeles, Memphis, and New York, 

retail cocaine distribution activities are becoming 

more clandestine, particularly in inner-city areas, to 

avoid detection by law enforcement. But information from state and local law enforcement agencies 

that responded to the National Drug Threat Survey 

2001 indicates that this shift toward less conspicuous distribution is not limited to urban areas.

Distribution Centers

Several U.S. cities supplied by transportation 

hubs are used as wholesale cocaine distribution centers. The primary distribution centers are Chicago, 

Detroit, Dallas, Atlanta, Philadelphia, and New 

York. Several cities, including Boston, Cleveland, 

Columbus, Denver, Jackson, Minneapolis–St. Paul, 

St. Louis, and Seattle are secondary distribution 

centers supplied by transportation hubs and primary 

distribution centers. 

Chicago. Mexican trafficking organizations transport wholesale quantities of cocaine to Chicago 

from the Houston, El Paso, Los Angeles, Central 

Arizona, and Miami transportation hubs. From 

Chicago, cocaine is distributed to areas elsewhere 

in Illinois as well as to cities such as Des Moines, 

13. This assessment refers to three levels of distribution. Wholesale distribution is defined as the level at which drugs are purchased 

directly from a source of supply and sold, normally, to midlevel wholesalers in pound, kilogram, or multi-unit quantities; midlevel 

wholesale, the level at which drugs are purchased directly from wholesale distributors in pound, kilogram, or multi-unit quantities and 

sold in smaller quantities to other midlevel wholesalers or to retail distributors; retail, the level at which drugs are sold directly to users.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

12

Fort Wayne, Grand Rapids (MI), Lexington, 

Columbus, Toledo, St. Paul, and Milwaukee. 

Chicago also serves as a transshipment point for 

the Detroit distribution center. Mexican criminal 

groups, gangs, and local independent dealers—

Caucasians, African Americans, and Hispanics—

are all involved in the retail distribution of 

cocaine in the Chicago area.

Detroit. Mexican trafficking organizations supply 

most of the cocaine to Detroit from the El Paso 

and Houston transportation hubs, sometimes via 

Chicago. Dominican, Puerto Rican, and Jamaican 

criminal groups often work together to transport 

midlevel wholesale quantities of cocaine to 

Detroit from New York. Cuban criminal groups 

transport a limited amount of cocaine to Detroit 

from the Miami transportation hub. Cocaine traffickers based in Detroit supply dealers elsewhere 

in Michigan as well as in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, 

and Pennsylvania. African American and Hispanic 

gangs and local independent dealers control retail 

cocaine distribution in Detroit, including the city’s 

significant crack cocaine market. 

Dallas. The Houston and El Paso transportation 

hubs supply most of the cocaine available for 

distribution from Dallas. Mexican trafficking 

organizations operating in Dallas distribute cocaine 

to markets in northern Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Mississippi. Cocaine also is 

transshipped through Dallas—usually via private 

vehicle—to Chicago, Kansas City, Los Angeles, 

Memphis, New York, and St. Louis. Traffickers 

transporting cocaine within and outside the 

Dallas area use Interstates 20, 30, and 35 as the 

principal land routes. African American, Cuban, 

Mexican, and Caucasian criminal groups and 

local independent dealers conduct retail cocaine 

distribution in the Dallas area. 

Atlanta. Mexican trafficking organizations control most wholesale cocaine transportation to 

Atlanta from the Houston transportation hub. 

Colombian and Dominican criminal groups also 

Map 4. Cocaine Distribution from Chicago

Source: National Drug Intelligence Center, National Drug Threat Survey 2001.

Map 5. Cocaine Distribution from Detroit

Source: National Drug Intelligence Center, National Drug Threat Survey 2001.

Map 6. Cocaine Distribution from Dallas

Source: National Drug Intelligence Center, National Drug Threat Survey 2001.

Map 7. Cocaine Distribution from Atlanta

Source: National Drug Intelligence Center, National Drug Threat Survey 2001.
National Drug Intelligence Center

13

supply wholesale quantities from New York and 

Miami. Atlanta-based cocaine traffickers supply 

powdered cocaine and crack to midlevel wholesale 

and retail markets throughout the Southeast region, 

particularly in Birmingham (AL), Macon (GA), 

Charlotte (NC), Columbia (SC), and Chattanooga 

(TN). African American and Hispanic gangs dominate retail distribution, especially of crack cocaine, 

in the city.

Philadelphia. Colombian and Dominican criminal groups are the principal suppliers of cocaine to 

Philadelphia from New York, Miami, and Puerto 

Rico. Further, Mexican trafficking organizations 

are increasingly supplying Philadelphia with 

wholesale quantities of cocaine from the Houston 

transportation hub. From Philadelphia, cocaine is 

supplied to midlevel wholesale and retail markets 

throughout the Mid-Atlantic region, including 

southern New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, 

Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Dominican criminal 

groups, local independent dealers, and Hispanic 

and African American gangs conduct retail distribution in the Philadelphia area. 

New York. New York is a distribution center for 

many areas of the country and is increasingly 

used as a transportation hub. New York-based 

Colombian, Dominican, and Jamaican criminal 

groups supply cocaine to markets in the Great 

Lakes, New England, New York/New Jersey, 

Mid-Atlantic, and Southeast regions. Dominican 

criminal groups are responsible for the distribution of cocaine primarily to market areas such as 

Boston, Charleston (SC), Cleveland, Detroit, and 

Washington, D.C. Within New York, Colombian 

and Dominican traffickers control most of the 

wholesale and midlevel wholesale cocaine distribution; however, Mexican traffickers may be 

gaining influence. Also within New York, 

Dominican criminal groups, gangs, and various 

African American and Caribbean distributors are 

responsible for retail distribution.

Key Developments 

Over the past year, several developments 

occurred with regard to cocaine transportation 

and distribution. Mexican trafficking organizations have noticeably expanded their involvement 

in cocaine transportation in the Great Lakes, MidAtlantic, and Southeast regions. This expansion 

has been aided by the growing presence of Hispanic gangs in these areas. 

A number of law enforcement agencies indicate 

that overland cocaine shipments originate in Mexican cities and are transported directly to distribution 

centers located in the southern and eastern United 

States, far from traditional transportation hubs. 

Map 8. Cocaine Distribution from Philadelphia

Source: National Drug Intelligence Center, National Drug Threat Survey 2001.

Map 9. Cocaine Distribution from New York

Source: National Drug Intelligence Center, National Drug Threat Survey 2001.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

14

Moreover, there are indications that the United 

States continues to be used as a transit country for 

some cocaine shipments destined for Europe. 

Traffickers are using sophisticated methods 

more frequently to transport cocaine into and within 

the United States. Many cocaine transporters are 

using electronically activated hidden compartments 

in vehicles. In many areas, Mexican trafficking 

organizations are increasingly smuggling greater 

numbers of smaller shipments across the U.S. southwestern border to minimize the risk of losing larger 

shipments to law enforcement detection and interdiction. Criminal groups are increasingly using mail 

and package delivery services to transport cocaine 

into and within the country, enabling the transporter 

to track the package while maintaining anonymity. 

Traffickers also are using cocaine storage and 

distribution sites to avoid law enforcement detection. Distributors in urban areas are increasingly 

using apartments in public housing complexes to 

mask their activities. Further, traffickers are using 

storage facilities in suburban areas to store cocaine. 

For example, traffickers in Los Angeles are using 

storage sites on the periphery of the metropolitan 

area to hold cocaine until it is needed for distribution. And in New York, Colombians and 

Dominicans are moving many of their storage 

sites to suburban Westchester County and Long 

Island to avoid law enforcement detection. 

Retail cocaine distributors, especially some 

gangs, may be cooperating to reduce violence 

among rivals and increase profits. For example, 

gangs involved in retail distribution in various 

areas of the country have deliberately refrained 

from prominently displaying gang colors or flashing gang signs to reduce rivalry and violence, 

decrease pressure from law enforcement and communities, and increase profits. Conversely, in other 

areas, particularly in Virginia, West Virginia, and 

Los Angeles, gangs and other drug distribution 

groups are occasionally exchanging powdered 

cocaine and crack for guns. The Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco and Firearms reports that a number of 

these weapons have been recovered during investigations of criminal activity in the New York area.

Projections

The availability of and demand for powdered 

cocaine and crack will remain stable at current high 

levels, possibly declining slightly over the long 

term. Cocaine will remain the greatest drug threat 

to the country, leading all other drug categories in 

drug-related violence, ED and ME mentions, 

treatment admissions, and arrests. 

The shift in cocaine demographics to include 

more users in suburban and rural areas will pose a 

challenge to law enforcement agencies as new 

markets for powdered cocaine and crack develop 

in nontraditional areas across the country.

The potential for increased cocaine-related 

violence exists as Mexican and other Hispanic 

cocaine distribution groups compete with rival 

groups in growing market areas. In a number of 

cities in North Carolina, for example, state and 

local law enforcement reporting suggests that 

Hispanic and African American cocaine and 

crack distribution groups competing over market 

share have escalated the levels of drug-related 

violence.

As international drug trafficking organizations 

continue to exploit the growing cocaine market in 

Europe and international transit restrictions ease, 

the United States may play an increasing role as a 

transit country for cocaine transported to Europe.
National Drug Intelligence Center

15

Heroin

Heroin is the second greatest drug threat facing 

the United States because of widespread availability, extensive involvement of international drug 

trafficking organizations, increasing user populations—including a growing number of young 

users—and high rates of overdose, death, and lifelong physiological dependency. Heroin from all 

major source areas—South America, Mexico, 

Southeast Asia, and Southwest Asia—is available 

in various locations throughout the country, but 

according to law enforcement reporting, South 

American heroin is the most widely available type. 

The widespread availability of highly pure, relatively inexpensive South American heroin has, in 

large part, fueled current high levels of heroin 

abuse nationwide.

Overall, heroin use in the United States 

appears to have stabilized at relatively high levels. 

Nonetheless, most law enforcement officials 

throughout the country agree that the trend toward 

higher purity, lower cost heroin is continuing, and 

some national-level drug abuse indicators, 

including MTF and DAWN, show that use by 

some young people, as well as the attendant consequences, continues to increase. In some areas of 

the country, particularly in the East, the threat is 

growing. In fact, some law enforcement agencies 

in Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts 

categorize heroin as their greatest drug threat. 

The combination of heroin’s widespread 

availability, higher purity, and lower price attracts 

a new, younger user group, while simultaneously 

meeting the demand of experienced users. New 

and young users are attracted by the availability 

of purer heroin, which can be effectively snorted 

or smoked rather than injected. Many of these newer 

users mistakenly believe snorting or smoking 

heroin will not lead to addiction. But with 

repeated use, addiction develops and tolerance 

increases, causing users to switch to injection, 

which is a more efficient mode of administration. 

Given the increased probability of contracting 

and spreading needle-borne illnesses such as HIV 

and hepatitis as well as the risk of overdose from 

inexperienced users injecting high purity heroin, 

the threat of heroin is very real.

Heroin is not normally associated with violent 

behavior, although the overwhelming need to 

support their habit drives many heroin addicts to 

criminal behavior such as prostitution, drug dealing, 

and robbery. Addicts often will steal from family 

members to obtain the funds necessary to purchase 

heroin. State and local law enforcement agencies 

that responded to the National Drug Threat Survey 

2001 confirm that thefts, burglaries, and robberies 

are often consequences of heroin use in their areas.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

16

Availability

Heroin is readily available throughout all 

major metropolitan areas in the United States and 

is becoming increasingly available in many rural 

and suburban areas. Of 1,261 law enforcement 

agencies responding to the National Drug Threat 

Survey 2001, 529 identified heroin availability as 

medium or high; and of the 1,261 survey respondents, 1,035 identified their jurisdictions as rural 

or suburban, of which 408 reported heroin availability as medium or high. Law enforcement 

reporting indicates that heroin availability varies 

throughout the country by type (see Text Box).

South American heroin is widely available at 

the wholesale and retail levels in the New 

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

Southeast, and Florida/Caribbean regions. It 

is available in some cities in the Great Lakes 

region, primarily Chicago and Detroit. South 

American heroin seized in western states is 

usually destined for eastern U.S. markets.

Mexican heroin, primarily black tar, is widely 

available at the wholesale and retail levels in 

the West Central, Pacific, and Southwest 

regions. It is available in some cities in the 

Great Lakes region and in limited amounts in 

the Southeast region. 

Southeast Asian heroin is available at 

the street level in some cities in the New 

England, NewYork/New Jersey, Great 

Lakes, and Southeast regions. Although 

only small quantities of Southeast Asian 

heroin are available in western states, 

much of this limited supply is destined for 

distribution in the New England and New 

York/New Jersey regions. 

Southwest Asian heroin is available at the 

street level principally in Chicago, Atlanta, 

and Detroit and is available in limited quantities in other areas of the country.

Heroin from all major source areas is available in various locations throughout the country. 

But analysis of law enforcement reporting, seizure data, trafficking and abuse indicators, and 

National Drug Threat Survey 2001 responses 

reveals that there are two general, but distinct, 

geographic heroin markets within the United 

States divided, roughly, by the Mississippi River. 

East of the Mississippi, high purity white powdered 

heroin from South America is the predominant 

type available; heroin from Southeast and Southwest Asia is also available but to a much lesser 

extent. West of the Mississippi, Mexican heroin, 

primarily black tar but also brown powder, is the 

predominant type. While the Mississippi River is a 

general divider between the different types of heroin available, heroin from Mexico is available in 

the East and white powdered heroin is available in 

the West, but in limited quantities.

Further analysis of law enforcement reporting 

and seizure data provides insight into the domestic 

heroin situation. FDSS data indicate that the 

amount of heroin seized increased from 1,149 kilograms in 1999 to 1,596 kilograms in 2000. The 

largest amounts of heroin were seized in New York, 

Florida, and Texas. OCDETF information shows 

that the number of heroin indictments in FY2000 

(343) was slightly less than in FY1999 (365).

Prices for heroin vary widely, depending on 

the type of heroin and the location in which it is 

sold. DEA reporting shows that wholesale prices 

range from $13,200 to $175,000 per kilogram for 

Mexican black tar heroin, $50,000 to $200,000 

per kilogram for South American heroin, and 

$40,000 to $190,000 per kilogram for both Southeast and Southwest Asian heroin. At the street 

level, heroin typically costs $10 per dose but the 

price can vary. For example, in responding to the 

National Drug Threat Survey 2001, the Massachusetts State Police reported heroin was available for 

$4 per bag, while the Hennepin County (MN) 

Sheriff’s Office reported the price of heroin in its 

area was $50 per bag. 

South American heroin accounted for 60 

percent of the heroin analyzed in 1999 under the 

DEA Heroin Signature Program (HSP), making 

South America the predominant source area for 

heroin seized in the United States for the fifth 
National Drug Intelligence Center

17

consecutive year.14 Mexican, Southeast Asian, 

and Southwest Asian heroin accounted for 24, 10, 

and 6 percent, respectively. These percentages 

vary somewhat from the 1998 figures. That year, 

South American heroin accounted for 65 percent 

of the heroin analyzed; Mexican, 17 percent; 

Southeast Asian, 14 percent; and Southwest 

Asian, 4 percent.

Along with source area, the HSP also tracks 

wholesale heroin purity levels. In 1999, wholesale purity levels were relatively stable with the 

average wholesale purity of South American heroin recorded at 78 percent, the average wholesale 

purity of Mexican heroin at 42 percent, and the 

average wholesale purity of both Southeast and 

Southwest Asian heroin at 73 percent.

According to the DEA Domestic Monitor 

Program (DMP), the purity level of heroin 

available at the retail level nationwide averaged 

51.2 percent for South American heroin, 27.3 percent for Mexican, 41.9 percent for Southeast Asian, 

and 44.0 percent for Southwest Asian heroin.15

The average retail purity of both South American 

and Mexican heroin decreased slightly in 1999, 

while the average retail purity of Southeast and 

Southwest Asian heroin increased. 

Demand

The number of heroin users in the United 

States has been increasing steadily since the early 

1990s; however, interagency estimates indicate 

that the rate of increase is leveling and use 

appears to be stabilizing, albeit at high levels. 

ONDCP estimates the current domestic hardcore 

user population at 977,000, up from an estimated 

630,000 in 1992. Moreover, there are an estimated 514,000 occasional heroin users in the 

country. Combined, these users consume 

approximately 18 metric tons of heroin annually, 

according to the April 2000 interagency assessment Global Heroin Threat to the United States.

According to the 2000 NHSDA, an estimated 

104,000 individuals tried heroin for the first time 

in 1999. A large number of initiates reportedly 

are young and snort or, to a lesser extent, smoke 

the drug. The NHSDA reports the mean age at 

first use for heroin at 19.8, the lowest age 

reported since 1971. Respondents to the National 

Drug Threat Survey 2001 also reported that heroin use is increasing among those of high school 

and college age.

Heroin use among high school students, except 

for twelfth graders, appears to be stabilizing after 

increasing through much of the 1990s. Analysis of 

MTF data indicates that while there was minimal 

change in annual heroin use between 1991 and 1993 

among students in eighth, tenth, and twelfth grade, 

all three grade levels showed significant increases 

after 1993. By 1996, the prevalence rate for each 

grade level had more than doubled the 1991 rates. 

Although the rate of use stabilized by 1998 for tenth 

graders, the rate of use among eighth graders 

decreased significantly from 1.4 percent in 1999 to 

1.1 percent in 2000, while the rate of use among 

twelfth graders increased significantly from 1.1 to 

1.5 percent (the highest rate in the history of the 

survey) during the same period.

14. Under the HSP, DEA’s Special Testing and Research Laboratory analyzes heroin samples from POE seizures as well as a random 

sample of other seizures and purchases submitted to DEA laboratories to determine source areas.

15. The DMP is a heroin purchase program designed to identify the purity, price, and source of origin of retail-level heroin available 

in drug markets in 23 major metropolitan areas of the United States.

Table 1. Heroin Purity by Source Area, 

National Average, 1999 (%)

Source Area

Heroin 

Signature

Program

Domestic

Monitor

Program

South America 78.0 51.2

Mexico 42.0 27.3

Southeast Asia 73.0 41.9

Southwest Asia 73.0 44.0

Source: Drug Enforcement Administration.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

18

According to PRIDE, past year heroin use by 

junior and senior high school students remains 

relatively low. Heroin use rates for junior high 

students declined from the 1996–1997 school 

year (2.4%) to the 1999–2000 school year (1.6%). 

During that same period, rates for senior high students and twelfth graders fluctuated, ending at 2.9 

and 3.2 percent, respectively, in 2000. Both rates 

are lower than those reported in the 1996–1997 

school year.

The high level of heroin use also is reflected in 

national-level drug consequence indicators, such 

as DAWN and TEDS. Heroin/morphine accounted 

for a large number of DAWN ED mentions in 

2000, third only to alcohol in combination with 

other substances and cocaine. Before 1999, 

heroin/morphine-related ED mentions were relatively stable, but they increased significantly 

between 1999 (84,409) and 2000 (97,287). This 

increase can be attributed to substantial increases 

in heroin use by several demographic subgroups 

including Caucasians, admissions aged 18 to 25, 

and admissions aged 35 and older. Overall, 

males accounted for nearly 66 percent of 

heroin/morphine ED mentions in 2000. Caucasians, African Americans, and Hispanics 

accounted for approximately 42, 32, and 

15 percent of mentions, respectively. 

Heroin/morphine was the second most 

frequently mentioned drug involved in drugrelated deaths between 1996 and 1999, according 

to DAWN ME data. Heroin/morphine was mentioned in approximately 41 percent of reported 

drug-related deaths in 1999, just slightly 

behind cocaine. Of 4,820 DAWN ME mentions 

for heroin/morphine in that year, 80 percent of 

decedents were male and 20 percent of decedents 

were female. The metropolitan areas with the 

highest rates of heroin/morphine-related ME 

deaths in 1999 were Baltimore, Portland, Salt 

Lake City, and Boston.

Publicly funded treatment admissions for heroin 

as a primary substance of abuse remained relatively 

stable in 1998, accounting for nearly 14 percent of 

all treatment admissions reported in TEDS data. 

The typical admission to publicly funded treatment 

in 1998 was male (67%), Caucasian (50%), and 

between 35 and 39 years old (20%). More than 67 

percent of publicly funded treatment admissions for 

primary heroin use involved injecting heroin, while 

snorting and smoking heroin accounted for approximately 28 percent and 3 percent, respectively. 

Admissions for snorting tend to be younger than 

admissions for injection.

Heroin often is used in combination with one 

or more drugs. According to 1999 DAWN ME 

data, cocaine and alcohol in combination were 

most frequently mentioned in heroin/morphinerelated deaths when more than one drug was 

involved. Also, the 1998 TEDS indicates that 

many admissions to publicly funded treatment 

facilities for heroin abuse report secondary use of 

nonsmoked cocaine (26%), alcohol (25%), 

smoked cocaine (12%), and marijuana (12%). 

ADAM data also indicate a propensity for 

combination use. In 1999, more than 75 percent of 

the arrestees in the entire adult male sample that 

tested positive for opiates also tested positive for 

some other drug. Heroin use among arrestees 

remained relatively low and stable between 1990 

and 1999, according to ADAM data. In 1999, only 

12 ADAM sites reported adult opiate positive rates 

of 10 percent or higher. The lowest rates for both 

male and female arrestees were recorded in Omaha 

(0% and <1%, respectively) and the highest rates 

were in Chicago (32% and 20%).

Production

Heroin is produced from opium poppies 

cultivated in four source areas: South America, 

Mexico, Southeast Asia, and Southwest Asia. 

In 2000, potential opium production was estimated 

at just over 5,000 metric tons. If all this opium 

had been converted to heroin (it was not), an 
National Drug Intelligence Center

19

estimated 486 metric tons of heroin would have 

been produced in 2000. 

Heroin produced in South America, primarily 

in Colombia, accounts for most of the heroin available in the United States, according to law enforcement estimates. In 1999, potentially 8 metric tons 

of heroin could have been produced in Colombia, 

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

Although an estimate for 2000 is not available, the 

average production from 1995 to 1999 is believed 

to have been around 6.5 metric tons. 

Heroin produced in Mexico also accounts for 

a significant amount of the heroin available in the 

United States. Nearly all of the opium grown in 

Mexico—less than 1 percent of the world’s illicit 

opium—is processed into heroin and shipped to 

the United States. An estimated 2.5 metric tons of 

heroin were produced in Mexico during 2000; 

however, production had averaged 4 to 6 metric 

tons for the previous several years. Low production 

in 2000 is attributed to successful eradication 

efforts by Mexican authorities and to a drought. 

Despite the lower potential opium production in 

Mexico, there is no indication that reduced heroin 

processing in Mexico has had any effect on 

prices, purity, or availability of Mexican black tar 

heroin in the United States.

Heroin in Southeast Asia is processed primarily 

in Burma, Laos, and Thailand in a common border 

area known as the Golden Triangle. In 2000, enough 

opium (1,316 mt) was produced—mostly in 

Burma—to yield 110 metric tons of heroin if all was 

processed. Potential heroin yield in 2001 dropped to 

91 metric tons. Southeast Asian heroin generally is 

destined for foreign markets, primarily in China and 

elsewhere in Southeast Asia; nonetheless, interagency estimates for 2000 indicated that approximately 3 metric tons of Southeast Asian heroin 

were smuggled into the United States. 

The most common form of heroin processed 

in Mexico is “black tar,” which results from 

less refined processing methods than those 

used for “white” heroin produced in other 

source areas. A “brown powder,” more 

refined than black tar heroin, also is produced 

in Mexico. According to limited law enforcement reporting, Mexican traffickers may be 

attempting to produce white powdered heroin 

with the help of Colombian chemists, but the 

extent of this activity is unknown.

The opium produced in Southwest Asia in 2000 

(3,367 mt), almost all of which came from Afghanistan, could have yielded some 366 metric tons of 

heroin if all was processed. In 2001, opium production dropped to 79 metric tons, a potential yield of 

8 metric tons of heroin (see Key Developments on 

page 25). According to interagency estimates for 

2000, only 1 metric ton of Southwest Asian heroin 

was smuggled into the United States. 

Transportation

New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles are the 

primary transportation hubs for heroin smuggled 

into the United States. Heroin is shipped to transportation hubs by air, by sea, overland, and 

through mail services.

International airports are significant POEs 

for heroin smuggled into the United States. 

Approximately 800 kilograms of heroin were 

seized from commercial aircraft in 2000, with 

most seizures occurring at Miami and John F. 

Kennedy International Airports. Heroin couriers who use commercial air often swallow 

heroin-filled pellets. Each pellet usually contains 

between 10 and 15 grams of heroin, and couriers 

typically swallow between 0.5 and 

1.5 kilograms. Couriers who smuggle via commercial air also conceal heroin by taping packages of the drug to their legs or torsos or by 

secreting it in their luggage or clothing.

Maritime ports are also significant POEs for 

heroin smuggled into the country, as evidenced 

by recent seizure reporting. In January 2001, a 

joint DEA–USCS investigation resulted in the 

seizure of more than 57 kilograms of Southeast 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

20

Asian heroin from a ship in Elizabeth, New 

Jersey. Shortly after, in May 2001, DEA and 

USCS seized 54 kilograms of South American 

heroin from a ship at Staten Island, New York. 

This shipment was the largest amount of South 

American heroin ever seized in the United States 

on board a commercial vessel. 

Traffickers smuggle heroin into the United 

States overland through POEs along the U.S. 

southwestern border and, to a much lesser extent, 

along the U.S.–Canada border, capitalizing on 

the high volume of vehicular traffic and long, 

geographically complex, often remote border 

areas. Traffickers also use international mail services to transport heroin since the high volume 

of parcels entering the United States increases 

the probability that the heroin will reach its destination without law enforcement intervention. 

South American. South American heroin is 

smuggled into the United States through international airports by couriers on both direct and 

indirect commercial flights. Couriers taking indirect flights to the United States typically transit 

Central and South American countries as well as 

Caribbean islands, particularly Puerto Rico. 

South American heroin also is transported into 

the United States via airmail and package delivery services, aboard commercial vessels, and 

through a limited number of land POEs. New 

York is the primary transportation hub for South 

American heroin. Miami is a primary entry point 

for South American heroin, and this city appears 

to function as a transportation hub as well. 

Colombian criminal groups that operate independently of the major cocaine cartels generally 

control the smuggling of South American heroin 

into the United States and are major sources of 

supply for the South American heroin available in 

the eastern United States. In recent years, DEA has 

documented various instances in which cocaine 

and heroin were smuggled together. These shipments generally have consisted of several kilograms of heroin with tens or even hundreds of 

kilograms of cocaine. While some Colombian 

sources may supply both heroin and cocaine, it is 

more likely that Colombian transportation 

groups have consolidated heroin and cocaine 

from separate sources of supply into single shipments to maximize profits.

Recent OCDETF reporting reveals that 

Colombian traffickers are increasingly smuggling 

South American heroin to the United States along 

smuggling routes used by Mexican traffickers. 

Heroin is transported to Mexico and then across 

the border by couriers on commercial flights, in 

containerized cargo, or by couriers on foot or in 

taxis. Also, law enforcement reporting indicates 

that Dominican traffickers are hiring Mexican 

criminal groups to transport South American 

heroin to the U.S. side of the Southwest Border. 

The Dominican traffickers reclaim possession of 

the heroin once it is in the United States and transport it to New York.

Dominican drug traffickers have been 

involved in wholesale and retail distribution of 

South American heroin for a number of years; 

however, law enforcement reporting suggests 

they are now more involved in the transportation 

of heroin to the United States. In smuggling 

South American heroin to U.S. markets many 

Dominican traffickers appear to be either working 

with Colombian traffickers in the same organizations or purchasing heroin from them. Others 

involved in the transportation of South American heroin to the United States include Guatemalan, Puerto Rican, Jamaican, Haitian, and 

Bahamian criminal groups.

Mexican. Mexican heroin is smuggled into the 

United States primarily overland across the U.S. 

southwestern border by Mexican polydrug trafficking organizations. Los Angeles and, to a 

lesser extent, Houston appear to serve as transportation hubs for Mexican heroin. Heroin is 

transported in private vehicles with hidden compartments, in commercial trucks, and in buses as 

well as by couriers, some of whom are undocumented migrants and children. Law enforcement 

reporting indicates that Mexican trafficking organizations also use couriers to smuggle heroin into 

the United States via commercial flights arriving 

at international airports in cities such as Los 

Angeles and Houston. Mail and package delivery 

services are used as well.
National Drug Intelligence Center

21

Mexican traffickers often vary heroin smuggling routes and methods to avoid law enforcement 

interdiction efforts. For example, some traffickers 

reportedly are targeting POEs along the U.S.–

Mexico border such as Nogales, Douglas, and San 

Luis in Arizona and Columbus in New Mexico 

because they believe these POEs do not have staffing levels as high as or drug detection technology 

as advanced as other POEs.

Historically, Mexican heroin has been 

smuggled into the United States in relatively 

small quantities of 1 to 2 kilograms. Several 

large-scale heroin seizures along the U.S. 

southwestern border from September 2000 to 

February 2001 indicate this trend may be 

changing, however. On October 3, 2000, USCS 

officials in San Luis seized over 46 kilograms 

of Mexican black tar heroin, the largest ever 

seizure along the border. Between December 

2000 and February 2001, six large seizures of 

Mexican black tar heroin totaling 234 kilograms occurred near POEs in southern Texas.

Southeast Asian. Southeast Asian heroin is 

transported to the United States by a variety of 

methods including by couriers on commercial 

flights, via mail services, and in containerized 

cargo. New York is the principal transportation 

hub for Southeast Asian heroin, which is shipped 

to the United States primarily by Nigerian and 

ethnic Chinese criminal groups (often the Fukinese). Cities that appear to be used as transshipment points for Southeast Asian heroin include 

Buffalo, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Los Angeles, 

and San Francisco. 

Nigerian criminal groups based in Thailand 

typically use couriers to transport Southeast Asian 

heroin to New York. To disguise the origin of the 

couriers, Nigerian traffickers use multiple couriers 

who make numerous hand-offs while traveling on 

multiple routes. Nigerian criminal groups also use 

couriers on commercial flights or package delivery 

services to transport small amounts of Southeast 

Asian heroin through Mexico to the United States. 

Ethnic Chinese criminal groups smuggle 

small amounts of Southeast Asian heroin to New 

York City through Canada. Couriers reportedly 

carry Southeast Asian heroin in luggage from 

Canada to Seattle, Toronto, or Montreal before 

traveling by train, bus, or private vehicle to 

New York. Ethnic Chinese traffickers generally 

conduct operations with similar ethnic groups; 

however, U.S. law enforcement agencies report that 

ethnic Chinese criminal groups also have supplied 

wholesale quantities of heroin to Hispanic criminal 

groups, usually Dominican or Puerto Rican, and to 

members of traditional organized crime. 

Southwest Asian. Southwest Asian heroin is 

smuggled via mail parcels, by couriers on commercial aircraft, and in containerized cargo to New 

York and Los Angeles, which are the primary 

transportation hubs for this type. From these hubs, 

heroin often is shipped to Atlanta, Chicago, and 

Detroit for further distribution. Unlike groups 

smuggling heroin from other sources, traffickers of 

Southwest Asian heroin frequently smuggle heroin 

into the country without a prearranged buyer, often 

storing the heroin until a buyer is found. 

Recent OCDETF and other law enforcement 

reporting indicates that Asian, Albanian, Lebanese, 

Middle Eastern, Nepalese, Nigerian, Pakistani, and 

Turkish criminal groups control most of the Southwest Asian heroin smuggled to and distributed in 

the United States. Seizures at John F. Kennedy 

International Airport indicate that Nigerian traffickers transport Southwest Asian heroin from 

Pakistan to the United States through various transshipment locations including Southeast Asia (primarily Bangkok) and Mexico. Nigerian criminal 

groups employ female couriers to travel by bus to 

the U.S. southwestern border, pick up packages 

ranging from 100 grams to a kilogram of heroin, 

and transport them by private vehicle or commercial air to U.S. heroin markets.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

22

Distribution

Several criminal groups—many of them small, 

independent, and loosely structured—are involved 

in the distribution of heroin in the United States 

according to federal, state, and local law enforcement reporting. The most frequently reported heroin 

wholesalers are Colombian, Dominican, Mexican, 

Nigerian, and ethnic Chinese criminal groups. 

Retail distributors include African Americans, 

Colombians, Dominicans, Jamaicans, Mexicans, 

Puerto Ricans, Nigerians, Caucasians, and Asians. 

Independent heroin retailers are frequently users, 

and they procure heroin in larger cities and often 

distribute it in the suburban and rural areas in 

which they reside to sustain their own habits. 

Gangs are actively involved in the wholesale 

and retail distribution of heroin. Members of 

national gangs such as the Gangster Disciples, 

Bloods, Crips, Vice Lords, and Latin Kings maintain links to many heroin traffickers to ensure a 

constant supply of the drug. As these gangs spread 

outside urban areas, so do their drug distribution 

operations, a situation that may partially explain the 

expansion of heroin use in suburban and rural areas. 

South American. South American heroin is distributed in the eastern United States at the wholesale level by Colombian trafficking organizations 

and at the retail level by Dominican criminal 

groups. Consequently, Colombian traffickers rely 

on Dominican criminal groups for distribution 

operations, particularly because of the Dominican traffickers’ proven ability to both manage 

distribution networks and aggressively expand 

markets. Law enforcement reporting suggests 

that Dominican traffickers have expanded from 

their base of operations in New York City and 

established distribution networks in other areas 

of the eastern United States including Maine, 

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, 

Vermont, and Virginia. Other retailers of South 

American heroin include African American, 

Puerto Rican, and Caucasian criminal groups. 

Mexican. Mexican drug trafficking organizations 

operating from Mexico generally control heroin 

distribution in the United States at the wholesale 

level while Mexican American gangs, such as the 

Sinaloan Cowboys in the western and southwestern United States, operate at the retail level. Local 

and prison-based gangs, such as the Black Guerrilla Family, control street distribution of the drug 

as well. Others involved in the retail distribution of 

Mexican heroin include Honduran, Guatemalan, 

Nicaraguan, African American, and Caucasian 

criminal groups. 

Southeast Asian. Nigerian and other West 

African traffickers and ethnic Chinese criminal 

groups generally control the wholesale 

distribution of Southeast Asian heroin in the 

United States. Nigerian wholesale distributors 

are most active in locations with longstanding 

Nigerian populations such as Atlanta, Chicago, 

Dallas, Houston, New York, and the Baltimore–

Washington area, where they provide Southeast 

Asian heroin to street-level dealers, including 

members of African American gangs. Ethnic 

Chinese criminal groups use extensive connections to foreign source areas and to Asian gangs 

in the United States and Canada to facilitate heroin distribution. Southeast Asian heroin imported 

by ethnic Chinese traffickers is sold to and distributed by members of other Asian criminal 

groups and members of traditional organized 

crime. Dominican and Puerto Rican groups also are 

involved in the wholesale and retail distribution of 

Southeast Asian heroin, particularly in New York. 

Southwest Asian. Lebanese, Pakistani, and 

Nigerian criminal groups largely control the 

wholesale distribution of Southwest Asian heroin 

in the United States. Dominican and Puerto Rican 

traffickers also are involved in the wholesale and 

retail distribution of Southwest Asian heroin in 

New York, although to a much lesser extent.
National Drug Intelligence Center

23

Distribution Centers

Traffickers transport heroin from transportation 

hubs to key distribution centers in the United States, 

cities from which the drug is distributed regionally 

and across the country. Analysis of federal, state, 

and local law enforcement reporting indicates that 

the transportation hubs of New York, Chicago, and 

Los Angeles also are distribution centers for a large 

portion of the heroin sold in the United States. Other 

cities identified as transportation hubs that also are 

used as distribution centers include Miami and 

Houston. In addition to these cities, Philadelphia is a 

significant heroin distribution center.

New York. New York is the primary distribution 

center for South American heroin destined for 

markets throughout the country. On a smaller scale, 

traffickers use New York as a distribution hub for 

Southeast and Southwest Asian heroin, brokering 

deals in that city and distributing heroin throughout the state as well as to the New England, 

New York/New Jersey, Great Lakes, and Southeast regions. Agencies in Alabama, Connecticut, 

Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, 

New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 

Rhode Island, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Wisconsin identify New York City 

as a source for the heroin available in their areas. 

Investigative information also indicates that the 

city may serve as a transshipment point for limited quantities of South American heroin destined 

for Canada.

Chicago. Traffickers use Chicago as a distribution 

center for heroin from all four source areas. Traffickers distribute heroin from Chicago throughout 

Illinois and to other states including Indiana, Iowa, 

Ohio, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin.

Los Angeles. Los Angeles is a distribution center 

for Mexican heroin and, occasionally, a transshipment point for Southeast Asian and Southwest 

Asian heroin destined for other markets. Traffickers in Los Angeles distribute Mexican heroin to 

locations throughout California; to states including 

Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, 

Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, New 

York, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Washington; 

and to other areas west of the Mississippi River. 

South American heroin en route to the northeastern 

United States also may be transshipped through 

Los Angeles, according to seizure reporting. 

Map 10. Heroin Distribution from New York

Source: National Drug Intelligence Center, National Drug Threat Survey 2001.

Map 11. Heroin Distribution from Chicago

Source: National Drug Intelligence Center, National Drug Threat Survey 2001.

Map 12. Heroin Distribution from Los Angeles

Source: National Drug Intelligence Center, National Drug Threat Survey 2001.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

24

Miami. Traffickers use Miami as a distribution 

center for South American heroin smuggled into 

the United States. South American heroin typically 

is smuggled into the country through Miami International Airport and is transported to northeastern 

cities, primarily New York, by bus, by rail, and on 

domestic flights. Agencies in Alabama, Colorado, 

Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, North 

Carolina, and Tennessee identified Miami as the 

source for the heroin available in their areas.

Houston. Houston is a distribution center for heroin from Mexico and a transshipment point for heroin from the other source areas. Agencies in New 

York, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Virginia 

identified Houston as the source of the heroin available in their areas. Agencies in Houston reported 

that heroin in the city is being shipped to other 

states including Illinois, Michigan, and Louisiana.

Philadelphia. Traffickers use Philadelphia as the 

primary distribution center for the heroin, primarily 

South American, sold throughout Pennsylvania 

and Delaware. Wholesalers in Philadelphia also 

distribute heroin to Washington, D.C., and Baltimore. New York is the primary source of heroin 

shipped to Philadelphia; however, small quantities 

transported to the area are smuggled directly from 

Colombia or are transshipped through the southern 

United States or Puerto Rico. Agencies in Delaware, 

New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, 

and Virginia identified Philadelphia as the source 

of the heroin available in their areas.

Map 13. Heroin Distribution from Miami

Source: National Drug Intelligence Center, National Drug Threat Survey 2001.

Map 14. Heroin Distribution from Houston

Source: National Drug Intelligence Center, National Drug Threat Survey 2001.

Map 15. Heroin Distribution from Philadelphia

Source: National Drug Intelligence Center, National Drug Threat Survey 2001.
National Drug Intelligence Center

25

Key Developments

Mexican heroin is increasingly being smuggled into the United States in multikilogram 

quantities. Shipments of South American heroin, 

too, are generally larger than they have been in 

the past. Moreover, traffickers appear to be 

increasing their use of maritime conveyances to 

transship South American heroin.

In Afghanistan, an edict issued by the Taliban 

in 2000 almost completely eliminated opium cultivation in most of the country. Potential heroin 

production in Afghanistan decreased from 365 to 

less than 8 metric tons between 2000 and 2001, 

according to official U.S. Government estimates. 

Although this development has not immediately 

or directly affected the availability of heroin in 

the United States, it may significantly affect 

markets normally supplied with Southwest 

Asian heroin such as Western Europe, Russia, 

and elsewhere in the former Soviet Union.

Projections

While heroin is not a major part of the rave 

scene, reports have surfaced of young people 

taking heroin to offset the effects of “club drug”

stimulants such as MDMA. Because of such 

polydrug use, young people may be at risk for 

increased overdoses, emergency department 

visits, and deaths.

The rise in abuse of the prescription painkiller 

OxyContin could have an effect on the demand 

for heroin, particularly in rural and suburban 

areas where heroin is available.16 As initiatives 

taken to curb the abuse of OxyContin are successfully implemented, abusers of OxyContin may 

begin to use other oxycodones, such as Percocet 

and Percodan. But they also may begin to use 

heroin, especially if it is readily available, pure, 

and relatively inexpensive.

16.The use of trademarked names such as OxyContin and Rohypnol in this assessment does not imply any criminal activity or intent 

on the part of the manufacturers of these drugs.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

26

This page intentionally left blank.
National Drug Intelligence Center

27

Methamphetamine

The threat posed to the United States by methamphetamine lies in its availability and the severe 

physiological effects associated with its use. The 

violence and environmental damage associated 

with the production, distribution, and use of the 

drug, as well as the involvement of international 

drug trafficking organizations, further threaten the 

country and render methamphetamine the third 

greatest drug threat. Methamphetamine is readily 

available throughout the western half of the country 

and is becoming increasingly available in areas of 

the eastern United States.

Domestic clandestine methamphetamine production is dominated largely by Mexican criminal 

groups who also dominate wholesale distribution 

and share control of retail distribution with local 

independent distributors and gangs, including outlaw motorcycle gangs (OMGs) and street gangs. 

Despite law enforcement pressure and the regulation of precursor chemicals, both of which have 

had a measurable impact on methamphetamine 

trafficking, Mexican criminal groups continue to 

manufacture bulk quantities of methamphetamine. 

Methamphetamine produced in foreign source 

areas, predominantly Mexico and, to a lesser 

extent, Canada and Southeast Asia, is available to 

varying degrees in the United States as well. 

Violence associated with methamphetamine 

trafficking and use is increasing. Federal, state, 

and local law enforcement reporting reveals 

increases in methamphetamine-related child 

neglect, child and spousal abuse, sexual abuse, 

homicide, and property crime, especially mail 

and check fraud. Moreover, methamphetamine 

laboratories produce poisonous gas and 5 to 7 

pounds of toxic waste for every pound of methamphetamine produced, and exposure to toxins 

poses a threat to those in or near methamphetamine 

laboratories. In 1999, 877 children were encountered at laboratory sites, while in 2000, the number 

dropped slightly to 841. 

In addition to creating potential health hazards, 

methamphetamine production has a profound 

environmental impact. Most laboratory operators 

dispose of toxic waste by dumping it down 

household drains, into pits and trenches, on rural 

roads, in fields, or in yards. In California, chemicals from large methamphetamine laboratory 

dump sites have killed livestock, contaminated 

streams, and destroyed large areas of trees and 

vegetation in that state. 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

28

Availability

Methamphetamine is widely available 

throughout the Pacific, Southwest, and West 

Central regions and is increasingly available in 

the Great Lakes, Southeast, and Mid-Atlantic 

regions. This widespread availability is illustrated 

by increasing methamphetamine seizures, arrests, 

indictments, and sentences. 

According to FDSS data, the amount of 

methamphetamine seized increased from 2,777 

kilograms in 1999 to 3,310 kilograms in 2000. 

Of the total seized in 2000, approximately 52 

percent was seized in California (1,737 kg). In 

addition, the USPS reported methamphetamine 

seizures in 15 of 16 Divisions in FY2000. 

DEA arrests for methamphetamine-related 

offenses have increased steadily since the mid1990s, rising 85 percent from 1996 (4,069) to 

2000 (7,519). In FY2000, methamphetaminerelated OCDETF indictments accounted for 18.5 

percent of all OCDETF indictments, while the 

number of federal sentences handed down for 

methamphetamine-related offenses accounted for 

over 14 percent of all federal sentences. 

Methamphetamine prices range from $2,000 to 

$21,000 per pound, $350 to $3,000 per ounce, and 

$20 to $200 per gram. The average purity of 

methamphetamine seized by DEA in 2000 was 

35.3 percent, down significantly from a high of 

71.9 percent in 1994. 

Demand

Methamphetamine consumption is stable or 

increasing slightly. According to ONDCP, the 

number of hardcore methamphetamine users has 

been stable at approximately 356,000 users since 

1998. According to NHSDA data, approximately 

1 million individuals aged 12 and older reported 

past year use of methamphetamine in 2000. 

The MTF Study began measuring the prevalence of use for methamphetamine in 1999, 

allowing a comparison of only 2 years. MTF data 

for 2000 indicate that past year methamphetamine 

use decreased slightly among eighth, tenth, and 

twelfth graders from 1999 to 2000. The greatest 

decrease (3.2% to 2.5%) was reported among 

eighth graders. None of these changes were statistically significant. Past year use of crystal 

methamphetamine, or “ice,” which has been 

measured by MTF for several years, increased 

slightly (nonsignificantly) from 1999 (1.9%) to 

2000 (2.2%) among twelfth graders, the only age 

group for which its use is measured. Nonetheless, 

the rate of crystal methamphetamine use is at one 

of the lowest levels reported since 1994. 

PATS data for 2000 indicate a slight rise in 

past year methamphetamine use by teenagers 

from 1999 (7%) to 2000 (8%). The rate of use is 

still lower than that reported each year from 1996 

through 1998 (9%), however. 

National-level prevalence and consequence 

indicators show mixed trends in methamphetamine 

use. While the prevalence indicators mentioned 

above indicate stable or slightly decreasing use, 

consequence indicators such as DAWN and TEDS 

suggest that the consequences of methamphetamine 

use are increasing as evidenced by rising emergency 

department visits and treatment admissions. Awareness of such consequences of methamphetamine 

use may be affecting the attitudes of young people. 

For example, PATS reports that teens’ perceptions 

of the risks associated with methamphetamine use 

remained stable or improved slightly between 1999 

and 2000. In 2000, 78 percent of teens agreed there 

is “great risk in using methamphetamine regularly”

for the third consecutive year. Nearly half of all 

teens (47%) surveyed agreed there is “great risk in 

trying methamphetamine once or twice,” a 3 percent 

increase from 1999.
National Drug Intelligence Center

29

DAWN reporting shows a decrease in ED 

mentions for methamphetamine/speed from 1998 

(11,491) to 1999 (10,447) but an increase from 

1999 to 2000 (13,513). DAWN data further indicate that over half of ED mentions for methamphetamine/speed were male Caucasians and that 

a large percentage were in the Pacific and West 

Central regions. 

TEDS statistics indicate a steady increase in 

publicly funded treatment admissions for methamphetamine use from 1993 (20,771) through 

1998 (55,745), the latest reported year. Admissions to publicly funded treatment facilities for 

methamphetamine use rose each year during that 

period with the exception of a slight downward 

turn in 1996. TEDS data for 1998 further indicate 

that the typical admission to publicly funded treatment for methamphetamine use was male 

(53%), Caucasian (80%), and between 25 and 

29 years old (22%). 

Between 1998 and 1999, the percentage of 

adult arrestees who tested positive for methamphetamine remained relatively stable at ADAM 

sites, except in San Diego. ADAM sites in the 

western states reported the highest rates in 1999; 

however, the presence of methamphetamine was 

reported at some eastern sites.

Production

Methamphetamine is produced both commercially and clandestinely in the United 

States and abroad. Commercial laboratories 

produce levo-methamphetamine, an active 

ingredient in many over-the-counter medicines 

that has substantial addictive qualities. Commercial as well as clandestine laboratories produce dextro-levo- and dextromethamphetamine (dl- and d-methamphetamine, 

respectively), highly addictive and illegal forms of 

methamphetamine. 

Dl-methamphetamine is less potent than 

d-methamphetamine and appears to be produced 

only in the United States using P2P as the precursor 

chemical (phenyl-2-propanone method).

D-methamphetamine is the most potent and widely 

abused form of methamphetamine. It is produced in 

the United States as well as in foreign source areas, 

including Mexico, Canada, and Southeast Asia, 

using several different, relatively simple, production 

methods, all of which use ephedrine or pseudoephedrine as the precursor chemical (ephedrine/

pseudoephedrine reduction methods).

Domestic Production

Production of dl-methamphetamine appears to 

occur primarily in the Philadelphia and southern 

New Jersey areas and has been linked to traditional 

organized crime and OMGs. The Philadelphia/

Camden High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area 

(HIDTA) and the DEA Philadelphia Field Division 

report that dl-methamphetamine is the preferred type in the Philadelphia area. Three 

recent OCDETF investigations targeted or 

identified dl-methamphetamine production 

groups. In each case, the targeted group was 

located in Philadelphia or southern New Jersey, 

and two of the three cases involved either traditional 

organized crime or OMGs.

There is no indication that dl-methamphetamine 

production is increasing in Philadelphia and southern New Jersey or emerging outside that area. 

Moreover, the Philadelphia/Camden HIDTA and 

the DEA Philadelphia Field Division both indicate 

that use of the P2P dl-methamphetamine production method, although still the most common in the 

area, is waning, and that ephedrine/pseudoephedrine reduction methods for d-methamphetamine 

production may soon become more popular.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

30

Methamphetamine Production

Phenyl-2-Propanone Method

P2P: The principal chemicals associated 

with this method are phenyl-2-propanone, 

aluminum, methylamine, and mercuric acid. 

This method yields low quality dl-methamphetamine and was traditionally associated 

with OMGs.

Ephedrine/Pseudoephedrine 

Reduction Methods

Hydriodic acid/Red phosphorus: The principal 

chemicals associated with this method are 

ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, hydriodic 

acid, and red phosphorus. This method can 

yield multipound quantities of high quality 

d-methamphetamine and is often associated 

with Mexican drug trafficking organizations.

Birch reduction (often called the “Nazi 

method”): The principal chemicals associated 

with this method are ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, anhydrous ammonia, and 

sodium or lithium metal. This method 

yields ounce quantities of high quality 

d-methamphetamine and is often used by 

independent producers.

Iodine/Red phosphorus: The principal chemicals associated with this method are ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, iodine (combined 

with water to produce hydriodic acid), and red 

phosphorus. This method is also called the 

“cold cook method” because the chemicals are 

not heated over a flame but instead are often 

placed in a hot environment (e.g., the sun). 

This method yields ounce quantities of high 

quality d-methamphetamine.

Federal, state, and local law enforcement 

agencies indicate that although d-methamphetamine 

is produced in most states throughout the country, 

production is most prevalent in western and southwestern states. According to the El Paso Intelligence 

Center(EPIC), California, Washington, Missouri,

Kansas, and Arizona led all states in the number of 

clandestine laboratories seized in 2000. In 1999, 

Arizona, California, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Oregon were the only states in which “superlabs”—

those capable of producing 10 pounds of methamphetamine in 24 hours—were seized. In 2000, 

superlabs were found in 16 states: California, 

Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, 

Arizona, Wyoming, Texas, Oklahoma,

Louisiana, Missouri, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, 

Indiana, and Alabama.

California is the epicenter of d-methamphetamine production. DEA estimates that clandestine laboratories in California operated by both 

Mexican and U.S. traffickers produce far more 

d-methamphetamine than those in any other state 

or region. Of the 126 superlabs seized in 2000, 83 

were in California, according to EPIC, which also 

reported a somewhat higher ratio in 1999, when 

177 of the 185 superlabs seized were in California. 

Moreover, the U.S. Attorney General’s Methamphetamine Interagency Task Force reports that 

4 percent of clandestine laboratories produced 

more than 80 percent of domestic methamphetamine in 2000 and that most of those laboratories 

were located in California. The Inland Narcotics 

Clearing House, a component of the Los Angeles 

The number of domestic methamphetamine 

laboratories seized in the United States by 

DEA escalated after d-methamphetamine production became popular in the mid-1980s and 

remained high (around 800) until 1990. The 

number of laboratory seizures then declined 

until reaching a low of 224 in 1994. Since that 

time, the number of seizures rose sharply each 

year through 1999 as a growing number of 

independent producers began operating laboratories, often small, in more regions of the country. 

In 2000, the number of seizures declined slightly. 

DEA Methamphetamine Laboratory Seizures, 

Nationwide, 1994–2000

Source: Drug Enforcement Administration. 

734

1,627

224

1,321

299

1,832

2,155

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Year

Total
National Drug Intelligence Center

31

HIDTA, estimates that in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties alone, d-methamphetamine laboratories had a production capability of 44.6 tons in 2000. 

This is far more than the 3.87 metric tons seized by 

federal agencies in 2000 reported to FDSS.

From the mid- to late 1990s, d-methamphetamine production spread eastward as traditional 

suppliers worked to keep pace with growing 

demand and users learned simple production 

methods, particularly the Birch reduction method, 

to produce their own supply. The Birch reduction 

method first became popular in areas of the West 

Central region but is now used throughout much 

of the United States, most prominently in the West 

Central, Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, and 

Florida/Caribbean regions. Of the 13 HIDTAs in 

these regions, 7 report that d-methamphetamine 

production is increasing and is a serious concern 

in their areas. Of the remaining six, four state that 

d-methamphetamine is produced in their areas 

and that there is concern the number of laboratories may rise in the near future. According to 

EPIC, the number of Birch reduction laboratories 

seized increased from 439 in 1998 to 2,912 in 

2000, and 1,233 laboratories were seized during 

the first 5 months of 2001. 

Methamphetamine production on national 

forest land has become increasingly common, and 

according to the U.S. Forest Service, the number 

of methamphetamine laboratories—mostly small 

Birch reduction laboratories—and chemical 

dump sites discovered in forests increased from 

80 in 1997 to 488 in 2000 (see Chart 1). Almost 

half the laboratories discovered in 2000 were in 

Missouri. Methamphetamine laboratories on 

national forest land usually are set up in abandoned 

mines, vacant cabins, caves, and remote areas of the 

forest, posing an environmental threat to the 

parks and a public safety threat to forest visitors 

who may inadvertently encounter an active laboratory or toxic chemical dump site.

Foreign Production

D-methamphetamine (hereafter referred to as 

simply methamphetamine) is produced throughout the world, but only that produced in Mexico 

appears to be smuggled into the United States in 

significant quantities. Methamphetamine produced 

in Canada and Burma is transported to the 

United States as well but to a much lesser extent. 

There are no conclusive estimates of worldwide 

production, however. 

Law enforcement reporting, primarily from 

DEA, and seizure data for the U.S.–Mexico border 

indicate that methamphetamine produced in Mexico 

is the most widely available foreign-produced 

methamphetamine. According to EPIC, the amount 

of methamphetamine smuggled into the United 

States from Mexico increased dramatically through 

the 1990s, especially between 1997 and 1999 when 

border seizures of methamphetamine increased 

from 538 to 1,091 kilograms. Further, according to 

the International Narcotics Control Strategy Report 

(INCSR), Mexican authorities have seized nearly 

2 metric tons of methamphetamine destined for 

U.S. markets since 1994, of which almost half was 

seized between 1998 and 2000.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police 

(RCMP) reported in 2000 that independent laboratory operators and members of OMGs produce methamphetamine primarily in western 

Canada for distribution in the United States as 

well as for consumption in Canada. The Federal 

Bureau of Investigation (FBI) also reports that 

criminal groups, especially OMGs, produce 

methamphetamine in Canada and smuggle it 

Chart 1. Methamphetamine Laboratories 

and Dump Sites Seized from 

National Forest Service Lands

Source: U.S. Forest Service, Law Enforcement and Investigations, 2000.

214

37 29 30

274

51 56

70

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1997 1998 1999 2000

Year

Total

L aboratories

Dump S ites
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

32

into the United States. While Canadian authorities seized fewer than two dozen methamphetamine laboratories in 2000, they believe the 

number of laboratories seized will increase, particularly if OMG involvement in methamphetamine trafficking increases.

Precursor Chemical Acquisition

Precursor chemicals such as phenyl-2-propanone, ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and lithium metal are required in the methamphetamine 

production process. These chemicals, most of 

which are controlled to some extent in the United 

States, generally are diverted from legitimate 

sources in the United States and in foreign countries, including Canada, China, and Mexico.

Anhydrous ammonia, a principal reagent used in 

the Birch reduction method, is a particular concern to law enforcement. The theft of anhydrous 

ammonia from large pressurized tanks on farms, 

where it is used as a crop fertilizer, is a growing 

problem in many states in the Midwest. On a 

number of occasions, botched thefts have 

resulted in serious injury to the thieves and in the 

release of ammonia clouds from the tanks, which 

have forced nearby residents to evacuate their 

homes and other buildings.

According to the INCSR and recent DEA 

reporting, traffickers in Burma and, to a lesser 

extent, China produce the bulk of Asian methamphetamine. The INCSR and other intelligence 

reporting indicate that Burma-based traffickers 

produce vast quantities of methamphetamine 

and may now be producing more than clandestine laboratory operators in any other country. 

Methamphetamine produced in Burma usually is 

pressed into tablets—often referred to as “Ya Ba”—

for consumption in Asian markets. However, 

reporting from the Intelligence Community indicates that methamphetamine tablets from Southeast 

Asia have been seized with increasing frequency 

in California since 1997. Nonetheless, overall 

amounts of Southeast Asian methamphetamine 

seized are still small.

The INCSR also reports that traffickers based in 

China have increased methamphetamine production 

greatly in recent years and transport large quantities 

of the drug (often crystal methamphetamine) to the 

Philippines with some continuing on to U.S. markets, primarily Guam and Hawaii. Criminal groups 

in other Asian countries such as the Philippines, 

North Korea, South Korea, and Thailand also 

produce methamphetamine in varying quantities; 

however, little is smuggled to U.S. markets.

Transportation

Methamphetamine is transported from production sites through transportation hubs to methamphetamine market areas by Mexican, Asian, 

Canadian, and U.S. criminal groups. Mexican criminal groups dominate wholesale and midlevel wholesale methamphetamine transportation. They use 

well-established marijuana, cocaine, and heroin distribution routes as well as newly defined routes to 

transport methamphetamine throughout the Pacific, 

Southwest, West Central, and Great Lakes regions 

and, increasingly, to the Southeast and Florida/Caribbean regions. Most Mexican criminal groups 

transport methamphetamine from transportation 

hubs to distribution centers in private vehicles or 

tractor-trailers with hidden compartments. 

Most criminal groups involved in methamphetamine trafficking do not transport the drug in 

quantities large enough to require sophisticated 

logistics. Consequently, most methamphetamine 

transported by these groups is shipped directly 

from production sites to retail market areas. Asian 

criminal groups transport methamphetamine tablets from Burma through POEs in Hawaii, Los 

Angeles, and San Francisco primarily to central 

California and principally for use within the 

Asian community. Couriers on commercial 

flights carry some tablets, but most are transported via mail services and maritime cargo. 
National Drug Intelligence Center

33

Transportation Hubs

Law enforcement reporting indicates that 

methamphetamine produced in Mexico usually is 

smuggled to the United States in multipound 

quantities via private vehicle through POEs along 

the U.S.–Mexico border between California and 

Arizona. The methamphetamine usually is transported from the POE to one of three transportation 

hubs: Southern California (Los Angeles, San 

Diego, San Bernardino, and Riverside), Central 

California (San Francisco, Sacramento, and 

Fresno), or Central Arizona (Phoenix and Tucson). 

In addition, southern Texas appears to be emerging 

as a transit area for methamphetamine produced 

in Mexico. Methamphetamine smuggled into 

this area is destined for markets in Texas and 

surrounding states.

Southern California. Southern California is the 

largest methamphetamine transportation hub. Mexican criminal groups control most methamphetamine 

transportation from this area to distribution centers 

throughout the country; however, U.S. criminal 

groups move limited wholesale quantities to 

regional distribution centers. Federal, state, and 

local law enforcement reporting indicates that mail 

services, commercial flights, private vehicles, and 

public transportation are all used to move methamphetamine from Southern California to distribution 

centers across the country. Cities supplied by the 

Southern California transportation hub include 

Chicago, Cincinnati, Dallas, Denver, Honolulu, 

Houston, Kingman (AZ), Lincoln (NE), Mobile, 

Nashville, Olympia (WA), Richmond, St. Paul, 

Salt Lake City, Tulsa, and Yakima.

Central California. Central California is the 

second largest transportation hub for methamphetamine distribution. Mexican criminal groups control 

most wholesale methamphetamine transportation 

from this transportation hub, although some U.S. 

methamphetamine production and transportation 

groups operate from the area as well. Federal, state, 

and local law enforcement reporting indicates that 

Map 16. Methamphetamine Transportation from Southern California

Source: National Drug Intelligence Center, National Drug Threat Survey 2001.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

34

mail services, commercial flights, private vehicles, 

and public transportation are all used to move methamphetamine from Central California to distribution 

centers across the country. Cities supplied by the 

Central California transportation hub include Boise, 

Del Rio (TX), Denver, Honolulu, Kingman, Salt 

Lake City, and Yakima. 

Central Arizona. Mexican criminal groups 

control almost all transportation from this area, 

generally using private vehicles to move 

methamphetamine from this area to other parts 

of the country. Cities supplied by the Central 

Arizona transportation hub include Atlanta, 

Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Greeley (CO), Green 

Bay, Hamilton (OH), Houston, Las Vegas, St. 

Paul, Santa Fe, and Topeka.

Distribution

Mexican and Asian criminal groups, gangs—

including OMGs and street gangs—and local independents all distribute midlevel wholesale and 

retail quantities of methamphetamine. Mexican 

traffickers supply many methamphetamine distribution groups, but some of these groups, especially 

Asian traffickers and OMGs, often produce their 

own methamphetamine for distribution. Many 

local independent retailers also produce methamphetamine, albeit in limited quantities, in small 

laboratories throughout the country. 

Mexican methamphetamine typically is 

packaged in compressed bricks, covered in plastic wrap or bags, and frequently coated with 

grease, coffee, detergent, or salve. Often, packages are then wrapped in plastic or carbon paper. 

Map 17. Methamphetamine Transportation from Central California

Source: National Drug Intelligence Center, National Drug Threat Survey 2001.

Atlantic

Ocean

Gulf of Mexico

Elko

Salt Lake Salt Lake

City

M df deor df d

City

Del Rio D l Ri e o

Honolulu Honol l

Destination city

Transportation hub

Eureka
National Drug Intelligence Center

35

Mexican traffickers’ involvement in retail distribution usually is limited to associations with 

Mexican gangs active in the Pacific, West Central, 

Great Lakes, Southwest, and Southeast regions. 

Distribution of Asian methamphetamine is limited but growing, according to the USCS. In addition to distributing Asian methamphetamine tablets, 

many Asian criminal groups distribute midlevel 

wholesale and retail quantities of methamphetamine 

produced by Mexican criminal groups, sometimes 

transporting the methamphetamine throughout the 

U.S. mainland and to Hawaii. Asian criminal groups 

also sometimes convert the drug to crystal methamphetamine prior to transporting it to Hawaii.

OMGs have been involved in methamphetamine distribution in every region of the country 

for several decades. Many OMGs produce their 

own methamphetamine for distribution but often 

supplement their supplies with Mexican methamphetamine. Although OMGs distribute methamphetamine throughout the country, their 

distribution routes are not as structured as those 

of Mexican traffickers. OMGs typically do not 

ship wholesale quantities from transportation 

hubs on to distribution centers. Rather, they transport methamphetamine in pound quantities via 

private vehicle or mail services from production 

sites directly to retail markets. OMGs often distribute retail quantities of methamphetamine in 

bars and clubs owned by OMG members. 

Federal, state, and local law enforcement 

reporting indicates that gangs, primarily Caucasian 

and Hispanic, distribute methamphetamine at the 

retail level in the Pacific, West Central, and 

Southwest regions. African American gangs are 

increasingly involved in retail methamphetamine 

distribution, particularly in the West Central, Great 

Lakes, Southeast, and Mid-Atlantic regions.

A growing number of local independent 

distributors throughout the country are producing 

small quantities of methamphetamine for retail distribution in their local area. Law enforcement 

reporting indicates that local independents account 

for as much as 80 percent of retail methamphetamine distribution in some areas of the country.

Map 18. Methamphetamine Transportation from Central Arizona

Source: National Drug Intelligence Center, National Drug Threat Survey 2001.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

36

Distribution Centers

Distribution centers supply midlevel wholesale and retail distribution groups within and outside the state in which they are located. Several 

areas have been identified as wholesale or 

midlevel wholesale methamphetamine distribution centers supplied by criminal groups operating 

through a major transportation hub. Distribution 

centers for methamphetamine include Atlanta, 

Central Florida, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Houston, 

Salt Lake City, and Yakima.

Atlanta. Mexican criminal groups transport 

multipound quantities of methamphetamine produced in Mexico, California, and the southwestern 

United States from the Southern California and 

Central Arizona transportation hubs to Atlanta for 

distribution in the Southeast. Methamphetamine 

distributed from Atlanta supplies midlevel wholesale and retail markets in North and South Carolina, 

Tennessee, and the central Florida area.

Central Florida. Mexican criminal groups established this area as a distribution center in the mid1990s, supplying it with methamphetamine from 

the Central California and Southern California 

transportation hubs. Methamphetamine distributed 

from Central Florida generally supplies retail markets throughout Florida. Hispanic street gangs in 

the area, particularly the Latin Kings and Sur 13s, 

are becoming increasingly involved in methamphetamine distribution in Central Florida. 

Chicago. The availability of methamphetamine is 

increasing throughout the Chicago area; however, 

the drug has not gained a large user acceptance. 

Consequently, most methamphetamine transported 

to Chicago is destined for further distribution to 

other markets in Illinois and surrounding states. 

Mexican criminal groups based in California, 

Texas, and Mexico dominate wholesale methamphetamine distribution in Illinois, transporting 

multipound quantities from the Southern California 

transportation hub to Chicago for further distribution to criminal groups engaged in midlevel 

wholesale and retail distribution. OMGs, specifically the Hells Angels and Outlaws, are active in 

both midlevel wholesale and retail distribution of 

methamphetamine in Illinois. Hispanic gangs in 

Illinois distribute methamphetamine to surrounding 

states. For example, Chicago-based Hispanic 

street gangs, especially the Latin Kings, are 

involved in midlevel wholesale distribution of 

methamphetamine to several states in the Great 

Lakes region. Methamphetamine distributed from 

Chicago supplies retail markets such as Deerfield 

(IL), Eau Claire (WI), Hickory (NC), Superior 

(WI), and Vincennes (IN).

Dallas. Mexican criminal groups transport 

methamphetamine via tractor-trailers, private 

vehicles, couriers, mail services, and aircraft 

from the Southern California and, to a lesser 

extent, Central Arizona transportation hubs to 

Dallas. Methamphetamine distributed from Dallas 

supplies midlevel wholesale and retail markets 

primarily in eastern Texas and Oklahoma.

Denver. Mexican criminal groups transport 

ounce, pound, and kilogram quantities of methamphetamine from all three transportation hubs 

to Denver via private vehicles, tractor-trailers, 

mail services, private aircraft, and couriers on 

commercial buses and airlines. OMGs, particularly the Hells Angels and Bandidos, supplied by 

sources in Mexico, also distribute wholesale 

quantities of methamphetamine in Denver but are 

not as prevalent as Mexican traffickers. Methamphetamine distributed from Denver supplies 

midlevel wholesale and retail markets in Illinois, 

Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North 

Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. 

Houston. Mexican criminal groups transport 

methamphetamine in private vehicles across 

the Texas–Mexico border and from the Southern 

California and, to a lesser extent, Central Arizona 

transportation hubs to Houston. The Houston 

HIDTA reports seizures of larger quantities of 

methamphetamine produced in Mexico and an 

overall increase in the availability of Mexican 

methamphetamine in its area. Methamphetamine 

distributed from Houston supplies midlevel 

wholesale and retail markets in northern and 

eastern Texas and in the Southeast region including in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, and North Carolina.
National Drug Intelligence Center

37

Salt Lake City. Mexican criminal groups employ 

illegal aliens as drug couriers to transport methamphetamine from the Southern California and 

Central California transportation hubs to Salt 

Lake City, generally via private vehicle. Also, 

local independent distributors, usually Caucasians, and OMGs produce methamphetamine in 

the area and distribute it to local users, who seem 

to prefer the locally produced variety. Methamphetamine distributed from Salt Lake City supplies 

midlevel wholesale and retail markets in Colorado, 

Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming. 

Yakima. Mexican criminal groups transport 

methamphetamine from the Southern California 

and Central California transportation hubs to 

Yakima. Mexican traffickers reportedly travel 

with Hispanic migrant workers to facilitate methamphetamine distribution throughout Washington, 

the Midwest states, and Canada. Shipments of 

methamphetamine to Yakima are increasing in size, 

according to DEA. Methamphetamine distributed 

from Yakima, including that produced in clandestine laboratories located in rural areas of eastern 

and southern Washington, supplies midlevel 

wholesale and retail markets elsewhere in Washington and in Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, North 

Dakota, Wyoming, and Canada. 

Key Developments

State and local law enforcement reporting 

indicates that methamphetamine has been distributed at raves in Louisiana, New York, Ohio, 

Texas, Washington, D.C., and in areas of the New 

England region. For example, in responding to 

the National Drug Threat Survey 2001, the Erie 

County (NY) Sheriff’s Office reported an increase 

in methamphetamine availability associated with 

the distribution of club drugs. Presumably, young 

people use methamphetamine at raves to increase 

energy levels and stamina. Dealers reportedly have 

offered free samples of methamphetamine at raves 

in an attempt to build a market base for the drug. 

Methamphetamine users and producers often 

commit mail and check fraud, as well as identity 

theft, to finance illegal drug activities. An increasing 

number of law enforcement agencies, including 

agencies in Arizona, California, Colorado, Oregon, 

and Washington, report that the increase in such 

crimes in their jurisdictions is directly related to a 

rise in methamphetamine use and production. 

Gangs and Asian criminal groups in the Los 

Angeles area are using powdered methamphetamine supplied by Mexican criminal groups to 

produce crystal methamphetamine for distribution in the area. Also, Japanese and Korean 

traffickers are using precursor chemicals from 

China to produce crystal methamphetamine for 

distribution in the Los Angeles area as well as in 

Guam and Hawaii. 

Successful international precursor chemical 

controls may have forced producers to substitute 

lower quality chemicals and caused distributors 

to dilute stretched supplies to maintain profit levels, thereby decreasing purity levels.

Projections

The threat of methamphetamine will remain 

high in many areas of the Pacific, Southwest, and 

West Central regions and continue to grow in the 

Great Lakes, Southeast and, to a lesser extent, 

Mid-Atlantic regions. However, there is no indication that eastern states will experience the 

same levels of methamphetamine availability 

and use found in the western half of the country 

in the near term. Effective legislative and law 

enforcement action in the mid-1990s has 

helped slow the eastward spread of methamphetamine and limited the impact of the drug in 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

38

the New England, New York/New Jersey, and 

Mid-Atlantic regions, where methamphetamine 

is not readily available in most areas and generally 

is considered a low threat. 

Mexican criminal groups will continue to 

dominate methamphetamine production as well 

as wholesale and midlevel wholesale distribution. 

Criminal groups operating methamphetamine 

laboratories, especially superlabs, in Mexico and 

California will continue to supply most of the 

methamphetamine consumed nationwide, despite 

the growing number of low-yield laboratories 

operated in many midwestern and eastern states. 

The amount of Asian methamphetamine 

tablets available in the United States, primarily in 

California, may continue to rise. Asian methamphetamine tablets will be encountered with 

increasing frequency at raves and other venues 

where MDMA and other club drugs are popular. 
National Drug Intelligence Center

39

Marijuana 

The threat of marijuana lies primarily in its 

widespread availability and in its popularity. Traffickers in foreign source areas and in the United 

States supply users with marijuana of varying 

potency, and while high-grade marijuana appears 

to receive more publicity, lower potency marijuana—much of which is produced in Mexico—is 

more endemic. Even in major domestic cultivation areas, large amounts of marijuana produced 

in Mexico are available.

The large user population in the United States 

equates to steady profits, and drug trafficking 

organizations, criminal groups, and gangs involved 

in trafficking drugs such as cocaine or heroin are 

trafficking marijuana as well to help finance their 

drug operations. Another likely factor behind 

some traffickers’ involvement is the belief that 

the penalties associated with the trafficking of 

marijuana are less than those for other illicit drugs. 

Marijuana-related violence is limited and 

generally associated only with cannabis cultivation. The current user population is exposed to 

more potent marijuana than in previous years, 

however, and strong or high doses may result in 

rapidly fluctuating emotions, disorientation, or 

hallucinations, thereby exposing users to potential harm. Marijuana used in combination with, 

or as a delivery medium for, other drugs further 

increases the risk.

The hazards of marijuana use do not seem to 

have an effect on most users’ attitudes and perceptions concerning the drug. Common perceptions among users and the general population are 

that marijuana is not as harmful as other drugs 

and that use carries little social stigma. The perception that marijuana is not as harmful or disruptive as other illicit substances may influence 

investigative priorities, too, particularly among 

agencies with limited resources or those dealing 

with more socially disruptive criminal activity 

such as gang violence. Indeed, most state and 

local law enforcement agencies that responded to 

the National Drug Threat Survey 2001 identified 

marijuana availability and use as high, but the 

bulk of these agencies also identified the threat of 

marijuana to public safety and health as medium 

to low, and stable. Moreover, law enforcement 

reporting reveals that marijuana seizures often are 

ancillary to investigations targeting other drugs or 

other criminal activity.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

40

Availability

Marijuana is the most available illicit drug 

throughout the United States. The indoor and outdoor cultivation of cannabis in every region of the 

country, as well as the presence of marijuana 

smuggled into the United States from foreign 

sources, contributes to the pervasiveness of the 

drug. Although the breadth of its availability is 

clear, no exact estimates of the amount of marijuana 

available in the United States have been determined. The only concrete data that can provide 

insight, albeit limited, into marijuana availability 

are seizure statistics. Seizures of marijuana reported 

in the FDSS accounted for 1,100 metric tons in 

1999 and approximately 1,200 metric tons in 2000. 

A large percentage of the seized marijuana was 

from foreign source areas. Most of the foreignsource marijuana found in the United States is produced in Mexico; other foreign sources include 

Colombia, Canada, and Jamaica. 

Despite appearances that the threat of marijuana is overshadowed by concern with other 

illicit drugs, data show that law enforcement and 

judicial system efforts to reduce marijuana trafficking through investigations and indictments are 

continuing. The number of federal sentences for 

marijuana in 2000 (7,295) was up slightly from 

1999 (7,089). OCDETF indictments on marijuana-related charges dropped from 823 in 

FY1999 to 715 in FY2000; however, they 

accounted for roughly 17 percent of all OCDETF 

indictments in both fiscal years. 

Law enforcement reporting from every region 

identifies marijuana produced in the United States 

and Mexico as the most prevalent types available. 

Other marijuana types are available to varying 

degrees depending on the area of the country. 

Sources in Colombia and Jamaica supply marijuana more in the eastern United States, specifically in the Southeast and New York/New Jersey 

regions. Nonetheless, marijuana supplied by both 

Colombian and Jamaican sources has been identified in the New England and Great Lakes regions 

as well, and marijuana from Jamaican sources 

also has been identified in the Mid-Atlantic. 

Law enforcement and anecdotal reporting suggests that marijuana from Canada, commonly 

referred to as BC Bud, is now in every region of 

the United States to varying degrees (see Text 

Box). Marijuana from Canada probably accounts 

for a greater proportion of available supplies in 

the Pacific and West Central regions than in the 

rest of the country, but quantities are still not as 

high as marijuana grown domestically or in Mexico. Marijuana produced in Thailand is available 

in limited quantities in areas of the western 

United States and in New York.

The term “BC Bud,” which originally referred 

to the bud of the unpollinated female cannabis plant grown in British Columbia, has 

become synonymous with any high-grade 

marijuana from Canada.

Marijuana often is defined not by its source 

of origin but by its quality. Commercial-grade is 

typically low in potency and contains lower 

quality parts of the cannabis plant such as leaves, 

stems, and seeds. This type is typical of marijuana produced in Mexico. Sinsemilla, higher 

potency marijuana, contains only the leaves and 

the buds of unpollinated female cannabis plants, 

where the primary psychoactive chemical of the 

cannabis plant, THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), is 

most concentrated. This type is typical of marijuana produced in Canada. On the surface, it may 

seem unlikely that a large market would exist for 

commercial-grade in areas where sinsemilla is 

available. But traffickers use commercial-grade 

marijuana to augment supplies of sinsemilla by 

increasing the bulk—and, consequently, the 

profits—and to replace supplies of sinsemilla 

when they are depleted. Among users, too, there 

is always demand for a less expensive product.

Overall, potency, as characterized by THC 

content, is still increasing. According to data from 

the Potency Monitoring Project, the THC content 

of commercial-grade marijuana increased from 

1997 to 2000 for commercial-grade (4.25% to 
National Drug Intelligence Center

41

4.92%) and for sinsemilla (11.62% to 13.20%).17

The DEA reports the national average price for a 

pound of commercial-grade marijuana in 2000 

was $100–$6,500. A pound of sinsemilla in 

2000 was $900–$8,000. The wide range in marijuana prices reflects variables such as potencies, 

quantities purchased, purchase frequencies, 

buyer–seller relationships, transportation costs, 

and proximity to sources of supply.

Most law enforcement and epidemiologic 

sources cite the availability of marijuana as stable 

at high levels, widespread, or increasing. 

Responses to the National Drug Threat Survey 

2001 regarding availability and use appear to 

concur. Of 1,261 respondents, 1,048 identified 

marijuana availability as high, and 901 identified 

use as high. This pervasiveness contributes to a 

broad user population that normally reflects the 

demographics of the general population of any 

given area. Reporting from across the country 

identifies marijuana use among all age, ethnic, 

and economic groups. High levels of use are cited 

particularly among youth, however. 

Also derived from cannabis, hashish is the 

THC-rich resinous material from the flowering 

tops of the female plant; potency averages 6 percent. Law enforcement reporting indicates that 

hashish availability is low, most likely because 

demand for the drug is low. Personal-use amounts 

are seized occasionally in the eastern and western 

United States and at POEs along the U.S.–Canada 

border, and large shipments of hashish destined for 

Canada sometimes are seized while transiting the 

United States. One domestic seizure of 10.6 metric 

tons destined for Montreal accounted for nearly the 

entire U.S. seizure total for hashish in 2000. 

Demand

Estimates of the number of marijuana users in 

the United States suggest that demand for marijuana far exceeds that of any other illicit drug. As of 

2000, more than 76 million individuals aged 12 and 

older had tried marijuana in their lifetime, more 

than 18 million had used in the past year, and nearly 

11 million in the past month, according to NHSDA. 

Furthermore, 2000 NHSDA data indicate that on an 

average day, 5,556 individuals try marijuana for the 

first time, of which 3,814 are aged 12 to 17. 

National-level drug prevalence indicators show 

that while the rates of marijuana use are higher 

today than the early 1990s when marijuana use 

waned, they have stabilized or decreased over the 

last few years, especially among young users. 

According to 2000 MTF data, rates of past year 

use are stable or declining. In 2000, 15.6 percent 

of eighth graders used marijuana in the past 

year, continuing a gradual decline since peaking at 18.3 percent in 1996. The rate of past 

year use among tenth and twelfth graders in 

2000 was 32.2 and 36.5 percent, respectively, 

holding steady since peaking in 1997 at 34.8 

and 38.5 percent.

Similar to the MTF figures, data from PRIDE 

show that past year marijuana use peaked in the 

1996–1997 school year among junior high (14.7%) 

and senior high (35.8%) students as well as among 

twelfth graders (39.4%). Since then, the rate of 

past year use has decreased among junior high 

and senior high school students, and significantly 

so between the 1998–1999 and 1999–2000 school 

years, from 11.0 to 9.2 percent (junior high) and 

from 32.3 to 31.4 percent (senior high). The rate 

has fluctuated somewhat among twelfth graders 

and is reported at 38.0 percent for 1999–2000.

One factor in the decline in adolescent use is a 

change in youths’ attitudes toward marijuana. 

According to PATS, significantly more teens in 

2000 perceived specific risks related to marijuana 

use than did in 1997, and significantly fewer teens 

in 2000 perceived marijuana as prevalent or difficult to reject as did in 1997. Interestingly, the 

MTF Study, which indicates some increase in 

17. The Potency Monitoring Project, conducted at the University of Mississippi and funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, 

analyzes samples of marijuana seized by federal agencies.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

42

personal disapproval of marijuana use since the 

mid-1990s among eighth graders only, suggests 

youths’ attitudes shift with age—that the lower 

the grade level, the higher the rate of disapproval. 

For example, the eighth graders in 1991 disapproved of trying marijuana once or twice at the 

rate of 84.6 percent; as tenth graders in 1993, 

their disapproval rate dropped to 70.3 percent; 

and as twelfth graders in 1995, their disapproval 

rate was just 56.7 percent. This shift in attitude is 

thought to contribute to the higher rates of use 

normally seen at higher grade levels. 

National-level indicators that gauge the consequences of drug use, such as DAWN and TEDS, 

seemingly contradict the stable or declining use 

rates shown in the prevalence indicators. Underlying factors such as drug use patterns and treatment 

referrals may contribute to that interpretation, however. Polydrug use—possibly exacerbated by higher 

potency marijuana—may affect the number of 

emergency department visits or treatment admissions. Also, a shift toward stricter enforcement of 

drug offenses or, conversely, toward alternatives 

to incarceration may affect treatment admissions 

through increased criminal justice referrals. 

DAWN ED data suggest a sharp escalation in 

the number of ED mentions for marijuana/hashish 

from 1990 (15,706) through 2000 (96,446). The 

largest increases over the decade were in the 35 

and older (1,209%) and 12 to 17 (622%) age 

groups. Nonetheless, a comparison of data from 

1998 through 2000 shows that total ED mentions 

have been statistically unchanged from year to 

year, and that between 1999 and 2000, the number 

of mentions remained stable for all age groups. In 

1999, marijuana/hashish ranked as the seventh 

most reported drug by DAWN MEs, accounting 

for less than 6 percent of episodes. But the causes 

of death for most ME mentions were use of marijuana/hashish and some external physical event 

(47%), use of marijuana/hashish with multiple 

drugs (28%), and use of marijuana/hashish and a 

physiological condition (19%)—not use of marijuana alone. For both DAWN ED and ME mentions, marijuana/hashish usually was mentioned in 

combination with other drugs, most often with 

alcohol, cocaine, and heroin.

Marijuana is often smoked in the form of 

loosely rolled joints or hollowed-out commercial cigars called blunts that are easily laced 

with a number of adulterants or other illicit 

drugs—with the user’s knowledge or not—

that can substantially alter effects and toxicity. For example, reporting from some areas 

shows an increase in the use of blunts that 

contain marijuana and small rocks of crack, 

while in other areas, blunts or joints dipped 

in embalming fluid are popular.

It is likely that much of the embalming fluid in 

which marijuana joints (or cigarettes containing tobacco or tea leaves) are dipped either 

is laced with PCP or is PCP alone. “Embalming fluid” has long been a slang term for PCP. 

Terms such as “water” and “wet,” used to 

describe joints or cigarettes dipped in 

embalming fluid, also are slang for PCP. 

Moreover, some patients who reportedly 

smoked joints or cigarettes dipped in 

embalming fluid displayed symptoms identical to PCP intoxication.

In 1998, the typical admission for marijuana/

hashish use to publicly funded treatment facilities, as reported in TEDS data, was male (77%), 

Caucasian (59%), and under 20 years old (49%). 

As with the number of ED mentions, the number 

of publicly funded treatment admissions for 

marijuana/hashish use has risen steadily, from 

111,265 in 1993 to 208,671 in 1998. In 1998, 

however, more than half (57%) reported secondary 

abuse of alcohol, and more than half (54%) were 

criminal justice referrals. 

A possible factor behind the large percentages 

of criminal justice referrals reported in 1998 is 

the proliferation of drug courts established since 

the early 1990s, which integrate alcohol and drug 

treatment services with justice system case processing. Another factor may be the shift toward 

marijuana use during the 1990s among those in 

the criminal justice system. For example, ADAM 

data indicate that by 1998 marijuana had replaced 

cocaine as the most prevalent drug used by male 

arrestees at a majority of ADAM sites. In 1998 

and 1999, the median male adult arrestee positive 

rate for marijuana was 39 percent.
National Drug Intelligence Center

43

Production

Cannabis is cultivated in every state at outdoor and indoor sites. According to responses to 

the National Drug Threat Survey 2001, state and 

local law enforcement agencies from each state, 

Puerto Rico, and Guam indicated the presence of 

both indoor and outdoor cannabis cultivation in 

their jurisdictions. Hydroponic grow operations, 

in which cannabis plants are grown without soil 

but with liquid nutrients, were identified in every 

state and in Puerto Rico. 

According to the DEA’s Domestic Cannabis 

Eradication and Suppression Program (DCE/SP), 

California, Hawaii, Kentucky, and Tennessee 

accounted for 78 percent of all outdoor-cultivated 

cannabis plants eradicated in the United States in 

2000. The same reporting indicates that California, 

Washington, Florida, Alaska, and Rhode Island 

accounted for nearly 62 percent of all indoorcultivated cannabis plants eradicated in 2000. 

These eradication figures do not necessarily mean 

that these states have the most cannabis, but they 

may have the most effective eradication programs. 

Many of the key outdoor cultivation areas in 

the United States are on national forest land, and 

the number of cannabis plants seized has more 

than doubled since 1997 (see Chart 2). Historically, the Daniel Boone National Forest in Kentucky has had the most cannabis eradicated, but 

according to the U.S. Forest Service, eradication 

numbers are surging for forests in California. Of 

733,427 cannabis plants eradicated from 

national forest land in 2000, 443,595 were in 

California. U.S. Forest Service data and law 

enforcement reporting suggest that in California 

both the size of grow sites and the number of 

plants per site are increasing, and there is evidence of long-term occupancy of some cultivation sites by members or employees of Mexican 

drug trafficking organizations. In the eastern 

United States, grow sites tend to be smaller with 

fewer plants per site; it is the number of cultivation sites that is increasing, and growers tend to 

travel long distances from their homes to sites 

scattered throughout remote areas.

Anecdotal reporting indicates that cannabis 

cultivation appears to be declining in certain areas 

of the Appalachian states. Some local law 

enforcement offices suggested possible reasons 

for declines in outdoor cultivation in their areas 

such as aggressive eradication programs and 

shifts by marijuana traffickers toward indoor cannabis cultivation, methamphetamine production, 

or prescription drug diversion. Indeed, data from 

the DCE/SP show decreases in eradication numbers, especially regarding outdoor sites, for Kentucky and Tennessee from 1999 to 2000. 

However, information from the Appalachia 

HIDTA suggests that decreased flight hours could 

be a factor in the reported decrease in eradication. 

The cultivation of cannabis indoors continues 

to increase across the country. Eradication programs and drought conditions in some states have 

led many growers to abandon outdoor cultivation 

for indoor sites, and indoor cultivation allows 

growers to better conceal their operations and 

control the growing environment. Financial benefits 

also have encouraged growers to move indoors. 

Automated systems that can monitor and manipulate conditions in the grow room and advanced 

growing techniques such as hydroponics have 

raised not only the quality of the marijuana produced but also the profits derived from its sale.

Chart 2. Cannabis Plants Seized from 

National Forest Service Lands

Source: U.S. Forest Service, Law Enforcement and Investigations, 2000. 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

44

Marijuana-related violence, when it occurs, 

normally is associated with cannabis cultivation. 

Growers who cultivate cannabis outdoors sometimes place booby traps in and around grow sites, 

primarily targeting thieves, rather than law 

enforcement. Growers also protect indoor cultivation sites, but many state and local law enforcement agencies report that measures are primarily 

passive, consisting of surveillance devices. Nonetheless, thousands of weapons are seized at grow 

sites every year. 

The demographic makeup of marijuana producers in the United States includes all racial, ethnic, and social groups and, as with the user 

population, often reflects the general population 

of an area. Law enforcement reporting indicates 

that most local, usually independent, growers are 

Caucasian, although across the United States 

local growers also are identified as Mexican, Hispanic, and African American. Those identified in 

more regional or localized areas include Jamaicans (New England, New York/New Jersey, and 

Mid-Atlantic regions as well as Florida), Vietnamese and Asians (Pacific Northwest), Native 

Americans (Montana, New Mexico, New York, 

South Dakota, and Wisconsin), Colombians 

(Florida), and Dominicans (Rhode Island). 

Organized groups involved in cultivation and 

production include OMGs, street gangs, and 

drug trafficking organizations.

While there are no conclusive estimates as to 

the amount of marijuana produced in the four primary source areas, most appears to be produced 

in Mexico, an estimated 7,000 metric tons in 2000, 

according to the INCSR. Nearly all marijuana 

produced in Mexico likely is intended for markets 

in the United States. Estimates of marijuana 

production in Colombia, while not precise, have 

been reported in the INCSR as stable at 4,000 

metric tons annually. There are no current accepted 

interagency estimates of the amount of marijuana 

destined for the United States from Colombia. The 

RCMP estimates annual production of marijuana in 

Canada at 800 metric tons. Seizure and law 

enforcement reporting suggest that multimetric-ton 

quantities reach U.S. markets yearly. According to 

the INCSR, the last estimate of marijuana production in Jamaica was in 1997; a little more than 200 

metric tons were produced in that year. There are 

no accepted estimates as to how much marijuana 

from Jamaica is destined for the United States. 

Current law enforcement information indicates, 

however, that marijuana from Jamaica is being 

smuggled in the Caribbean, often through the 

Bahamas, with increasing frequency.

Transportation

Traffickers in Mexico move bulk shipments of 

marijuana north to the U.S. southwestern border 

area by land, sea, and air. They often break down 

the shipments to a more manageable and less 

noticeable size at stash sites along the land border 

before smuggling them into the United States. 

Transport across the border is primarily overland 

via commercial, private, and rental vehicles and 

by couriers on foot. Private aircraft and watercraft 

are used but to a lesser extent. Most shipments are 

smuggled into the United States through or 

between POEs in Arizona, California, and Texas. 

Texas alone accounted for more than 522,000 of 

the 724,000 pounds listed as seized or purchased 

in DEA’s System to Retrieve Information from 

Drug Evidence (STRIDE) for 2000.18 Although 

not an inclusive list, cities most likely used as 

transportation hubs for marijuana smuggled from 

Mexico are Los Angeles, San Diego, Nogales, 

Phoenix, Brownsville, Dallas, El Paso, Houston, 

Laredo, McAllen, and San Antonio. These cities 

also function as distribution centers for marijuana 

shipped to markets across the country.

18.The DEA’s STRIDE data set contains information on the total cost, weight and purity or potency of illicit drugs purchased, as well 

as the date and location of the purchase.
National Drug Intelligence Center

45

Marijuana produced in Colombia and Jamaica 

is smuggled into the United States by sea and 

air. Colombian drug trafficking organizations and 

Jamaican criminal groups move shipments of 

marijuana through the Caribbean to the eastern 

and southeastern United States on commercial 

and noncommercial vessels. Shipments frequently transit Caribbean islands such as the 

Bahamas, and transporters often use smaller 

craft for offloads and short trips between 

islands. According to EPIC, ports on the U.S. 

Gulf Coast are increasingly being used as entry 

points for marijuana smuggled from Jamaica. 

Jamaican criminal groups are the dominant 

transporters of marijuana via commercial air. 

Transportation hubs for marijuana smuggled 

from Colombia and Jamaica by sea and air 

include Miami and New York. Marijuana produced in Colombia is transported to the United 

States through Mexico and across the U.S. 

southwestern border as well. Those southwestern cities mentioned above as transportation 

hubs for marijuana smuggled from Mexico most 

likely also serve as hubs for marijuana smuggled 

from Colombia via Mexico.

Border area law enforcement agencies 

report that Canadian traffickers occasionally 

cross into the United States to swap BC Bud 

for cocaine. Couriers attempting to return to 

Canada often are arrested along the border 

with large quantities of cocaine, but reports 

of the reputed exchange of Canadian marijuana for U.S. cocaine on a pound-for-pound 

ratio are inaccurate. DEA reporting suggests 

the exchange ratio is about three units of 

marijuana to one unit of cocaine.

Marijuana produced in Canada is frequently 

smuggled across the U.S.–Canada border. Primary transport across the border is overland via 

commercial and private vehicles and couriers on 

foot, and by sea or waterways via maritime conveyances, often small private boats or fishing 

vessels. Transport by air in private aircraft 

occurs but to a lesser extent. Asian criminal 

groups and OMGs, most notably Vietnamese 

groups and the Hells Angels, control much of 

the marijuana smuggled into the United States 

from Canada, although independents, usually 

Caucasians, are involved as well. Most of the 

smuggling activity appears to occur between 

Washington State and British Columbia. The 

U.S. Border Patrol’s Spokane and Blaine sectors 

accounted for 4,969 of 7,218 pounds of marijuana seized at the U.S.–Canada border in 

FY2000. Marijuana smuggled from Quebec into 

bordering states accounted for another 2,157 

pounds. Transportation hubs for marijuana 

smuggled from Canada most likely are Seattle 

and the New York State–Canada border area.

The Integrated Border Enforcement Team 

(IBET) is a cooperative multiagency arrangement that involves asset and information 

sharing among U.S. and Canadian police, 

immigration, and customs officials as well as 

local, state, and provincial law enforcement 

agencies. The West Coast IBET, established 

in 1997, has been very effective at severely 

disrupting smuggling operations between 

British Columbia and Washington State, 

seizing an average of $1 million per month in 

illicit contraband. Its success prompted the 

creation of an Integrated Marine Enforcement Team and an East Coast IBET, which 

will begin operations along the New York 

State–Canada border in late 2001.

Although a large amount of the marijuana 

produced in the United States is intended for sale 

and use in the vicinity in which it is cultivated, 

some (especially that grown in high production 

areas) is intended for transport to other areas of 

the country. In the western part of the country, 

marijuana produced in northern California and 

Alaska is transported to Hawaii as well as to cities 

in the continental United States, and marijuana 

produced in Hawaii is transported to the U.S. 

mainland. According to law enforcement and 

anecdotal reporting, domestic cultivation in the 

eastern part of the country has resulted in the 

transport of marijuana from southern Florida to 

New York and South Carolina; from Tennessee to 

Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, and Florida; and from 

Arkansas to Michigan and Texas. Marijuana produced in Appalachian states has been identified as 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

46

destined not only for other Appalachian states but 

also for distant states such as Michigan and Florida.

Once foreign-produced marijuana is in the 

United States, or when domestic marijuana is 

ready for distribution, traffickers use several methods to transport the drug across the country, 

although land transport is by far the most common. 

Transport of bulk quantities typically is via private 

vehicle or tractor-trailer. According to EPIC statistics, more than 90 percent of marijuana seizures of 

more than 1 ton in 1999 were from tractor-trailers. 

While some law enforcement and anecdotal reporting suggests that 200–500 pounds is typical of an 

amount transported in private vehicles, other 

reports indicate that traffickers prefer to use this 

mode of transport to move shipments of less than 

50 pounds. Small amounts of marijuana often are 

transported to distribution locations by couriers on 

trains, buses, and aircraft; the use of small private 

aircraft has been reported as well. 

Domestic transport of marijuana also occurs 

via parcel delivery and mail services, according to 

law enforcement reporting, National Drug Threat 

Survey 2001 responses, and USPS data. State and 

local law enforcement agencies in Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

New Jersey, North Dakota, South Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin noted increased use of mail 

and package delivery services to transport marijuana to their jurisdictions. Data from the USPS 

show that the number of parcels seized in which 

marijuana was concealed outnumbers by far parcels carrying other illicit drugs. The Southern 

California, Midwest, and Northwest USPS divisions had the largest numbers of marijuana parcels 

seized during FY2000 at 145, 136, and 101, 

respectively. The average weight per parcel, however, was vastly different at 10 pounds (Southern 

California), 4 pounds (Midwest), and less than 

1 pound (Northwest). The average weight per 

parcel for the southwestern, southeastern, and 

northeastern United States was 9 pounds. 

Concealment methods can vary depending on 

the mode of transportation used to ship marijuana, 

but almost all methods involve odor-masking 

agents to impede drug detection dogs. The drug, 

often compressed or vacuum-packed, typically is 

wrapped tightly in cellophane and sealed with 

heavy tape. Such packages are then coated with 

hydraulic fluid or similar products, wrapped in 

scented dryer sheets, covered with pungent goods 

such as chili powder, or all of the above. Marijuana transported in large commercial vehicles or 

vessels normally is concealed in hidden compartments or commingled among legitimate cargo 

such as produce. Marijuana transported in private 

vehicles is concealed in hidden compartments, 

such as false ceilings or floors, or in standard features, such as trunks, tires, and quarter panels. 

Marijuana transported by couriers on foot usually 

is not concealed other than by the wrapping and a 

backpack or duffel bag. Reporting from the DEA 

Phoenix Field Division, however, indicates that 

sometimes compressed marijuana also is covered 

with contact paper in a wood-grain design, perhaps as camouflage for packages left at outdoor 

stash sites in that area. 

The demographic makeup of marijuana transporters encompasses many racial, ethnic, and social 

groups, and they appear to interact to facilitate the 

movement of the drug. For example, Jamaican 

criminal groups on the East Coast maintain contacts with both Jamaican and Mexican traffickers 

in the Southwest and Pacific regions to transport 

wholesale quantities of Mexican marijuana to 

Jamaican criminal groups in the Southeast and 

along the East Coast. In responding to the National 

Drug Threat Survey 2001, the Airport Squad of the 

Phoenix Police Department’s Drug Enforcement 

Bureau noted a marked increase in Jamaican traffickers transporting marijuana from Phoenix to eastern cities including Baltimore, Boston, Hartford, 

Newark, New York, Philadelphia, and Providence.

Other state and local law enforcement agencies responding to the National Drug Threat 

Survey 2001 identified Caucasians, Mexicans, 

Hispanics, and African Americans as dominant 

transporters of marijuana in every region of the 

country. Other transporters identified through 

survey responses and law enforcement reporting 

include Jamaicans (New England, New York/

New Jersey, Mid-Atlantic, and Florida/Caribbean regions as well as California and Illinois), 

Colombians (New York/New Jersey region and 
National Drug Intelligence Center

47

California), Native Americans (Michigan, 

Montana, New York, and Wisconsin), and 

Dominicans (New Jersey, Rhode Island, and 

Puerto Rico). 

Distribution

As mentioned in the previous section, the 

transportation hubs of Los Angeles, San Diego, 

Nogales, Phoenix, Brownsville, Dallas, El Paso, 

Houston, Laredo, McAllen, and San Antonio 

appear to be used as national-level distribution 

centers, too, for marijuana produced in Mexico. 

Mexican traffickers also appear to use Tucson, 

Chicago and, possibly to a lesser extent, New 

York as national-level distribution centers. 

Responses to the National Drug Threat Survey 

2001 indicate that marijuana is supplied from 

these distribution centers to markets across the 

country, including Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, 

Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Ohio, 

South Carolina, Tennessee, and Utah.

Marijuana produced in Colombia and the 

United States probably is distributed through 

some of the same cities as marijuana produced 

in Mexico, depending on proximity of the distribution center to the primary transportation 

hubs or production areas for such marijuana. 

The transportation hubs of Miami, New York, 

and Seattle function as national-level distribution 

centers for marijuana produced in countries 

other than Mexico. National Drug Threat Survey 

2001 respondents located primarily in the eastern 

and northwestern United States, such as in Alabama, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 

South Carolina, Idaho, Montana, and Oregon, 

reported that marijuana available in their jurisdictions was supplied by sources in Miami, New 

York, and Seattle. Other cities that function as 

distribution centers, probably for all types of 

marijuana but at more of a regional level, 

include Atlanta and Denver. 

As Mexican traffickers dominate the wholesale distribution of foreign-produced marijuana in 

the United States, independent Caucasian traffickers appear to control wholesale distribution of 

marijuana produced in the United States. Of 1,261 

responses to the National Drug Threat Survey 2001, 

the number of wholesalers identified as Mexican or 

Hispanic (447) was relatively even with the number 

identified as Caucasian (402); all these groups were 

reported in every region of the country. Many state 

and local law enforcement agencies responding to 

the survey also identified marijuana wholesalers as 

African American (New England, New York/New 

Jersey, Mid-Atlantic, Great Lakes, Southeast, and 

Southwest regions) and Jamaican (New England, 

New York/New Jersey, Mid-Atlantic, Great Lakes, 

and Florida/Caribbean regions). Other wholesalers 

identified in more localized or specific areas include 

Colombians (New England and Florida/Caribbean 

regions as well as California), Dominicans (New 

England and Mid-Atlantic regions), and Native 

Americans (Montana and New York). 

Retail-level distribution is the point at which 

overall Mexican dominance of marijuana trafficking ends. Mexican and, to a lesser extent, other 

criminal groups supply wholesale quantities of 

marijuana to retailers including independents, street 

gangs, and OMGs. While independents most often 

are identified as Caucasian, the ethnicity of these 

retailers often simply reflects the surrounding area’s 

population. Street gangs of varying ethnicity and 

affiliation distribute marijuana at the retail level. 

Those with nationwide influence include the 

Bloods, Latin Kings, Ñetas, and Mara Salvatrucha. 

OMGs often reported as involved in marijuana distribution are the Hells Angels, Outlaws, and Pagans. 

State and local law enforcement agency 

responses to the National Drug Threat Survey 2001 

corroborate a shift in dominance at the retail level of 

distribution. Of 972 survey respondents that 

identified at least one dominant retail distributor 

(some identified more than one), 653 identified 

Caucasians, 269 identified Mexicans or Hispanics, and 225 identified African Americans. Caucasian and African American retailers were 

identified in every region of the country. Survey respondents from every region except the 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

48

New England and Mid-Atlantic regions identified 

Mexican or Hispanic retailers. Other retailers identified in more localized or specific areas include 

Jamaicans (New England, New York/New Jersey, 

Mid-Atlantic, and Florida/Caribbean regions) and 

Native Americans (Arizona, Montana, New Mexico, New York, South Dakota, and Wisconsin).

Sales of marijuana take place in a variety of 

locations, including on street corners, at nightclubs 

and raves, from vehicles, in homes, and at schools. 

The structure of retail distribution operations is 

equally as broad, ranging from sales conducted at 

open-air drug markets in urban areas to peer 

distribution networks found in more suburban and 

rural areas. Some retail sales involve polydrug 

dealing, where marijuana is distributed along 

with other illicit substances. In Detroit’s inner 

city, for example, marijuana, heroin, and crack 

cocaine are all sold in $10 units. Law enforcement 

and anecdotal reporting indicates that marijuana 

retailers have used cellular telephones, pagers, 

prepaid calling cards, the Internet, and mail services to facilitate sales. Other sales are less 

sophisticated, such as those involving hand-tohand exchanges. The most common packaging 

for retail quantities of marijuana is resealable 

plastic bags, although reporting from some areas 

identifies the use of small glassine bags and small 

glass tubes or bottles. 

Key Developments

Polydrug use has become commonplace, and 

the consequences of concurrent or sequential use of 

marijuana with other drugs are high. Law enforcement and epidemiologic sources, as well as treatment data, indicate that marijuana is often just one 

of a number of substances taken by drug users. 

Among young people, polydrug use may be spurred 

on by raves, where a variety of drugs are available, 

marketed, and consumed. Other factors may 

include attempts to curb the effects of other drugs 

taken or to improve the euphoric effect provided by 

lower potency marijuana. Whatever the reason or 

reasons, polydrug use appears to be contributing to 

an increase in ED mentions and treatment admissions for marijuana/hashish use. Moreover, some 

users are unaware that the marijuana they ingest 

may contain another substance, making it difficult 

for healthcare providers to prescribe correct treatment if these users react adversely.

Although not a national trend, reporting 

from some areas of the country suggests a rise in 

marijuana-related violence. In the Southwest, 

confrontations involving marijuana smugglers 

crossing at Arizona POEs have endangered law 

enforcement as well as legitimate cross-border 

travelers. Also, law enforcement reporting from 

the New England, New York/New Jersey, and 

Mid-Atlantic regions indicates that marijuanarelated violence is increasing, particularly relating 

to distribution activities. The eastward expansion 

of Mexican polydrug trafficking organizations 

and the involvement of other criminal groups and 

gangs in the marijuana trade likely is contributing 

to these reports.

Projections

Marijuana will remain the most widely available illicit drug in the country. Domestic cannabis 

cultivation and marijuana use are widespread, and 

traffickers in foreign source countries will continue 

to smuggle marijuana into the United States to profit 

from high demand. The market for marijuana will 

remain strong given the drug’s wide appeal and 

profit potential. 

Any changes in the marijuana trade likely 

will come in the form of refinements to ongoing 

methods of cultivation. Growers will explore 

new ways to conceal outdoor sites, such as
National Drug Intelligence Center

49

cultivating in underground facilities and in 

swamps. Also, growers, especially those 

involved with indoor cultivation, will continue 

to refine techniques to improve the growing 

environment as well as experiment with different 

strains of cannabis plants to increase potency 

and yield higher profits. 

In May 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 

there is no exception under the Controlled Substances Act to permit the cultivation, distribution, 

or use of marijuana for claimed medical purposes. 

Although eight states have laws allowing patients 

to use marijuana for medical purposes, the 

Supreme Court’s decision implicitly rules that 

state law does not preclude enforcement under 

federal law. The decision does not appear to have 

discouraged medical marijuana supporters, however. Many marijuana proponents believe that the 

ruling is too limited to affect individual patients 

who use marijuana and that the existing state laws 

may effectively protect many of those arrested by 

state and local law enforcement agencies. Medical 

marijuana supporters and pro-marijuana groups 

will continue lobbying state legislatures to enact 

laws legalizing marijuana distribution and use for 

medical purposes.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

50

This page intentionally left blank.
National Drug Intelligence Center

51

MDMA

MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine), a Schedule I drug under the Controlled 

Substances Act, is a stimulant with mild hallucinogenic properties. Its use has increased dramatically across the country since the mid-1990s, 

particularly among adolescents and young adults. 

MDMA is the most popular drug within the rave 

culture, and it is increasingly used in combination 

with other drugs such as marijuana, ketamine, 

heroin, and GHB (gamma-hydroxybutyrate). 

The threat associated with MDMA trafficking 

and use has increased greatly over the past year, 

driven by several recent trends. The growing number of pills and capsules being marketed as MDMA 

but containing drugs like methamphetamine, PCP, 

amphetamine, ketamine, and PMA—with or without MDMA—has increased the dangers associated 

with MDMA use. The spread of MDMA use to all 

regions of the country and the drug’s prevalence 

among a diverse user population further exacerbate the domestic MDMA situation. The recent 

involvement of Colombian, Mexican, Asian, and 

Dominican drug trafficking organizations and 

criminal groups in MDMA production and transportation, and of African American and Hispanic 

gangs in MDMA distribution, has increased competition at each trafficking level. This rivalry is 

contributing to a marked increase in violence 

among distributors and dealers, including violence against law enforcement. 

Availability

MDMA is available in every state and most 

DEA Field Divisions indicate that availability is 

increasing in their areas. Nearly all law enforcement and epidemiologic sources report that 

MDMA use is centered at raves and dance clubs 

(see Text Box next page). However, MDMA is 

readily available outside these venues, including in 

homes, at high schools, on college campuses, at 

private parties, and on the street. 

Reports of rising MDMA availability correspond with a dramatic increase in the number of 

arrests, case initiations, and seizures. DEA reports 

that arrests for MDMA violations increased from 

681 in 1999 to 1,456 in 2000 and that the number 

of DEA cases initiated against MDMA traffickers 

and distributors rose from 278 to 670 during that 

same period. The amount of MDMA seized by the 

DEA and USCS has increased each year over the 

past 5 years, particularly since 1998 (see Table 2 

next page). 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

52

High energy, all-night dance parties and clubs 

known as “raves,” which feature dance music 

with a fast, pounding beat and choreographed 

laser programs, have become increasingly popular over the last decade, particularly among teenagers and young adults. Beginning as an 

underground movement in Europe, raves have 

evolved into a highly organized, commercialized, 

worldwide party culture. Rave parties and clubs 

are now found throughout the United States and 

in countries around the world. 

Raves are held either in permanent dance clubs 

or at temporary venues set up for a single weekend event in abandoned warehouses, open 

fields, or empty buildings. Attendance can range 

from fewer than 30 in a small club to tens of 

thousands in a sports stadium or open field. 

While techno music and light shows are essential 

to raves, drugs such as MDMA have become an 

integral component of the rave culture.

The price of MDMA varies throughout the 

country. The DEA reports that retail prices are 

usually between $20 and $30 per dosage unit; 

however, in some areas, prices have been 

reported as low as $5 and as high as $40. 

The primary areas for MDMA smuggling 

and distribution are Los Angeles, Miami, and 

the New York/New Jersey region. Most MDMA 

brought into the United States by couriers on 

commercial flights is smuggled through Los 

Angeles, Miami, John F. Kennedy, and Newark 

International Airports. The wide availability of 

MDMA in the New York/New Jersey region is 

evidenced by several large seizures, including a 

single seizure of 1 million pills (444 lb) in 

Queens, New York, in July 2001. 

Crystal MDMA currently appears to be available only in the Philadelphia area. The DEA Philadelphia Field Division reports that crystal 

MDMA is very pure (95% to 100%) and similar 

in appearance to crystal methamphetamine. The 

Division further reports that crystal MDMA sells 

for $210–$225 per gram (approximately 10 dosage units) and that the effects of one crystal taken 

orally can last up to 4 hours. Crystal MDMA is 

believed to be the cause of several drug-induced 

seizures and overdoses in the Philadelphia area.

Demand

The number of MDMA users in the country 

has increased sharply since the mid-1990s, and the 

demand for MDMA is still growing, according to 

national-level drug prevalence and consequence 

studies. According to the 2000 NHSDA, an estimated 6.4 million individuals aged 12 and older 

tried MDMA (reported as ecstasy in the NHSDA) 

at least once in their lifetime, an increase from the 

5.1 million lifetime users reported in 1999.

MDMA users are principally young people of 

high school and college age (mostly Caucasian) 

from middle- and upper-class families, and data 

from MTF and PATS reveal significant increases 

in MDMA consumption especially among adolescents and young adults over the last several years. 

According to MTF, the rates of MDMA use for all 

three categories reached the highest recorded levels 

among all three grades in 2000. The rate of 

MDMA use among twelfth graders increased 

between 1999 and 2000 for lifetime use (8.0% to 

11.0%), past year use (5.6% to 8.2%), and current 

use (2.5% to 3.6%)—higher than the rates for 

Table 2. MDMA Seizures, Nationwide, 1997–2000 (dosage units)

1997 1998 1999 2000

DEA 79,599 143,612 1,054,973 3,045,041

USCS 400,000 750,000 3,000,000 9,300,000

Source: Drug Enforcement Administration System to Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence and U.S. Customs Service.

Note: These seizure statistics cannot be totaled for a given calendar year because of a possible overlap in reporting.
National Drug Intelligence Center

53

cocaine, crack, methamphetamine, and heroin. 

Likewise, PATS shows that lifetime MDMA use 

among students in grades 7 through 12 increased 

from 5 percent in 1995 to 10 percent in 2000. 

As may be expected, the negative consequences 

of MDMA use have increased concurrently with 

increased use. Data from DAWN show that ED 

mentions for MDMA nearly doubled each year 

since 1996, rising from 319 in that year to 4,511 

in 2000. 

Production

MDMA is produced in numerous countries 

around the world by chemists and criminal groups 

using illegally diverted chemicals. Although the 

process by which MDMA is produced is not complex, most producers have university or commercial laboratory experience. They acquire necessary 

chemicals such as safrole, piperonal, and MDP2P 

(3,4-methylenedioxyphenyl-2-propanone) from 

criminal groups that illegally divert these chemicals from source countries such as China, Germany, India, and Poland. Once the chemists have 

procured the precursor and essential chemicals, 

they produce MDMA in temporary, often mobile, 

laboratories or in permanent, high capacity clandestine laboratories with high-speed commercial 

pill presses. Notwithstanding laboratory expense, 

MDMA production costs are relatively low, and 

profit margins are high. 

Most MDMA consumed in the United States 

is produced in the Netherlands or Belgium. Drug 

trafficking organizations operating laboratories in 

these two countries have led worldwide MDMA 

production since the mid-1990s, accounting for 

more than 80 percent of the MDMA consumed 

worldwide by the end of 1999, according to DEA 

estimates. Despite concerted law enforcement 

efforts in these two countries that have resulted in 

numerous seizures of large MDMA laboratories, 

there is no current threat to the dominance of 

MDMA production groups operating in the 

Netherlands and Belgium. But drug trafficking 

organizations and individual chemists operating 

MDMA laboratories in other countries, including 

Canada, China, and the United States, reportedly 

are increasing production and could potentially 

challenge the dominance of production groups 

operating in the Netherlands and Belgium in the 

near future. Reportedly, Mexico also is emerging 

as a potential MDMA production area.

MDMA laboratories emerging in other countries, particularly Canada and Mexico, pose a distinct threat to the United States. DEA and USCS 

reporting within the past year indicates that clandestine laboratory operators in Canada and Mexico are producing MDMA for distribution in the 

United States. In addition, MDMA produced in 

China is being smuggled into the United States, 

primarily California, in relatively small quantities by Asian traffickers. MDMA production in 

countries proximate to the United States, as well 

as the apparent involvement of Canadian, Mexican, and Asian criminal groups in MDMA production, likely will result in increased 

availability and lower prices. 

The increased number of drug trafficking 

organizations involved in MDMA production 

likely has contributed to the growing number of 

pills and capsules that are being sold as MDMA 

but which contain varied—and sometimes 

deadly—substances. MDMA users also are 

unknowingly being exposed to dangerous and 

often highly addictive substances as producers 

add readily available drugs or less expensive 

substances to MDMA to increase profits. DEA 

Field Divisions throughout the country report an 

increase in the amount of pills sold as MDMA 

that were actually a combination of several drugs, 

including PCP, PMA, methamphetamine, ketamine, 

and ephedrine as well as other dangerous chemicals. 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

54

Transportation

MDMA usually is pressed into pills and packaged at laboratory sites then sold to wholesale 

groups that smuggle the drug to other countries. 

Since the mid-1990s, Israeli and Russian criminal 

groups have dominated MDMA smuggling to the 

United States. However, other traffickers, including U.S., Mexican, and Dominican criminal 

groups, have established relations with Israeli and 

Russian criminal groups or have their own 

sources of supply in Europe and are emerging as 

significant wholesalers of MDMA. 

MDMA smuggled from Europe to the United 

States is transported via individual couriers, mail 

services, or cargo containers. In 2000, express 

mail and cargo services were the preferred methods to smuggle MDMA into the United States. 

Because of enforcement actions against traffickers 

using express mail and cargo services, individual 

couriers on commercial flights are now used as the 

preferred smuggling method.

Couriers on commercial flights initially 

smuggled MDMA pills primarily in falsebottomed luggage. They then switched to bodycarrying MDMA by either taping packages of 

pills to their torso and legs or inserting the packages into their clothing. In 2000, the Atlanta 

HIDTA Airport Interdiction Group, USCS, and 

DEA began encountering couriers on direct 

flights from the Netherlands to the United States, 

primarily New York, who were swallowing latex 

condoms filled with MDMA pills, much like the 

method used by heroin and cocaine smugglers. 

Colombian and Dominican traffickers appear to 

prefer using couriers on commercial flights that 

originate in Suriname and the Dominican Republic 

to transport MDMA to the United States. Chinaand Suriname-based traffickers also appear to use 

couriers to smuggle MDMA, although neither 

group has emerged as a significant trafficker of the 

drug to the United States. When couriers smuggle 

MDMA from Mexico to the United States, transport generally occurs overland across the U.S. 

southwestern border by private vehicle.

While individual couriers currently appear to 

be the primary method used to smuggle MDMA, 

express mail is still used because such services 

allow for timely distribution without the need for 

large stash sites in transportation hub cities, and 

they provide MDMA smugglers a high degree of 

anonymity, lowering the risk of arrest. Express 

mail services reportedly are used by Israeli, Russian, 

and U.S. MDMA traffickers. Colombian, Mexican, 

and Dominican MDMA traffickers appear to use 

express mail as well but to a lesser extent.

Cargo containers appear to be the least used 

MDMA transportation method. Three recent 

OCDETF investigations in the Southeast and 

Florida/Caribbean regions, however, have identified maritime containerized cargo as a common 

method of MDMA transportation from Europe 

to those regions.

Canada and Mexico 

as MDMA Transit Countries

The RCMP reports that U.S. traffickers are 

crossing the border to purchase MDMA from 

Canadian sources with increasing frequency, 

and that these traffickers are using Canada 

as a transshipment point for MDMA destined 

for U.S. markets as well. The New York State 

Police reports that members of the Hells 

Angels are assisting Israeli MDMA smugglers across the U.S.–Canada border. In two 

recent cases, Israelis were arrested in New 

York for smuggling a total of 600,000 MDMA 

pills across the border. 

The DEA estimates that traffickers will 

increasingly use Mexico as a transit country 

for MDMA destined for the United States. In 

July 2001, the USCS seized 55,000 MDMA 

pills being smuggled into the United States at 

the Brownsville POE. The shipment, the largest ever seized along the U.S.–Mexico border, 

was found in a private vehicle driven by a 

Dominican national who lived in Mexico City. 
National Drug Intelligence Center

55

Couriers smuggling MDMA from Europe to 

the United States on commercial flights usually 

fly directly to one of five MDMA transportation 

hub cities: Atlanta, Los Angeles, Miami, New 

York, or Newark. Increasingly, however, drug 

trafficking organizations are sending couriers on 

commercial flights to one of three primary transit 

countries—Canada, Mexico, or the Dominican 

Republic—en route to the United States (see 

Text Box facing page). From the transshipment 

country, MDMA is then smuggled to one of the 

transportation hub cities either by commercial 

air or private vehicle.

Distribution

Wholesale traffickers that transport MDMA to 

U.S. transportation hubs usually sell the pills to 

midlevel wholesale distributors in quantities of at 

least 1,000 pills. Midlevel wholesale distributors 

then transport the pills to distribution centers such as 

Houston, Jacksonville, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, and 

Washington, D.C., and sell them to retail distributors. Retail distributors thereafter supply users, often 

selling hundreds of pills during a single weekend. 

Midlevel wholesale and retail MDMA distribution initially was conducted by independent, 

entrepreneurial Caucasians. But over the past 

year, distribution has become more widespread 

and competitive, involving distributors from a 

growing number of ethnic backgrounds. Federal, 

state, and local law enforcement agencies in 

every region of the country report that midlevel 

wholesale and retail distribution of MDMA is 

conducted by traffickers of increasing diversity, 

including African American, Arab, Canadian, 

Caucasian, Chinese, Colombian, Dominican, 

Hungarian, Mexican, Romanian, and Vietnamese 

criminal groups. Dominican traffickers are 

midlevel and retail-level MDMA distributors primarily in the New England, Mid-Atlantic, and 

Southeast regions, and Mexican traffickers are 

now distributing midlevel wholesale and retail 

amounts of MDMA in California and Texas. 

Vietnamese and Chinese retail distributors have 

emerged only recently, and of the two, Vietnamese 

distributors are the most prominent, selling MDMA 

in at least five major cities: Chicago, Houston, 

Miami, New Orleans, and San Francisco. 

Gangs, especially African American and 

Hispanic gangs, are increasingly involved in 

MDMA retail distribution. Recent federal, state, 

and local law enforcement reporting indicates 

that many gangs have begun selling MDMA in 

addition to other drugs like crack cocaine and 

marijuana. Several law enforcement offices in the 

New England, Mid-Atlantic, and Florida/Caribbean 

regions report that many gangs have switched 

entirely to MDMA distribution because of the 

growing demand, the profitability, and the perception of reduced law enforcement risks associated 

with such activity. 

Key Developments

MDMA is no longer just a club drug. In past 

years, retail MDMA distribution was carried out 

primarily at raves, in dance clubs, and in bars. 

However, information from state and local law 

enforcement agencies that responded to the 

National Drug Threat Survey 2001 indicates 

that increasing use, particularly among young 

people, has created new distribution venues 

such as schools and private homes in suburban 

neighborhoods. Law enforcement and epidemiologic reporting confirms that MDMA has spread 

beyond raves to other settings and is distributed 

through street sales. Moreover, the expansion of 

MDMA distribution to new venues may be leading 

to a broader user population. Some epidemiologic 

sources indicate that older MDMA users (over 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

56

40 years old) are emerging and that some cocaine 

users have switched to MDMA because the 

euphoric effects are similar to those of cocaine 

but last longer and because MDMA is considered 

safer than cocaine.

The rising competition in MDMA distribution 

appears to have contributed to an increase in 

MDMA-related violence over the past year. Violence was rarely associated with MDMA distribution in previous years, although many members 

of Israeli and Russian MDMA distribution groups 

were career criminals. However, in 2000 and 

2001, MDMA distributors were involved in several murders of other MDMA distributors and in 

shootouts with police officers in New York City 

and in the Detroit area. Furthermore, DEA reports 

that weapons are now routinely seized along with 

MDMA at the street level. 

MDMA is increasingly being smuggled into 

the country in new ways. Emerging methods 

include the insertion of pills into baby carriers, 

hollowed out furniture, and canned food as well 

as the use of couriers who swallow latex condoms filled with MDMA pills. For example, the 

Atlanta Police Department noted in its response 

to the National Drug Threat Survey 2001 that 

couriers are increasingly smuggling MDMA 

internally from Western Europe into Georgia. 

These methods resemble those employed by 

cocaine and heroin smuggling groups and are of 

great concern to interdiction agencies since they 

will make detection more difficult. 

A recent trend in wholesale MDMA trafficking 

in Europe is the practice of swapping cocaine and 

MDMA. DEA reporting cites instances of wholesale MDMA distributors traveling to Europe with 

kilograms of cocaine to trade for MDMA pills. 

The DEA Los Angeles Field Division reports that 

some groups trade 1 kilogram of cocaine for 

approximately 13,000 MDMA pills, which are 

then smuggled into the United States, sometimes 

via Mexico. 

The growing awareness of both the nature of 

rave activity and the effects of MDMA use has 

moved many communities to action. In order to 

curtail rave activity, communities and law 

enforcement agencies are enforcing existing fire 

codes, health and safety ordinances, and liquor 

laws, and are establishing juvenile curfews and 

licensing requirements for large public gatherings. 

They also are requiring rave promoters and club 

owners to pay for building or liquor licenses, 

medical services, and security for their events, 

all in an effort to force rave promoters to move or 

cease their operations. 

Projections

MDMA availability and use will continue to 

increase as more traffickers supply MDMA to new 

user groups, such as older users, and to new market areas in smaller communities and outside the 

rave scene. Law enforcement agencies in Boston, 

New York, and Washington, D.C., identify user 

groups outside of rave and dance club venues, 

including users in casual social settings, on the 

street, and in suburban high schools. 

There is little indication that the low level of 

domestic MDMA production is significantly 

affecting availability nationally. However, the 

potential involvement of Mexican trafficking 

organizations and Canadian criminal groups in 

MDMA production and distribution may affect 

domestic availability because of the proximity of 

these traffickers to the United States and their possible use of established drug trafficking routes.

Violence against other distributors and law 

enforcement is likely to rise as competition among 

MDMA distributors grows and street gangs and 

polydrug distributors become more involved in 

MDMA distribution. A review of OCDETF 

investigations shows that in most cases, MDMA 

distributors engaging in violence are members of 

established polydrug trafficking groups that have 

only recently begun distributing MDMA. 
National Drug Intelligence Center

57

Other Dangerous Drugs

Other Dangerous Drugs include club drugs 

and hallucinogens. In past years, these drugs 

were not considered as great a threat as other 

illicit drugs. However, they are now available 

nationwide and are increasingly drawing law 

enforcement attention as more communities are 

confronting increased use of substances such as 

GHB and ketamine. 

Club Drugs

Club drugs comprise stimulants such as 

MDMA and depressants like GHB, ketamine, and 

Rohypnol. The primary outlets for club drugs are 

raves and dance clubs in metropolitan areas and, 

increasingly, in suburban and rural communities. 

Club drugs are an integral part of the rave culture, 

and many who attend raves use club drugs and 

advocate their use, wrongly believing that they 

are not harmful if they are used “responsibly” and 

their effects are managed properly. 

MDMA is unquestionably the most popular 

of the club drugs, and evidence of its use can be 

seen at most rave parties. MDMA is now considered a national-level threat independent of 

the Other Dangerous Drugs or Club Drugs categories and is discussed separately in this 

assessment (see MDMA section). GHB and 

ketamine also are used at raves, as is Rohypnol, 

although to a lesser extent. 

GHB 

GHB (gamma-hydroxybutyrate), a powerful 

central nervous system depressant, is odorless, 

tasteless and, in its liquid form, clear and nearly 

undetectable when mixed in a drink. Initially used 

by bodybuilders to stimulate muscle growth, GHB 

currently is used recreationally for its euphoric 

effects. Moreover, because of its sedative properties, 

GHB reportedly is used in the commission of 

drug-facilitated sexual assault. Federal, state, 

and local law enforcement agencies in every 

region report that GHB appears to have surpassed 

Rohypnol as the most common substance used in 

drug-facilitated sexual assaults. 

Effects of GHB include a sense of euphoria, 

hallucinations, drowsiness, increased heart 

rate, depressed respiration, visual distortions, 

seizures, coma, unconsciousness, and death.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

58

Nearly every DEA Field Division and HIDTA 

reports that GHB availability was stable or 

increasing in their areas as of 2000, and in that 

year, there were OCDETF investigations targeting 

GHB traffickers in every region of the country. In 

addition, most state and local law enforcement 

agencies that responded to the National Drug 

Threat Survey 2001 indicated that the availability 

of GHB increased in their areas concurrent with a 

rise in rave activity. 

The consequences of GHB use appear to be 

increasing in tandem with availability, according to 

DAWN reporting. DAWN ED mentions for GHB 

have risen dramatically since the mid-1990s from 

just 56 in 1994 to 4,969 in 2000. GHB appears to 

be used by young people for recreational purposes. 

DAWN ED data for 2000 show that 60 percent of 

GHB mentions were 25 years old and under and 

that well over half of the mentions (3,172) were 

associated with recreational use.

It is difficult to gauge GHB demand because 

most national-level drug abuse indicators do not 

measure GHB prevalence. However, law enforcement reporting, National Drug Threat Survey 2001 

responses, and anecdotal reporting from epidemiologists and substance abuse counselors all indicate that GHB use is rising (see Chart 3). Law 

enforcement reporting further indicates an increase 

in the number of cases involving analogs of 

GHB, including GBL (gamma-butyrolactone) 

and 1,4-butanediol.

Ketamine

Ketamine hydrochloride is a Schedule III drug 

commercially manufactured outside the United 

States for veterinary use as a general anesthetic or 

preoperative sedative. Ketamine is available as a 

powder and a liquid; when diverted and abused, the 

powder is smoked or snorted, and the liquid is 

injected or mixed into drinks. Law enforcement 

and epidemiologic reporting indicates that ketamine is used primarily by adolescents and young 

adults at raves, dance clubs, and house parties. Ketamine also has been used in drug-facilitated sexual 

assaults because of its sedative properties.

The effects of ketamine include delirium, 

hallucinations, dulled senses, memory loss, 

impaired judgment, and loss of coordination.

Ketamine availability appears to be increasing. According to DEA STRIDE data, seizures of 

ketamine have increased each year since 1999, 

the first year in which ketamine seizures were 

recorded. Seizures increased from 4,551 dosage 

units in 1999, to 1,154,463 dosage units in 2000; 

581,677 dosage units were seized through June 

2001. Ketamine reportedly is available in every 

region of the country; nearly all DEA Field Divisions and most HIDTAs report the availability of 

ketamine in their areas, and many Field Divisions 

report dramatic increases since last year. There 

has been a marked increase in ketamine availability in many rural areas, especially in the Great 

Lakes and Southeast regions, according to 

OCDETF and DEA reporting, and National Drug 

Threat Survey respondents corroborate increasing 

availability. Many agencies reporting ketamine 

availability, however, often note that availability 

increases as rave activity increases and that the 

drug often is used with other club drugs such as 

MDMA, GHB, and LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide). Ketamine typically is distributed among 

friends and acquaintances; street sales are rare. 

Chart 3. DAWN ED Mentions for GHB

1994–2000

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

and Mental Health Services Administration, Drug Abuse Warning 

Network, 2000.

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Year

Total
National Drug Intelligence Center

59

Miami may be emerging as a key area for ketamine activity. In August 2001, the Miami 

Beach Police and DEA seized 110 pounds of 

ketamine—the largest single seizure of the 

drug in the country. In September 1999, the 

Miami Beach Police seized 11,000 vials of ketamine, which was the largest seizure at that 

time. In both cases, police stated that the drug 

was intended for use at Miami-area raves.

Ketamine use is not measured by nationallevel drug prevalence studies; however, DAWN 

reporting indicates that the consequences of ketamine use have risen. The number of ED mentions for ketamine increased from a low of 19 in 

1994 to a high of 396 in 1999, thereafter decreasing 

to 263 in 2000. While the consequences of ketamine 

use have risen overall, it is important to note that 

these numbers are small relative to the total 

number of mentions for all drugs (more than 

1 million in 2000).

Rohypnol

Rohypnol (flunitrazepam hydrochloride) is a 

powerful, benzodiazepine sedative—up to 

10 times stronger than Valium. Rohypnol is prescribed by physicians in many countries to treat 

sleep disorders like insomnia; however, it is not 

approved for medical use in the United States, 

where it sometimes is found at raves, dance clubs, 

and bars. Users often combine Rohypnol with 

alcohol to intensify the effects of the drug. 

Because of its sedative properties and because it 

dissolves completely in liquid, Rohypnol has 

been widely used in the commission of drugfacilitated sexual assaults. In an attempt to curb 

the drug’s use in sex crimes, the principal commercial manufacturer of Rohypnol added a blue 

dye that appears if the drug is dissolved in liquid. 

Unfortunately, despite attempts to make it more 

detectable, Rohypnol reportedly is still used in 

drug-facilitated sexual assaults, although GHB 

appears to be more common.

The availability of Rohypnol appears to be 

declining. Only six DEA Field Divisions—

Atlanta, El Paso, Houston, New Orleans, San 

Diego, and Washington, D.C.—report that 

Rohypnol is available in their areas, and the San 

Diego and Washington, D.C., Field Divisions 

report that availability is declining. Since January 

2000, only three OCDETF investigations 

involved criminal groups distributing Rohypnol, 

and in each, Rohypnol was simply one of several 

drugs distributed. Declining availability is 

reflected further in decreasing seizures. DEA 

STRIDE data show that seizures decreased since 

the mid-1990s from a high of 164,534 dosage 

units in 1995 to 4,967 dosage units in 2000.

Rohypnol causes deep sedation, muscle 

relaxation, and reduced anxiety. The onset 

of the drug’s effects is usually within 15–20 

minutes of administration, and the effects 

can last up to 12 hours. High doses produce 

unconsciousness and memory loss.

Rohypnol abuse appears to be decreasing. 

According to MTF, the only national-level demand 

study to specifically mention Rohypnol, past year 

use of the drug decreased between 1998 and 2000 

among eighth graders (0.8% to 0.5%), tenth graders 

(1.2% to 0.8%), and twelfth graders (1.4% to 0.8%). 

These rates are low and the changes may not be 

statistically significant.

The consequences of Rohypnol use appear to 

be decreasing as well. The number of ED mentions 

for Rohypnol dropped from 624 in 1998 to 540 in 

1999 and thereafter to 469 in 2000.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

60

Hallucinogens

Drugs that induce false images or powerful 

auditory and visual distortions, such as LSD, PCP, 

and psilocybin mushrooms, are referred to collectively as hallucinogens. These substances are now 

considered by many to be club drugs because they 

are increasingly encountered by law enforcement 

at raves and dance clubs and often are used in combination with other club drugs such as MDMA, 

GHB, and ketamine. The use of hallucinogens 

peaked in the mid-1990s and has since stabilized 

or decreased slightly; however, the increasing 

presence of hallucinogens at raves may signal an 

increase in availability and use in the near future.

LSD

LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide), a Schedule 

I drug, is the most available and most popular hallucinogen in the United States. It induces hallucinations more powerful than that of any other 

drug, adding to its appeal among those at raves 

and dance clubs seeking enhanced auditory and 

visual experiences. LSD is ingested orally and is 

available in several forms including tablets, liquid 

(often in breath mint bottles), gelatin squares, 

blotter paper, and sugar cubes. LSD also is produced as a powder or crystal but generally is not 

ingested in these forms. LSD potency currently 

ranges between 20 and 80 micrograms, considerably lower than in the 1960s and 1970s, when 

potency ranged between 100 and 300 micrograms. Most LSD consumed in the United States 

is produced domestically in clandestine laboratories located primarily in the San Francisco Bay 

area and is transported throughout the country via 

mail services and couriers in private vehicles. 

LSD production is a complex process, and the 

DEA reports that a small tightly knit group of 

chemists currently produce LSD domestically. 

LSD is available in every state, and at least 

one major investigation against significant LSD 

distributors has been initiated in every OCDETF 

region since January 2000. Increasing availability also is reflected in DEA STRIDE data, 

which show fluctuating but generally increasing 

seizure rates since the mid-1990s, including one 

large seizure in Kansas of 24,306,583 LSD 

dosage units in 2000.

The effects of LSD include enhanced auditory and visual stimulation, hallucinations, 

reduced body temperature, nausea, rapid 

heart rate, extreme mood swings, profuse 

perspiration, and impaired judgment. Effects 

usually are experienced within 30 minutes of 

administration and typically last 2–3 hours.

The NHSDA reveals that past year use of 

LSD declined slightly between 1999 and 2000. 

This decrease occurred primarily among users 

aged 25 and under. 

Past year LSD use among young people 

began rising in 1991 and peaked in 1996, 

according to MTF data. Thereafter, past year use 

began to decline, and current levels are at or 

below those reported in 1994. MTF reports a 

significant decrease in past year LSD use among 

twelfth graders from 1999 (8.1%) to 2000 (6.6%). 

The consequences of LSD use may be declining 

as well. DAWN ED mentions for LSD, mostly 

representing young people, rose slightly from 

4,982 mentions in 1998 to 5,126 in 1999 and 

thereafter declined to 4,016 in 2000.

PCP

PCP (phencyclidine), a Schedule II hallucinogen, was developed as an intravenous anesthetic 

and was used medically until 1965. It continued to 

be used as a veterinary anesthetic until commercial 

production ended in 1978. Today, PCP is produced 

clandestinely in laboratories, often located in 

California, and transported to retail markets via 

mail services and by couriers on commercial 

flights or in private vehicles. PCP is available in 

the form of tablets, capsules, liquid, and powder 

and is either ingested orally or smoked by applying liquid PCP to cigarettes that may contain 

tobacco, marijuana, parsley, mint, or oregano. 
National Drug Intelligence Center

61

The effects of PCP on the user can be very 

unpredictable. Physical effects include 

increased blood pressure and pulse rate, 

profuse perspiration, numbness, garbled 

speech, loss of coordination, rapid eye 

movement, an exaggerated gait, respiratory 

problems, seizures, convulsions, nausea, 

coma, and death. The psychological effects 

of PCP can include a sense of detachment 

from one’s surroundings or of great strength, 

feelings of invulnerability, auditory and visual 

hallucinations, severe mood disorders, and 

amnesia. Some PCP users experience 

extreme paranoia, suicidal tendencies, feelings 

of despair or impending doom, violent aggressiveness, and psychosis similar to schizophrenia. Long-term use can lead to memory loss, 

depression, weight loss, mood disorders, and 

speech and cognitive difficulties.

According to federal, state, and local law 

enforcement reporting, PCP is in most major cities throughout the country, although availability 

often is limited and confined to inner-city areas. 

Since January 2000, 11 OCDETF investigations 

involving PCP distribution or production have 

been initiated, and of those investigations, PCP 

was the principal drug in only five. Three 

regions—the New England, Florida/Caribbean, 

and West Central regions—have not initiated an 

investigation involving PCP distribution or production since January 2000, indicating limited 

availability and a low PCP threat in those regions. 

Declining PCP seizure rates support reports of 

low availability in most areas. DEA STRIDE data 

show PCP seizures fell from 2,585,011 dosage 

units in 1995 to only 184,938 in 2000. 

Use of PCP increased between 1991 and 

1996, at which time levels began to drop. 

Although levels of use remain relatively low, they 

are higher than in the early 1990s. NHSDA 

estimates that as of 2000, approximately 5.8 

million individuals aged 12 and older had used 

PCP at least once in their lifetime; most of these 

users were adults over 18 years of age. MTF data 

also indicate low levels of adolescent use. Past 

year use among twelfth graders peaked at just 

2.6 percent in 1996 and then fluctuated, ending 

at 2.3 percent in 2000. In contrast, DAWN 

statistics show that ED mentions for PCP/PCP 

combinations have risen steadily since 1998, 

increasing from 4,033 in that year to 4,969 in 

1999 and to 6,583 in 2000. 

2C-B 

2C-B (4-bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenethylamine), a Schedule I hallucinogen, is clandestinely produced as a powder. The powder usually 

is pressed into pills or inserted into capsules for 

oral ingestion, although it also is snorted. Users 

report that the effects of 2C-B are more intense 

when the drug is snorted. Some users consume 

2C-B in combination with other illicit drugs 

including MDMA (called a “party pack”) and 

LSD (referred to as a “banana split”). 2C-B 

dosage levels vary from 4 to 30 milligrams. 

2C-B is a psychoactive substance that produces euphoria and increased auditory, 

visual, olfactory, and tactile sensations. The 

effects of doses as low as 4 milligrams are 

similar to those of MDMA, and users 

become passive and relaxed. Orally ingesting 8 to 10 milligrams increases 2C-B’s stimulating effects and produces a completely 

intoxicated state. Mild hallucinations are also 

possible. The effects of 20- to 30-milligram 

doses include overt hallucinations. Higher 

doses produce LSD-type hallucinations and 

morbid delusions.

The availability of 2C-B has been sporadic 

since the mid-1990s, but seizures of 2C-B have 

increased since 1999. Law enforcement authorities in Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Missouri, New 

Jersey, Nevada, South Dakota, and Virginia have 

reported seizures of 2C-B. 

National-level drug abuse indicators do not 

measure use of 2C-B. Law enforcement reporting 

indicates, however, that 2C-B users resemble 

MDMA and LSD users and typically are middleand upper-class Caucasians under 26 years old. 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

62

Psilocybin

Psilocybin is a hallucinogen that can be produced synthetically but is found more commonly 

in several species of mushrooms. Independent 

growers cultivate psilocybin mushrooms indoors 

and frequently harvest those that grow wild. 

Those not consumed locally are transported to 

retail markets, usually via express mail services. 

A single dried mushroom contains approximately 

0.2 to 0.4 percent psilocybin. An effective dose of 

psilocybin is between 4 and 8 milligrams, thereby 

requiring the user to ingest approximately 2 grams 

of mushrooms to obtain euphoric effects.

Psilocybin availability appears to be limited. 

Since January 2000, only two OCDETF investigations have involved psilocybin mushrooms. Both 

cases were primarily MDMA investigations with 

ancillary reporting of small quantities of psilocybin. 

Likewise, only two DEA Field Divisions reported 

any psilocybin activity in their areas.

Psilocybin use causes a variety of physical 

and mental effects including hallucinations, 

euphoria, anxiety, panic, paranoia, stomach 

cramps, and nausea. Psilocybin mushrooms 

can cause death if ingested in large doses. 

Effects can last up to 8 hours.
National Drug Intelligence Center

63

Pharmaceuticals

The illegal abuse of pharmaceuticals, medicinal 

drugs legally available by prescription or over the 

counter, is the lowest threat among the major 

drug categories; however, increased demand and 

availability of pharmaceuticals, as well as the 

introduction of new, more addictive prescription 

pain relievers, have heightened concerns. Users 

sometimes prefer pharmaceuticals to illicit drugs 

because commercial manufacturing ensures reliable 

dosage and purity levels. But new users often are 

unaware of the addictive nature of pharmaceuticals 

and the dangers inherent to their abuse.

Pharmaceuticals are widely available and 

typically are produced in tablet or capsule form. 

Commercial distribution to pharmacies and physicians ensures availability in every region of the 

country. The growing number of legitimate prescriptions written by physicians further 

increases availability and the potential for illegal 

diversion. The Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) reports that the number of 

written prescriptions per office visit increased 

34 percent between 1985 (1.09) and 2000 (1.49). 

Users acquire pharmaceuticals as they might 

other illicit drugs. More often, though, they 

purchase or steal prescription medication from 

friends or family members; forge physician’s 

prescriptions; obtain prescriptions from unscrupulous physicians and pharmacists; imitate medical symptoms to receive prescriptions—often from 

several different physicians, a practice referred to 

as “doctor shopping” —and, increasingly, burglarize pharmacies and physician’s offices. 

Prescription-type pain relievers appear to be 

the most commonly abused pharmaceuticals. 

According to 2000 NHSDA data, nearly 1.5 million 

individuals used prescription-type pain relievers 

nonmedically for the first time in 1999. This number 

has been increasing steadily since 1991. Data 

from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) 

indicate that the rate of abuse of pharmaceuticals 

is roughly equal for males and females in most 

age groups and for most drug categories, and that 

abuse of pharmaceuticals is the most common 

form of drug abuse reported among the elderly. 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

64

Narcotics

Narcotics—which include oxycodone, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, and codeine—are prescribed for pain relief; however, they are abused 

for the euphoric effects they produce. Those who 

abuse narcotics over time develop physical 

dependence and suffer withdrawal symptoms if 

they stop using the narcotics once dependency 

develops. Consequences associated with the 

abuse of some prescription narcotics have 

increased in recent years. DAWN data show an 

increase in ED mentions for oxycodone from 

1997 (4,857) to 2000 (10,825) and an increase in 

ME mentions between 1997 (87) and 1999 (255). 

DAWN ED mentions of hydrocodone increased 

from 1997 (10,705) to 2000 (19,221). 

Oxycodone, a Schedule II drug sold under the 

trade names OxyContin, Percocet, and Percodan, 

is an opium-based central nervous system depressant with a high abuse potential that is prescribed 

for moderate to high pain relief. Law enforcement 

reporting indicates that OxyContin, which has 

heroin-like effects that last up to 12 hours, is the 

fastest growing threat among oxycodone products. 

OxyContin is an oxycodone designed to be swallowed whole for time-released dosing. Those who 

abuse OxyContin, however, often chew the tablets 

or crush them to a powder, which can be snorted or 

dissolved in water for injection, to obtain immediate 

effects. The illegal diversion, distribution, and abuse 

of OxyContin appear to be concentrated in the 

eastern United States, according to DEA reporting 

and responses to the National Drug Threat Survey 

2001. Several deaths from the abuse of OxyContin 

have been reported in Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. There is concern 

that as initiatives to reduce the diversion of OxyContin are implemented and as supplies decrease, 

abusers of OxyContin may turn to heroin in areas 

where heroin is readily available and relatively 

inexpensive.

Other commonly abused narcotics include 

hydrocodone, hydromorphone, and codeine. 

Hydrocodone is a Schedule III drug sold under 

the trade names Vicodin (the most prescribed 

pain reliever in the United States), Lorcet, and 

Lortab. Hydromorphone (Dilaudid), a Schedule II 

drug, is up to eight times more potent than morphine and can cause drowsiness and euphoria. It 

is marketed in tablet and liquid form; addicts usually dissolve the tablets in liquid for injection. 

Prices for a 4-milligram tablet range between $2 

and $10 but can run much higher in certain urban 

areas. Codeine is a Schedule V drug commonly 

available in prescription cough syrups. Users 

often mix these cough syrups in drinks or soak 

marijuana cigarettes in the syrup. Codeine lowers 

heart rate and blood pressure and causes respiratory depression.

Depressants

Depressants are used commonly to treat anxiety and sleep disorders. They slow normal brain 

functions, causing relaxation and reduced anxiety. However, depressants also can cause light to 

severe side effects including lightheadedness, 

vertigo, drowsiness, slurred speech, loss of muscle 

coordination, nervousness, nightmares, and 

hostility. 

The two categories of depressants frequently 

prescribed are barbiturates and benzodiazepines. 

Commonly abused barbiturates are pentobarbital 

(Nembutal), secobarbital (Seconal), and amobarbital (Amytal). Commonly abused benzodiazepines include alprazolam (Xanax), 

chlordiazepoxide (Librium), and diazepam 

(Valium). According to the MTF Study, annual 

barbiturate use among twelfth graders, the only 

grade level for which use is measured, has 

increased every year from 1992 (2.8%) through 

2000 (6.2%).
National Drug Intelligence Center

65

Stimulants

Stimulants are prescribed primarily to treat 

attention deficit disorder (ADD), attention deficit 

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), obesity, and

narcolepsy. They enhance brain activity, increase 

alertness and energy, and improve concentration. 

One of the most commonly abused stimulants is methylphenidate, sold under the trade 

name Ritalin.

A Schedule II drug under the Controlled Substances Act, Ritalin is produced commercially in 

5-, 10-, and 20-milligram tablets. Those who abuse 

Ritalin use it to increase alertness, lose weight, 

and experience the euphoric effects provided by 

high doses. The drug usually is ingested orally; 

however, tablets can be crushed and snorted or 

dissolved in water and injected. Nearly one-quarter 

of the respondents to the National Drug Threat 

Survey 2001 indicated that the abuse of Ritalin 

was occurring in their areas. Further, anecdotal 

reporting suggests that some youths with legitimate 

prescriptions sell their pills to abusers. According 

to DEA, prices for a 20-milligram tablet can 

range from $2 to $20 depending on the area of 

the country.

Other Pharmaceuticals

Other abused pharmaceuticals include dextromethorphan hydrobromide (referred to as 

DXM), carisoprodol (Soma), and sildenafil citrate 

(Viagra). DXM is a psychoactive drug similar to 

codeine found in many over-the-counter cough 

medicines. Users who take higher than recommended doses experience hallucinogenic effects 

similar to those of ketamine or LSD. Soma is a 

muscle relaxant that is available alone or combined 

with aspirin or codeine. It is a prescription drug, 

but it is not federally controlled. Those who abuse 

Soma often purchase the drug via the Internet or 

from individuals for whom the drug has been prescribed. Sildenafil citrate is the active ingredient 

used in Viagra, a prescription drug available in 

25-, 50-, and 100-milligram tablets. Reports indicate that some MDMA users are now taking Viagra 

in an attempt to enhance sexual performance or to 

remedy the impotency caused by MDMA.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

66

This page intentionally left blank.
National Drug Intelligence Center

67

Money Laundering

Drug money laundering occurs throughout the 

United States, particularly in cities that have large 

drug user populations and the financial infrastructure necessary to facilitate the laundering of drug 

proceeds. However, the drug money laundering 

threat is centered primarily in the following areas: 

Los Angeles, New York, Miami, Chicago, San 

Juan (PR), and the Southwest Border. 

The primary drug money launderers in the 

country are Colombian and Mexican drug trafficking organizations. Colombian money launderers 

constitute the greatest threat to the New York/

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

Caribbean regions and maintain a significant 

presence in the other regions. Mexican drug 

trafficking organizations pose the greatest drug 

money laundering threat in the Southwest, Great 

Lakes, Pacific, and West Central regions and 

maintain a presence in other regions. Although 

not as great a threat as these organizations, 

Dominican money launderers also maintain a 

presence in the New England, New York/New 

Jersey, and Mid-Atlantic regions. 

Bulk cash and monetary instrument smuggling 

is a principal drug money laundering method 

used throughout the United States. Mexican and, 

to a lesser extent, Colombian traffickers smuggle 

bulk cash and monetary instruments to Mexico 

primarily in private vehicles and commercial trucks, 

although they use air and maritime conveyances 

as well. Colombian traffickers often return their 

drug proceeds to Colombia via couriers traveling 

on commercial airlines or by air and maritime 

cargo shipments. Colombian drug traffickers also 

extensively use the Black Market Peso Exchange, 

an unofficial currency exchange system, to launder drug proceeds.

The laundering of drug proceeds through money 

services businesses is also a significant threat. 

Money services businesses such as money remittance, money exchange, and check cashing firms 

have been implicated in federal drug investigations 

for accepting and transferring drug proceeds on 

behalf of trafficking organizations. The number of 

money services businesses in several U.S. cities 

has increased in recent years, particularly in areas 

with insufficient registration requirements for 

these businesses.

Traffickers make considerable use of other 

techniques to launder drug proceeds, such as 

structuring bank deposits and money order purchases, commingling drug proceeds with funds 

generated at legitimate businesses, purchasing real 

estate and vehicles, and exploiting the gaming 

industry. Traffickers also use underground banking 

systems, trade-based schemes, and the services of 
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

68

fiduciaries such as lawyers, accountants, and 

securities brokers to launder drug proceeds. The 

smuggling of currency to foreign countries through 

express mail services occurs as well. Electronic 

cash, smart cards, electronic purses, and automated teller machines also pose potential difficulties to anti-money laundering efforts.

Various regulatory, legislative, and law 

enforcement initiatives have been implemented to 

enhance anti-money laundering efforts. For 

example, the Treasury Department, through the 

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, has 

issued regulations requiring certain money

services businesses to register with the federal 

government, and the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency initiated an examination 

program that centers on the Bank Secrecy Act 

and anti-money laundering compliance. Also, 

the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Act was passed 

as a means by which sanctions can be applied 

to significant foreign drug traffickers and their 

organizations located worldwide.

A more detailed discussion on money laundering may be found in the NDIC publication 

Drug Money Laundering: A National Threat 

Assessment (Product Number 2001-L0390FC-001). 

This publication provides a strategic evaluation of 

the drug money laundering threat in the United 

States by analyzing trends in five regions and then 

discussing regulatory, legislative, and law enforcement anti-money laundering initiatives designed to 

enhance anti-money laundering efforts.
National Drug Intelligence Center

69

Appendix 

Selected National Drug Abuse Indicators
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

70

Table A1. Percentage of NHSDA Respondents Aged 12 or Older Reporting 

Use of Specific Drugs in Their Lifetime, by Age Group, 1996–2000

1996 1997 1998 1999* 2000

Cocaine

12–17 1.9 3.0 2.2 2.4 2.4

18–25 10.2 8.9 10.0 11.9 10.9

26–34 20.9 18.4 17.1 17.8 15.1

35 and older 8.9 9.9 10.4 11.4 11.8

12 and older 10.3 10.5 10.6 11.5 11.2

Crack

12–17 0.7 1.3 0.7 0.6 0.6

18–25 3.0 2.9 2.7 3.3 2.8

26–34 4.4 3.6 3.9 5.1 3.8

35 and older 1.6 1.4 1.7 2.3 2.2

12 and older 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.7 2.4

Heroin

12–17 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4

18–25 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.8 1.4

26–34 1.3 1.0 0.9 1.3 1.1

35 and older 1.2 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.4

12 and older 1.1 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.2

Methamphetamine

12–17 0.6 1.2 0.6 1.4 1.3

18–25 2.5 2.3 2.6 5.2 4.1

26–34 4.2 2.7 2.6 5.4 4.8

35 and older 2.0 2.6 2.2 4.3 4.2

12 and older 2.3 2.5 2.1 4.3 4.0

Marijuana/Hashish

12–17 16.8 18.9 17.0 18.7 18.3

18–25 44.0 41.5 44.6 46.8 45.7

26–34 50.5 47.9 47.9 47.7 46.0

35 and older 27.0 29.4 29.4 31.5 31.6

12 and older 32.0 32.9 33.0 34.6 34.2

MDMA

12–17 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.8 2.6

18–25 4.2 4.6 5.0 7.6 9.7

26–34 2.5 3.1 2.6 1.5** 1.8**

35 and older 0.7 0.5 0.5 — —

12 and older 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.3 2.9

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

Abuse, 1996–2000.
National Drug Intelligence Center

71

LSD

12–17 4.3 5.2 4.2 3.8 3.6

18–25 13.9 13.2 14.0 14.7 14.0

26–34 11.7 11.8 10.6 12.4 11.8

35 and older 5.8 5.9 6.5 7.3 7.8

12 and older 7.7 7.8 7.9 8.7 8.8

PCP

12–17 1.2 1.4 1.2 0.9 1.1

18–25 2.3 2.4 3.0 2.4 2.3

26–34 4.2 3.2 4.0 2.2 1.8

35 and older 3.4 3.3 3.9 3.0 3.1

12 and older 3.2 3.0 3.5 2.6 2.6

*Because of the major differences between the data collection methods used for the 1998 and 1999 surveys, it is not appropriate to compare 1999 and later 

estimates of substance use prevalence to earlier NHSDA estimates to assess changes over time in substance use.

**In 1999 and 2000, MDMA was reported in the NHSDA in four age groups: 12–17, 18–25, 26 and older, 12 and older.

Table A1. Percentage of NHSDA Respondents Aged 12 or Older Reporting 

Use of Specific Drugs in Their Lifetime, by Age Group, 1996–2000

1996 1997 1998 1999* 2000
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

72

Table A2. Percentage of NHSDA Respondents Aged 12 or Older Reporting 

Use of Specific Drugs in the Past Year, by Age Group, 1996–2000

1996 1997 1998 1999* 2000

Cocaine

12–17 1.4 2.2 1.7 1.6 1.7

18–25 4.7 3.9 4.7 5.2 4.4

26–34 3.5 3.1 2.7 2.4 2.1

35 and older 0.9 1.1 0.9 — —

12 and older 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.5

Crack

12–17 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.4

18–25 1.3 1.0 0.8 1.0 0.7

26–34 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.4

35 and older 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2

12 and older 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.3

Heroin

12–17 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2

18–25 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.4

26–34 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0

35 and older 0.0 0.2 — 0.1 0.1

12 and older 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1

Methamphetamine**

12–17 ——— 0.7 0.8

18–25 ——— 1.5 1.2

26–34 ——— 0.5 0.5

35 and older ——— 0.3 0.2

12 and older ——— 0.5 0.5

Marijuana/Hashish

12–17 13.0 15.8 14.1 14.2 13.4

18–25 23.8 22.3 24.1 24.5 23.7

26–34 11.3 11.2 9.7 10.3 10.3

35 and older 3.8 4.4 4.1 4.0 3.8

12 and older 8.6 9.0 8.6 8.6 8.3

MDMA***

12–17 —————

18–25 —————

26–34 —————

35 and older —————

12 and older —————

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

Abuse, 1996–2000.
National Drug Intelligence Center

73

LSD

12–17 2.8 2.9 2.6 2.4 2.2

18–25 4.6 3.7 3.4 4.0 3.4

26–34 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4

35 and older — 0.1 0.1 0.0 —

12 and older 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.8

PCP

12–17 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.5

18–25 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3

26–34 0.0 ——— 0.1

35 and older 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0

12 and older 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1

*Because of the major differences between the data collection methods used for the 1998 and 1999 surveys, it is not appropriate to compare 1999 and later 

estimates of substance use prevalence to earlier NHSDA estimates to assess changes over time in substance use.

**The NHSDA began reporting past year use of methamphetamine in 1999.

***Only lifetime use of MDMA is reported in the NHSDA.

Table A2. Percentage of NHSDA Respondents Aged 12 or Older Reporting 

Use of Specific Drugs in the Past Year, by Age Group, 1996–2000

1996 1997 1998 1999* 2000
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

74

Table A3. Percentage of NHSDA Respondents Aged 12 or Older Reporting 

Use of Specific Drugs in the Past Month, by Age Group, 1996–2000

1996 1997 1998 1999* 2000

Cocaine

12–17 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.6

18–25 2.0 1.2 2.0 1.7 1.4

26–34 1.5 0.9 1.2 1.2 0.8

35 and older 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3

12 and older 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.5

Crack

12–17 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1

18–25 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.1

26–34 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.1

35 and older 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1

12 and older 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1

Heroin

12–17 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1

18–25 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1

26–34 0.1 0.2 — 0.1 0.0

35 and older 0.0 0.2 — 0.0 0.1

12 and older 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1

Methamphetamine**

12–17 ——— 0.2 0.3

18–25 ——— 0.5 0.3

26–34 ——— 0.2 0.2

35 and older ——— 0.1 0.1

12 and older ——— 0.2 0.2

Marijuana/Hashish

12–17 7.1 9.4 8.3 7.2 7.2

18–25 13.2 12.8 13.8 14.2 13.6

26–34 6.3 6.0 5.5 5.4 5.9

35 and older 2.0 2.6 2.5 2.2 2.3

12 and older 4.7 5.1 5.0 4.7 4.8

MDMA***

12–17 —————

18–25 —————

26–34 —————

35 and older —————

12 and older —————

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

Abuse, 1996–2000.
National Drug Intelligence Center

75

LSD

12–17 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.5

18–25 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.0 0.8

26–34 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1

35 and older — — 0.1 0.0 —

12 and older 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2

PCP

12–17 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

18–25 0.1 0.1 — 0.1 0.1

26–34 ——— — 0.0

35 and older 0.0 0.1 — — 0.0

12 and older 0.1 0.1 — 0.0 0.0

*Because of the major differences between the data collection methods used for the 1998 and 1999 surveys, it is not appropriate to compare 1999 and later 

estimates of substance use prevalence to earlier NHSDA estimates to assess changes over time in substance use.

**The NHSDA began reporting past month use of methamphetamine in 1999.

***Only lifetime use of MDMA is reported in the NHSDA.

Table A3. Percentage of NHSDA Respondents Aged 12 or Older Reporting 

Use of Specific Drugs in the Past Month, by Age Group, 1996–2000

1996 1997 1998 1999* 2000
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

76

Table A4. MTF: Trends in Lifetime Prevalence of Use of Various Drugs 

for Eighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders, 1996–2000 (%)

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Cocaine

8th Grade 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.5

10th Grade 6.5 7.1 7.2 7.7 6.9

12th Grade 7.1 8.7 9.3 9.8 8.6

Crack

8th Grade 2.9 2.7 3.2 3.1 3.1

10th Grade 3.3 3.6 3.9 4.0 3.7

12th Grade 3.3 3.9 4.4 4.6 3.9

Heroin

8th Grade 2.4 2.1 2.3 2.3 1.9

10th Grade 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.2

12th Grade 1.8 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.4

Methamphetamine*

8th Grade ——— 4.5 4.2

10th Grade ——— 7.3 6.9

12th Grade ——— 8.2 7.9

Marijuana/Hashish

8th Grade 23.1 22.6 22.2 22.0 20.3

10th Grade 39.8 42.3 39.6 40.9 40.3

12th Grade 44.9 49.6 49.1 49.7 48.8

MDMA

8th Grade 3.4 3.2 2.7 2.7 4.3

10th Grade 5.6 5.7 5.1 6.0 7.3

12th Grade 6.1 6.9 5.8 8.0 11.0

LSD

8th Grade 5.1 4.7 4.1 4.1 3.9

10th Grade 9.4 9.5 8.5 8.5 7.6

12th Grade 12.6 13.6 12.6 12.2 11.1

PCP**

8th Grade —————

10th Grade —————

12th Grade 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.4 3.4

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Monitoring the Future Study, 2000.

*The MTF began reporting lifetime prevalence of use of methamphetamine in 1999.

**Only twelfth-grade use of PCP is reported in the MTF.
National Drug Intelligence Center

77

Table A5. MTF: Trends in Past Year Prevalence of Use of Various Drugs 

for Eighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders, 1996–2000 (%)

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Cocaine

8th Grade 3.0 2.8 3.1 2.7 2.6

10th Grade 4.2 4.7 4.7 4.9 4.4

12th Grade 4.9 5.5 5.7 6.2 5.0

Crack

8th Grade 1.8 1.7 2.1 1.8 1.8

10th Grade 2.1 2.2 2.5 2.4 2.2

12th Grade 2.1 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.2

Heroin

8th Grade 1.6 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.1

10th Grade 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

12th Grade 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.1 1.5

Methamphetamine*

8th Grade ——— 3.2 2.5

10th Grade ——— 4.6 4.0

12th Grade ——— 4.7 4.3

Marijuana/Hashish

8th Grade 18.3 17.7 16.9 16.5 15.6

10th Grade 33.6 34.8 31.1 32.1 32.2

12th Grade 35.8 38.5 37.5 37.8 36.5

MDMA

8th Grade 2.3 2.3 1.8 1.7 3.1

10th Grade 4.6 3.9 3.3 4.4 5.4

12th Grade 4.6 4.0 3.6 5.6 8.2

LSD

8th Grade 3.5 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.4

10th Grade 6.9 6.7 5.9 6.0 5.1

12th Grade 8.8 8.4 7.6 8.1 6.6

PCP**

8th Grade —————

10th Grade —————

12th Grade 2.6 2.3 2.1 1.8 2.3

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Monitoring the Future Study, 2000.

*The MTF began reporting past year prevalence of use of methamphetamine in 1999.

**Only twelfth-grade use of PCP is reported in the MTF.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

78

Table A6. MTF: Trends in Current Prevalence of Use of Various Drugs 

for Eighth, Tenth, and Twelfth Graders, 1996–2000 (%)

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Cocaine

8th Grade 1.3 1.1 1.4 1.3 1.2

10th Grade 1.7 2.0 2.1 1.8 1.8

12th Grade 2.0 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.1

Crack

8th Grade 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.8

10th Grade 0.8 0.9 1.1 0.8 0.9

12th Grade 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.0

Heroin

8th Grade 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5

10th Grade 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.5

12th Grade 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7

Methamphetamine*

8th Grade ——— 1.1 0.8

10th Grade ——— 1.8 2.0

12th Grade ——— 1.7 1.9

Marijuana/Hashish

8th Grade 11.3 10.2 9.7 9.7 9.1

10th Grade 20.4 20.5 18.7 19.4 19.7

12th Grade 21.9 23.7 22.8 23.1 21.6

MDMA

8th Grade 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.8 1.4

10th Grade 1.8 1.3 1.3 1.8 2.6

12th Grade 2.0 1.6 1.5 2.5 3.6

LSD

8th Grade 1.5 1.5 1.1 1.1 1.0

10th Grade 2.4 2.8 2.7 2.3 1.6

12th Grade 2.5 3.1 3.2 2.7 1.6

PCP**

8th Grade —————

10th Grade —————

12th Grade 1.3 0.7 1.0 0.8 0.9

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institute on Drug Abuse, Monitoring the Future Study, 2000.

*The MTF began reporting current prevalence of use of methamphetamine in 1999.

**Only twelfth-grade use of PCP is reported in the MTF.
National Drug Intelligence Center

79

Table A7. PRIDE: Percentage of Past Year Drug Use 

by Junior and Senior High School Students and 12th Graders, 

1995–1996 through 1999–2000 School Years 

1995–1996 1996–1997 1997–1998 1998–1999 1999–2000

Cocaine

Junior High 2.7 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.2

Senior High 5.6 5.9 6.0 6.1 5.3

12th Grade 7.1 7.0 7.9 8.0 7.1

Heroin

Junior High 2.1 2.4 2.1 1.9 1.6

Senior High 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.1 2.9

12th Grade 3.5 3.4 3.8 3.6 3.2

Marijuana

Junior High 13.6 14.7 12.5 11.0 9.2

Senior High 34.0 35.8 33.4 32.3 31.4

12th Grade 37.9 39.4 38.6 37.8 38.0

Source: Parents’ Resource Institute on Drug Education, 1999–2000, National Summary, Grades 6 through 12, August 2000.

Table A8. PRIDE: Percentage of Current Drug Use 

by Junior and Senior High School Students and 12th Graders, 

1996–1997 through 1999–2000 School Years 

1996–1997 1997–1998 1998–1999 1999–2000

Cocaine

Junior High 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.3

Senior High 3.0 3.1 3.2 2.9

12th Grade 3.6 4.0 4.1 3.6

Heroin

Junior High 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.1

Senior High 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.9

12th Grade 2.1 2.3 2.4 2.1

Marijuana

Junior High 8.6 7.1 6.5 5.2

Senior High 22.7 20.8 20.3 19.3

12th Grade 24.4 23.6 23.1 23.4

Source: Parents’ Resource Institute on Drug Education, 1999–2000, National Summary, Grades 6 through 12, 1998, 1999, and 2000.
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

80

Table A9. DAWN: Estimated Number of Emergency Department Drug Mentions

and Mentions of Selected Drugs by Year, 1994–2000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Total Mentions (All Drugs) 900,317 901,206 907,561 943,937 982,856 1,015,206 1,100,539

Drug Mentions (Specific Drugs)

Cocaine 142,878 135,801 152,433 161,087 172,014 168,763 174,896

Heroin/Morphine 64,013 70,838 73,846 72,010 77,645 84,409 97,287

Methamphetamine/Speed 17,665 15,936 11,002 17,154 11,491 10,447 13,513

Marijuana/Hashish 40,183 45,271 53,789 64,744 76,870 87,150 96,446

MDMA 253 421 319 637 1,143 2,850 4,511

GHB 56 145 638 762 1,282 3,178 4,969

Ketamine 19 151 81 318 209 396 263

Rohypnol 13 111 217 293 624 540 469

LSD 5,150 5,681 4,569 5,219 4,982 5,126 4,016

PCP 6,019 6,237 3,924 4,195 4,033 4,969 6,583

Oxycodone 4,084 3,393 3,190 4,857 5,211 6,429 10,825

Hydrocodone 8,478 8,977 10,473 10,705 12,568 14,639 19,221

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Drug Abuse Warning Network, Year-End 2000 

Emergency Department Data, July 2001.

Table A10. Admissions by Primary Substance of Abuse: TEDS 1992–1998

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

Drug Treatment Admissions 1,494,203 1,584,033 1,635,782 1,635,963 1,601,214 1,537,143 1,564,156

Primary Substance

Cocaine 267,108 277,076 293,666 272,286 256,920 230,129 233,493

Smoked 184,820 201,216 217,344 202,865 190,143 169,724 170,491

Nonsmoked 82,288 75,860 76,322 69,421 66,777 60,405 63,002

Heroin 166,630 192,840 216,238 220,849 216,204 220,575 216,834

Methamphetamine 14,496 20,771 33,440 47,684 40,998 53,560 55,745

Marijuana/Hashish 90,517 111,265 139,670 170,974 192,103 198,079 208,671

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Treatment Episode Data Set 1992–1997, August 

1999, and 1993–1998, September 2000.
National Drug Intelligence Center

81

Sources

National

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Youth Risk Behavior Survey

Central Intelligence Agency

Crime and Narcotics Center

Defense Intelligence Agency

Drug Enforcement Administration

Atlanta Field Division

Boston Field Division

Caribbean Field Division

Chicago Field Division

Dallas Field Division

Denver Field Division

Detroit Field Division

El Paso Field Division

El Paso Intelligence Center

Houston Field Division

Los Angeles Field Division

Miami Field Division

New Orleans Field Division

New York Field Division

Newark Field Division

Office of Diversion Control

Philadelphia Field Division

Phoenix Field Division

San Diego Field Division

San Francisco Field Division

Seattle Field Division

Special Operations Division

St. Louis Field Division

Washington DC Field Division

East Coast Gang Investigators Association

Executive Office for United States Attorneys

U.S. Attorney’s Offices

Federal Aviation Administration

Drug Investigation Support Program

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Albany Field Office

Albuquerque Field Office

Anchorage Field Office

Atlanta Field Office

Baltimore Field Office

Birmingham Field Office

Boston Field Office

Buffalo Field Office

Charlotte Field Office

Chicago Field Office

Cincinnati Field Office

Cleveland Field Office

Columbia Field Office

Dallas Field Office

Denver Field Office

Detroit Field Office

El Paso Field Office

Honolulu Field Office

Houston Field Office

Indianapolis Field Office

Jackson Field Office

Jacksonville Field Office

Kansas City Field Office

Knoxville Field Office

Las Vegas Field Office

Little Rock Field Office

Los Angeles Field Office

Louisville Field Office

Memphis Field Office

Milwaukee Field Office

Minneapolis Field Office

Mobile Field Office

Newark Field Office

New Haven Field Office

New Orleans Field Office

New York Field Office

Norfolk Field Office

North Miami Beach Field Office

Oklahoma City Field Office

Omaha Field Office

Philadelphia Field Office

Phoenix Field Office
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

82

Pittsburgh Field Office

Portland Field Office

Richmond Field Office

Sacramento Field Office

St. Louis Field Office

Salt Lake City Field Office

San Antonio Field Office

San Diego Field Office

San Francisco Field Office

San Juan Field Office

Seattle Field Office

Springfield Field Office

Tampa Field Office

Strategic Intelligence and Analysis Unit

Washington DC Field Office

Federal Bureau of Prisons

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas 

Appalachia

Atlanta

Central Florida

Central Valley California

Chicago

Gulf Coast

Hawaii

Houston

Lake County

Los Angeles

Midwest

Milwaukee

New England

New York/New Jersey

North Texas

Northern California

Northwest

Ohio

Oregon

Philadelphia/Camden

Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands

Rocky Mountain

South Florida

Southeastern Michigan

Southwest Border

Washington/Baltimore

Immigration and Naturalization Service

Internal Revenue Service

Narcotic Information NetworkNational 

National Institute of Justice

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program

Office of Justice Programs

National Youth Gang Center

National Institutes of Health

National Institute on Drug Abuse

Community Epidemiology Work Group

Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Regional Information Sharing Systems

Mid-Atlantic/Great Lakes Organized Crime Law

Enforcement Network

Mid-States Organized Crime Information Center

New England State Police Information Network

Regional Organized Crime Information Center

Rocky Mountain Information Network

Western States Information Network

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces

Parents’ Resource Institute on Drug Education 

Royal Canadian Mounted Police

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Drug Abuse Warning Network

National Household Survey on Drug Abuse 

Treatment Episode Data Set
National Drug Intelligence Center

83

U.S. Air Force

Office of Special Investigations 

Detachment, Keesler Air Force Base

U.S. Border Patrol

U.S. Coast Guard

U.S. Customs Service

U.S. Department of Defense

Joint Interagency Task Force-West

Joint Task Force-6

U.S. Navy Criminal Investigative Service

U.S. Department of State

U.S. Forest Service

U.S. General Accounting Office

U.S. Park Police

U.S. Sentencing Commission

State

National Drug Threat Survey 2001 respondents are listed in bold.

Alabama 

8th Judicial Task Force

Alabama Bureau of Investigation

Alabama Chiefs of Police Association

Alabama Narcotics Officers Association

Alabama Sheriffs Association

Birmingham Police Department

Calhoun County Task Force

Central Alabama Task Force

Dallas County Sheriff

Etowah County Task Force

Homewood Police Department

Houston County Sheriff

Huntsville Police Department

Madison County Task Force

Mobile Police Department

Montgomery County Sheriff

Montgomery Police Department

Perry County Sheriff

Prichard Police Department

Shelby County Sheriff

Tuscaloosa Police Department

West Alabama Narcotics Task Force

Winfield Police Department

Alaska 

Alaska State Troopers Dillingham Police Department

Arizona 

Arizona Attorney General’s Office

Arizona Criminal Justice Commission

Arizona Department of Corrections

Arizona Department of Public Safety

Criminal Investigation Division

Buckeye Police Department

Bullhead City Police Department

Chino Valley Police Department

Clarksdale Police Department

Cochise County Border Alliance Group

Cochise County Sheriff

Douglas Police Department

Emergency Mobile Pediatric Adolescent Crisis Team –

Suicide Prevention Center

Florence Police Department

Fountain Hills Marshal’s Department

Glendale Police Department

Kearny Police Department

Kingman Police Department

La Paz County Narcotics Task Force

Lake Havasu City Police Department

Mohave Area Group Narcotic Enforcement Team

Marana Police Department

Maricopa County Clandestine Lab Task Force

Maricopa County Sheriff

Mesa Police Department

Metropolitan Area Narcotics Interdiction Squad 

Nogales Police Department

Northern Arizona Street Crimes Task Force

Office of the Yavapai County Attorney

Paradise Valley Police Department

Payson Police Department
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

84

Peoria Police Department

Phoenix Police Department

Pima County Attorney’s Office

Pima County Sheriff

Pinetop-Lakeside Police Department

Prescott Area Narcotics Task Force

Prescott Police Department

Prescott Valley Police Department

St. John’s Police Department

Salt River-Maricopa Indian Community

Office of the Prosecutor

Santa Cruz County Metro Task Force

Santa Cruz County Sheriff

Scottsdale Police Department

Sedona Police Department

Show Low Police Department

Sierra Vista Police Department

South Tucson Police Department

Tempe Police Department

The Navajo Nation

Office of the Prosecutor

Tucson Police Department

Wellton Police Department

Williams Police Department

Yavapai County Sheriff

Yavapai-Apache Nation Police Department

Youngtown Police Department

Yuma County Sheriff

Yuma Police Department

Arkansas

1st and 3d Judicial Drug Task Force

2d Judicial Circuit Drug Task Force

4th Judicial Drug Task Force

5th Judicial District Drug Task Force

10th Judicial Circuit Drug Task Force

13th Judicial Circuit Drug Task Force

14th Judicial Drug Task Force

15th Judicial District Drug Task Force

16th Judicial District Drug Task Force

18th Judicial Circuit East Drug Task Force

18th Judicial Circuit West Drug Task Force

Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration

Arkansas National Guard

Arkansas State Drug Program Director

Arkansas State Police

Criminal Investigations Division

Bi-State Drug Task Force 

Blytheville Police Department

Calhoun County Sheriff

Central Arkansas Drug Task Force

Conway Police Department Special Operations

Conway Regional Drug Task Force

El Dorado Police Department

Fayetteville Police Department

Fort Smith Police Department

Group 6 Narcotics Enforcement Unit

Jonesboro Police Department

Little Rock Police Department

Special Narcotics Operations

North Little Rock Police Department

Narcotics Division

Osceola Police Department

Pine Bluff Police Department

Prairie County Sheriff

Searcy Police Department

South Central Drug Task Force

Springdale Police Department

Texarkana Police Department

Tri-County Drug Task Force

West Memphis Police Department

Narcotics Division

California 

Alameda County Narcotic Task Force

Alameda County Sheriff

Alameda Police Department

Allied Riverside Cities Narcotic Enforcement Team

Amador County Sheriff

Bakersfield Police Department

Baldwin Park Police Department

Berkeley Police Department

Butte County Sheriff

Butte Interagency Narcotics Task Force

California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs

California Department of Justice

Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement

Carlsbad Police Department

Central Contra Costa Narcotic Enforcement Team

Chula Vista Police Department

Claremont Police Department

Coachella Valley Narcotic Task Force 

Colusa County Sheriff

Narcotics Enforcement Team

Coronado Police Department

El Cajon Police Department

El Monte Police Department

El Segundo Police Department

Emeryville Police Department

Escondido Police Department

Fontana Police Department

Fremont Police Department

Fresno County Sheriff

Fresno Police Department

Garden Grove Police Department

Glendale Police Department

Glenn County Sheriff

Humboldt County Drug Task Force

Humboldt County Sheriff

Imperial County Narcotic Task Force

Imperial County Sheriff

Inland Crackdown Allied Task Force

Inland Narcotics Clearinghouse 

Inland Regional Narcotics Enforcement Team
National Drug Intelligence Center

85

Inyo Narcotics Enforcement Team

Irvine Police Department

Jurisdictions Unified for Drug Gang Enforcement Task Force

Kings County Narcotic Enforcement Team

La Mesa Police Department

Lake County Narcotic Task Force

Lompoc Police Department

Long Beach Police Department

Los Angeles County Regional Criminal Information 

Clearinghouse

Los Angeles County Sheriff

Narcotics Bureau

Los Angeles Joint Drug Intelligence Group

Los Angeles Police Department

Narcotics Division

Madera County Narcotic Enforcement Team

Marin Community College Police Department

Mendocino Major Crimes Task Force

Merced County Sheriff

Merced Police Department

Merced/Mariposa Narcotic Task Force

Modesto Police Department

Modoc County Sheriff

Monrovia Police Department

Montebello Police Department

Monterey Police Department

Napa Special Investigations Bureau

National City Police Department

Oakland Police Department

Oceanside Police Department

Ontario Police Department

Orange County Proactive Methamphetamine Laboratory 

Investigative Task Force

Oxnard Police Department

Palm Springs Narcotics Task Force

Pasadena Police Department

Pleasanton Police Department

Plumas County Sheriff

Pomona Police Department

Redding Police Department

Rhonert Park Police Department

Rialto Police Department

Richmond Police Department

Riverside County Sheriff

Riverside Police Department

Sacramento County Sheriff

Sacramento Police Department

San Bernardino County Sheriff

San Bernardino County West Narcotic Enforcement Team

San Bernardino Police Department

San Diego Sheriff

Street Narcotics and Gang Suppression

San Diego North County Regional Gang Task Force

San Diego Police Department

San Diego/Imperial County Narcotic Information Network

San Francisco County Sheriff

San Francisco Police Department

San Jose Police Department

San Leandro Police Department

San Luis Obispo County Narcotic Task Force

San Luis Obispo County Sheriff

San Luis Obispo Police Department

San Mateo County Narcotic Task Force

San Mateo County Sheriff 

Santa Barbara County Sheriff

Santa Barbara Police Department

Santa Barbara Regional Narcotic Enforcement Team

Santa Clara County Specialized Enforcement Team

Santa Clara Police Department

Santa Cruz County Sheriff

Santa Maria Police Department

Shasta Interagency Narcotic Task Force

Simi Valley Police Department

Siskiyou County Sheriff

Siskiyou County-wide Interagency Narcotic Task Force

Solano County Narcotic Enforcement Team

Solano County Sheriff

South Bay Methamphetamine Task Force

South Lake Tahoe/El Dorado County 

Narcotic Enforcement Team

Southern Alameda County Narcotic Enforcement Team

Tehama/Glenn Methamphetamine Enforcement Team

Unified Narcotic Enforcement Team

University of California, Berkeley

Police Department

Ventura Combined Agency Narcotic Task Force

Ventura County Sheriff

West Contra Costa County Narcotic Enforcement Team

Woodland Police Department

Yuba County Sheriff

Colorado 

16th Drug Task Force

22d Judicial District Drug Task Force

Adams County District Attorney

Alamosa Police Department

Alamosa County Sheriff

Arapahoe County Sheriff

Arvada Police Department

Aurora Police Department

Bent County Sheriff

Boulder County District Attorney’s Office

Boulder County Drug Task Force

Boulder County Sheriff

Boulder Police Department

Brighton Police Department

Carbondale Police Department

Colorado Bureau of Investigation

Denver Main Office 

Durango Resident Office

Pueblo Field Office

Colorado Department of Public Safety

Criminal Justice Division

Colorado National Guard

Colorado Springs Police Department

Metro Vice and Narcotics Investigations Unit

Colorado State Patrol
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

86

Colorado State University

Police Department

Commerce City Police Department

Cortez Police Department

Costilla County Sheriff

Craig Police Department

Crowley County Sheriff

Delores County Sheriff

Denver District Attorney’s Office

Drug Court

Denver Police Department

Gang Bureau

Vice and Narcotics Investigations Unit

Douglas County Sheriff

Durango Police Department

Eagle County Sheriff

Englewood Police Department

Erie Police Department

Evans Police Department

Federal Heights Police Department

Rocky Mountain HIDTA Front Range Task Force

Ft. Collins Police Department

Garfield County Sheriff

Glenwood Springs Police Department

Grand, Routt and Moffat Narcotics Enforcement Team

Grand County Sheriff

Greeley Police Department

Greenwood Village Police Department

Ignacio Police Department

Jackson County Sheriff

Jefferson County District Attorney’s Office

Jefferson County Sheriff

La Juanta Police Department

La Plata County Sheriff

Lafayette Police Department

Lakewood Police Department

Larimer County Drug Task Force

Larimer County Sheriff

Littleton Police Department

Louisville Police Department

Loveland Police Department

Manassa Police Department

Metro Gang Task Force

Moffat County Sheriff

Montezuma County Sheriff

North Metro Task Force

Northglenn Police Department

Otero County Sheriff

Parker Police Department

Pueblo Police Department

Narcotics Unit

Rifle Police Department

Rio Blanco County Sheriff

Rio Blanco Police Department

Routt County Sheriff

San Luis Valley Drug Task Force

Sheridan Police Department

Silverthorne Police Department

South Metro Drug Task Force

Southwest Drug Task Force

Steamboat Springs Police Department

Summit County Drug Task Force

Summit County Sheriff

Thornton Police Department

Two Rivers Drug Enforcement Team

Vail Police Department

Weld County Drug Task Force

Weld County District Attorney’s Office

Weld County Sheriff

West Metro Drug Task Force

Westminster Police Department

Wheatridge Police Department

Connecticut 

Berlin Police Department

Brookfield Police Department

Clinton Police Department

Connecticut State Police

Statewide Narcotics Task Force

Area Commander

Derby Police Department

East Hartford Police Department

Fairfield Police Department

Farmington Police Department

Greenwich Police Department

Guilford Police Department

Hamden Police Department

Madison Police Department

Middletown Police Department

New Britain Police Department

New Canaan Police Department

New London Police Department

New Milford Police Department

Norwich Police Department

Old Saybrook Police Department

Orange Police Department

Rocky Hill Police Department

Stonington Police Department

Stratford Police Department

Thomaston Police Department

Trumbull Police Department

Waterbury Police Department

Watertown Police Department

West Haven Police Department

Westport Police Department

Windsor Locks Police Department

Wolcott Police Department
National Drug Intelligence Center

87

Delaware 

Bethany Beach Police Department

Delaware State Police

Dewey Beach Police Department

New Castle County Police

District of Columbia 

Metropolitan Police Department Washington DC Housing Authority Police Department

Florida 

Alachua County Sheriff

Arcadia Police Department

Bay County Sheriff

Boynton Beach Police Department

Broward County Sheriff

Cape Coral Police Department

Cedar Key Police Department

Central Florida Support Center

Charlotte County Sheriff

Citrus County Sheriff

City of Miami Police Department

Clay County Sheriff

Clean Task Force

Clearwater Police Department

Collier County Sheriff

Coral Springs Police Department

DeSoto County Sheriff

Escambia County Sheriff

Florida Department of Juvenile Justice

Cape Coral

Fort Myers

Florida Department of Law Enforcement

Fort Myers Regional Operations Center

Jacksonville Regional Operations Center 

Gainesville Field Office

St. Augustine Field Office

Miami Regional Operations Center 

Tampa Regional Operations Center 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

Florida Highway Patrol

Florida Office of the Comptroller

Florida State Attorney’s Office

Medicaid Fraud Unit 

Fort Lauderdale

Fort Myers

Miami

Fort Lauderdale Police Department

Fort Myers Abuse Counseling and Treatment

Gainesville Police Department

Glades County Sheriff

Gulf Breeze Police Department

Hernando County Sheriff

Hialeah Police Department

Hillsborough County Sheriff

Special Investigations Bureau

Jackson County Sheriff

Jacksonville Sheriff

Key Colony Beach Police Department

Key West Police Department

Lakeview Center Pensacola

Lee County Port Authority Police

Lee County Sheriff

Levy County Sheriff

Marion County Sheriff

Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation

Miami Beach Police Department

Miami-Dade Police Department

Moore Haven Police Department

Naples Police Department

Nassau County Sheriff

Northeast Florida Support Center

Ocala Police Department

Orange County Sheriff

Ormond Beach Police Department

Osceola County Sheriff

Palm Beach County Sheriff

Panama City Police Department

Pasco County Sheriff

Pensacola Community Drug and Alcohol Council

Pensacola Police Department

Pinellas County Sheriff

St. Augustine Police Department

St. Johns County Public Health Department

St. Johns County Sheriff

St. Petersburg Police Department

Santa Rosa County Sheriff

Sarasota Manatee Airport Police

Seminole County Sheriff

State of Florida Medical Examiners

Jacksonville

Pensacola

St. Augustine

Southwest Florida Addiction Services

Sumter County Sheriff

Sunrise Police Department

Ruth Cooper Center Addiction Services

Tampa Police Department

Taylor County Sheriff

University of Central Florida

University of Florida

Police Department

University of North Florida

University of West Florida
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

88

Georgia 

Altamaha Drug Task Force

Appalachian Multi-Jurisdictional Task Force 

Atlanta Police Department

Cherokee County Multi-Agency Narcotic Squad

College Park Police Department

Columbus Police Department

East Central Georgia Drug Task Force

East Point Police Department

Forest Park Police Department

Fulton County Sheriff

Georgia Bureau of Investigation

Glascock County Sheriff

Governor’s Task Force

Hall County Multi-Agency Narcotics Squad

Hall County Sheriff

Multi-Agency Crack Enforcement Drug Task Force

Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit Drug Task Force

Macon Police Department

Metro Fugitive Squad

Middle Georgia Fugitive Squad

Ocmulgee Drug Task Force

Oconee Dublin Drug Task Force

Pataula Judicial Circuit Drug Task Force 

Piedmont/Northern Multi-Agency Narcotic Squad

Savannah Police Department

South GA Drug Task Force

State Drug Task Force

Tallapoosa Judicial Circuit Task Force

Towns County Sheriff

Tri-Circuit Multi-Jurisdictional Task Force

Tri-Cities Narcotics Drug Task Force

Tri-County Drug Task Force

West Georgia Drug Task Force

Guam 

Government of Guam

Customs & Quarantine Agency

Guam Police Department

Hawaii 

Hawaii Department of Public Safety

Narcotics Enforcement Division

Hawaii Police Department

Honolulu Police Department

Kauai Police Department

Maui Police Department

Idaho 

Ada County Sheriff

Boise City Police Department

Clark County Sheriff

Idaho Falls Police Department

Idaho State Police

Oneida County Sheriff

Pocatello Police Department

Twin Falls Police Department

Illinois 

Algonquin Police Department

Aurora Police Department

Belleville Police Department

Berwyn Police Department

Blackhawk Area Task Force

Blue Island Police Department

Boone County Sheriff

Canton Police Department

Carol Stream Police Department

Central Illinois Enforcement Group

Centralia Police Department

Chicago Police Department

Clay County Sheriff

Clinton County Sheriff

Collinsville Police Department

Cook County Sheriff’s Police

Cook County State’s Attorney Office

Crawford County Sheriff

Crest Hill Police Department

Danville Police Department

Decatur Police Department

Deerfield Police Department

De Kalb Police Department

District 17 Drug Task Force

DuPage County Metropolitan Enforcement Group

East Central Illinois Task Force

Effingham City/County Special Operations Group 

(Narcotics)

Evanston Police Department

Evergreen Park Police Department

Forest Park Police Department

Galesburg Police Department

Special Operations Unit

Glendale Heights Police Department

Greene County Sheriff

Grundy County Sheriff

Hancock County Sheriff

Hanover Park Police Department

Illinois State Police

Division of Operations

Criminal Intelligence Bureau

Statewide Interdiction Bureau 

Jacksonville Police Department

Jefferson County Sheriff

Joliet Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad

Joliet Police Department

Kankakee Area Metropolitan Enforcement Group

Kankakee County Sheriff
National Drug Intelligence Center

89

Kankakee Police Department

Kendall County Cooperative Police Assistance Team

Kendall County Sheriff

Kenilworth Police Department

Lake County Metropolitan Enforcement Group

Lemont Police Department

Libertyville Police Department

Lincoln Police Department

Lindenhurst Police Department

Madison County Sheriff

Mahomet Police Department

Mattoon Police Department

McHenry County Sheriff

Metropolitan Enforcement Group of Southwestern Illinois

Midlothian Police Department

Morgan County Sheriff

Moultrie County Sheriff

Multi-County Metropolitan 

Narcotics Enforcement Group

Mundelein Police Department

Northlake Police Department

Olney Police Department

Orland Park Police Department

Park Forest Police Department

Peru Department of Police

Pike County Sheriff

Pontiac Police Department

Quad City Metropolitan Enforcement Group

Rantoul Police Department

Richland County Sheriff

River Grove Police Department

Rock Island Police Department

Rockford Police Department

Rockford Police/Winnebago County Sheriff 

Metro Narcotics Unit

Rolling Meadows Police Department

St. Charles Police Department

Schaumburg Police Department

Skokie Police Department

South Central Illinois Drug Task Force

South Elgin Police Department

Southeastern Illinois Drug Task Force

Southern Illinois Drug Task Force

Marion Office

Ullin Office

Southern Illinois Enforcement Group

Springfield Police Department

State Line Area Narcotics Team

Stephenson County Sheriff

Task Force 6, Bloomington 

Task Force X, Champaign/ Decatur

Tazewell County Sheriff

Vermilion County Metropolitan Enforcement Group

Villa Park Police Department

Village of Spring Grove Police Department

West Central Illinois Task Force

Westchester Police Department

Will County Sheriff

Winnetka Police Department

Woodridge Police Department

Woodstock Police Department

Zion Police Department

Indiana 

Allen County Sheriff

Ball State University

Office of Public Safety

Campus Police

Bi-State Drug Task Force

Bloomington Police Department

Brown County Sheriff

Carmel Metropolitan Police Department

Clark County Sheriff

Daviess County Sheriff

Elkhart County Drug Task Force

Elkhart County Sheriff

Evansville Police Department

Fayette County Sheriff

Fishers Police Department

Fort Wayne Police Department

Gary Police Department

Gibson County Sheriff

Hamilton County Drug Task Force

Hammond Police Department

Indiana State University

Police Department

Indiana University

Police Department

Indiana State Police

Indiana State Police Laboratory

Indianapolis Police Department

Jefferson County Sheriff

Joint Effort Against Narcotics Drug Task Force

Knox County Police Department

Kosciusko County Sheriff

Lafayette Police Department

Lake County Drug Task Force

Lake County Sheriff

Muncie/Delaware County Drug Task Force

Newton County Sheriff

Posey County Sheriff

Purdue University

Police Department

Ripley County Sheriff

Starke County Sheriff

Steuben County Sheriff

Tippecanoe County Drug Task Force

Tippecanoe County Sheriff

Vanderburgh County Sheriff

Vigo County Drug Task Force

Vigo County Sheriff

Vincennes Police Department

Wayne County Drug Task Force

West Lafayette Police Department

Whitley County Drug Task Force
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

90

Iowa 

Ankeny Police Department

Bear Creek Narcotics Task Force

Black Hawk County Sheriff

Buchanan County Sheriff

Carroll Police Department

Cedar Rapids Police Department

Davenport Police Department

Decorah Police Department

Des Moines County

Des Moines Police Department

Fort Dodge Police Department

Iowa City Police Department

Iowa Department of Public Safety, Intelligence Bureau

Iowa Division of Narcotics Enforcement

Iowa State University

Iowa Highway Patrol

Keokuk Police Department

Lee County Narcotics Task Force

Newton Police Department

Ottumwa Police Department

Polk County Sheriff

Ringgold County Sheriff

Sioux City Police Department

Sioux County Sheriff

Spirit Lake Police Department

Kansas 

Barton County Sheriff

Coffeyville Police Department

Colby Police Department

Crawford County Sheriff

Dickinson County Sheriff

Dodge City Police Department

Douglas County Sheriff

Emporia Police Department

Ford County Sheriff

Fort Scott Police Department

Franklin County Sheriff

Garden City Police Department

Great Bend Police Department

Greeley County Sheriff

Harvey County Sheriff

Independence Police Department

Iola Police Department

Jefferson County Sheriff

Johnson County Sheriff

Junction City Police Department

Kansas Bureau of Investigation

Kansas City, Kansas Police Department

Kansas City/DEA Clandestine Lab Task Force

Kansas Highway Patrol

Kansas Narcotics Officers Association

Labette County Sheriff

Lawrence Police Department

Leavenworth Police Department

Leavenworth County Sheriff

Leawood Police Department

Lenexa Police Department

Liberal Police Department

Lyon County Sheriff

Merriam Police Department

Montgomery County Sheriff

Nemaha County Sheriff

Newton Police Department

Olathe Police Department

Ottawa Police Department

Overland Park Police Department

Paola Police Department

Pittsburg Police Department

Pittsburg State University Police Department

Pratt County Sheriff

Pratt Police Department

Riley County Police Department

Salina Police Department

Saline County Sheriff

Sedgwick County Sheriff

Shawnee County Sheriff

Southeast Kansas Drug Task Force

Thomas County Sheriff

Topeka Police Department

Wichita Police Department

Wilson County Sheriff

Kentucky 

Ashland Police Department

Ballard County Sheriff

Boone County Sheriff

Burkesville Police Department

Campbellsville Police Department

Carlisle Police Department

Clark County Sheriff

Commonwealth of Kentucky

Office of Attorney General

Corbin Police Department

Daviess County Sheriff

Erlanger Police Department

Fayette County Sheriff

Fivco Area Drug Enforcement Task Force

Florence Police Department

Franklin County Sheriff

Fulton County Sheriff

Glasgow Police Department

Graves County Sheriff

Greater Hardin County Narcotics Task Force

Hardin County Sheriff

Harlan County Sheriff

Hazard Police Department

Henderson County Sheriff

Jefferson County Sheriff

Kentucky State Police
National Drug Intelligence Center

91

Kentucky Vehicle Enforcement Bureau

Lancaster Police Department

Laurel County Sheriff

Leslie County Sheriff

Lewis County Sheriff

Lexington Police Department

Lexington-Fayette Urban County Division of Police

London Police Department

Louisville Metro Police Department

Louisville Metropolitan Narcotics Unit

Maysville Police Department

Paducah Police Department

Perry County Sheriff

Richmond Police Department

Salyersville Police Department

Trimble County Sheriff

Vanceburg Police Department

Williamsburg Police Department

Wolfe County Sheriff

Louisiana 

3d Judicial Drug Task Force

Acadia Parish Drug Task Force

Avoyelles Parish Drug Task Force

Baker Police Department

Baton Rouge City Police Department

Beauregard Parish Drug Task Force

Bogalusa Police Department

Bossier City Police Department

Caddo/Bossier Drug Task Force

Claiborne Parish Drug Task Force

Concordia Parish Drug Task Force

East Feliciana Parish Task Force

Evangeline Parish Task Force

Franklin Sheriff Drug Task Force

Grant Parish Sheriff

Hammond Police Department Drug Task Force

Iberia Sheriff Drug Task Force

Jefferson Parish Sheriff

Jefferson Parish Drug Task Force

La Salle Parish Sheriff

Louisiana Sheriffs Association Task Force

Lafayette Metropolitan Narcotics Task Force 

Lafourche Parish Drug Task Force

Louisiana State Police

Bureau of Investigations/Narcotics

Louisiana Sheriffs Association

Louisiana Chiefs of Police Association

Louisiana Narcotics Officers Association

Morehouse Parish Drug Task Force

Natchitoches Drug Task Force

New Orleans Police Department

Rapides Parish Sheriff Task Force

Red River Parish Sheriff

St. James Parish Drug Task Force

St. John the Baptist Parish Drug Task Force

St. Landry Parish Drug Task Force

St. Mary Parish Task Force

St. Tammany Parish Task Force

Shreveport Police Department

Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff Task Force

Terrebonne Parish Sheriff Task Force

Union Parish Drug Task Force

Vernon Parish Sheriff Drug Task Force

Washington Parish Sheriff Task Force

Webster Parish Sheriff Task Force

West Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff Task Force

Winn Parish Sheriff Talk Force

Maine 

Augusta Police Department

Calais Police Department

Dexter Police Department

Kittery Police Department

Lincoln County Sheriff

Madawaska Police Department

Maine Board of Pharmacy

Maine Board of Licensure in Medicine

Maine Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation, 

and Substance Abuse Services

Maine Department of Human Services

Bureau of Health

Health and Environmental Testing Laboratory

Maine Drug Enforcement Agency

Augusta Task Force Office

Bangor Task Force Office

Houlton Task Force

Lewiston Task Force Office

Lyman Task Force Office

Portland Task Force Office

Maine State Police

Norway Police Department

Old Orchard Beach Police Department

Penobscot County Sheriff

Somerset County Sheriff

Washington County Sheriff

Waterville Police Department

Maryland 

Allegany County Sheriff

Annapolis Police Department

Baltimore City Police Department

Baltimore County Police Department 

C3I Narcotics Unit

Calvert County Sheriff

Cambridge Police Department

Caroline County Sheriff

Carroll County Sheriff

Cumberland Police Department
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

92

Easton Police Department

Frederick County Sheriff

Frederick Police Department

Garrett County Sheriff

Greenbelt Police Department

Hagerstown Police Department

Harford County Sheriff

Howard County Police Department

Kent County Sheriff

Maryland National Capital Park Police

Maryland State Police

Montgomery County Police Department

Ocean City Police Department

Salisbury Police Department

Talbot County Sheriff

University of Maryland Department of Public Safety

Washington County Sheriff

Worcester County Sheriff

Massachusetts 

Abington Police Department

Ashland Police Department

Belmont Police Department

Berkshire County District Attorney’s Narcotics Unit

Boston Police Department

Bristol County District Attorney’s Drug Task Force 

Cape and Islands District Attorney’s Office 

Drug Task Force

Cohasset Police Department

Dennis Police Department

Foxboro Police Department

Hampden County Narcotics

Hampshire/Franklin District Attorney’s 

Narcotics Task Force

Hanover Police Department

Holyoke Police Department

Hopkinton Police Department

Kingston Police Department

Lowell Police Department

Massachusetts State Police

Central Narcotics Section

Oak Bluffs Police Department

Plainville Police Department

Shrewsbury Police Department

Springfield Police Department

Stockbridge Police Department

Webster Police Department

West Springfield Police Department

Westford Police Department

Michigan 

Allen Park Police Department

Bay Area Narcotics Enforcement Team

Central Michigan Enforcement Team

Clay Township Police Department

Coldwater Police Department

Farmington Hills Police Department

Flint Area Narcotics Group 

Flint Police Department

Grand Rapids Police Department

Hillsdale Police Department

Kent County Sheriff

Kingsford/Iron Mountain/Norway/Dickinson 

Narcotics Task Force 

Ironwood Department of Public Safety

Lansing Police Department

Ludington Police Department

Marquette Police Department

Michigan State Police

Criminal Investigation Division

Monroe County Sheriff

Monroe Police Department

Morris Police Department

Muskegon Police Department

Novi Police Department

Saginaw County Sheriff

Sault Ste. Marie Police Department

Spring Lake/Ferrysburg Police Department

State, Sheriffs, Chiefs Enforcement Narcotics Team

Straits Area Narcotics Enforcement Team

Thumb Narcotics Unit

Traverse Narcotics Team

Upper Peninsula Substance Enforcement Team 

Wayne Police Department

West Michigan Enforcement Team 

Minnesota 

Anoka Police Department

Anoka-Hennepin Narcotics & Violent Crime Task Force

Bemidji Police Department

Blaine Police Department

Brooklyn Park Police Department

Burnsville Police Department

Cooperative Enforcement Effort Drug Task Force

Central Minnesota Drug Task Force

Cloquet Police Department

Dakota County Drug Task Force

Dakota County Sheriff

Duluth Police Department

Eagan Police Department

Edina Police Department

Elk River Police Department

Evergreen House/Evergreen Shelter Program

Fergus Falls Police Department

Fridley Department of Public Safety

Hazelden Foundation

Hennepin County Sheriff

Hibbing Police Department

Kandiyohi County Sheriff

Kittson County Sheriff

Koochiching County Sheriff

Lake Superior Drug Task Force

Maple Grove Police Department
National Drug Intelligence Center

93

Maplewood Police Department

Marshall Department of Public Safety

Minneapolis City Chemist Office

Minneapolis Police Department

Minneapolis Public Health Department

Minneapolis/Hennepin County Drug Task Force

Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association

Minnesota Department of Public Safety

Bureau of Criminal Apprehension

Forensic Science Laboratory

Office of Drug Policy & Violence Prevention

Police Division

Minnesota Department of Agriculture

Agronomy & Plant Protection Division

Minnesota Gang Strike Force

Minnesota River Valley Task Force

Minnesota Sheriffs Association

Minnesota State Patrol

Canine Narcotics Interdiction Unit

Moorhead Police Department

Mounds View Police Department

New Hope Police Department

Northfield Police Department

Olmstead County Sheriff

Otter Tail County Sheriff

Paul Bunyan Drug Task Force

Polk County Sheriff

Polk/Norman/Mahnomen Drug Task Force

Ramsey County Drug Task Force

Ramsey County Sheriff

Red Lake County Sheriff

Red River Valley Drug Task Force

Red Wing Public Safety/Police Division

Rochester Police Department

Rosemount Police Department

Roseville Police Department

St. Louis County Sheriff

St. Paul Police Department

Shakopee Police Department

South Central Drug Task Force

Southeast Minnesota Drug Task Force

Southwest Hennepin Drug Task Force

Southwest Metropolitan Drug Task Force

Stearns County Sheriff

Waite Park Police Department

Washington County Drug Task Force

Washington County Sheriff

West Central Drug Task Force

West Central Minnesota Narcotics Task Force

Winona Police Department

Woodbury Police Department

Worthington Police Department

Mississippi 

Biloxi Police Department

Capital Cities Metro Narcotics

Coastal Narcotics Task Force

Copiah County Sheriff

DeSoto County Metro Narcotics

East Mississippi Drug Task Force

Gulfport Police Department

Hinds County Sheriff

Interlocal Narcotics Task Force

Jackson Police Department

Lee County Sheriff

Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics

Mississippi Forestry Commission

Mississippi Sheriffs Association

Mississippi Chiefs of Police

Mississippi Narcotics Officers Association

Northern Mississippi Narcotics Task Force

North Central Narcotics Task Force

Natchez/Adams Task Force

Oxford/Lafayette Task Force

Panola/Tate Narcotics Task Force

Pearl River Basin Task Force

South Mississippi Task Force

Southwest Mississippi Drug Task Force

Tri-County Narcotics Task Force

Tunica County Sheriff

Vicksburg Police Department

Missouri 

Boothill Drug Task Force

Branson Police Department

North County Multi-Jurisdictional Task Force

Buchanan County Drug Strike Force

Combined Ozark Multi-Jurisdictional Enforcement Team

Creve Coeur Police Department

East Central Drug Task Force

Ferguson Police Department

Festus Police Department

Hazelwood Police Department

Jackson County Drug Task Force

Jasper County Drug Task Force

Jasper County Sheriff

Jefferson County Prosecuting Attorney

Jefferson County Sheriff

Jefferson County Task Force

Kansas City Police Department

Administration

Interdiction

Drug Enforcement Unit

Metro Meth Task Force

Street Narcotics Unit

Lafayette County Narcotics Unit

Lee’s Summit Police Department

Missouri Department of Public Safety

Missouri State Highway Patrol

Division of Drug & Crime Control

Mid-Missouri Unified Strike Team and Narcotics Group

Northeast Missouri Task Force

North Central Task Force

North Missouri Task Force

Northwest Narcotics Enforcement Team
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

94

Perry County Sheriff

Platte City Police Department

Platte County Sheriff

Raytown Police Department

St. Ann Police Department

St. Charles County Drug Task Force

St. Louis County Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Task Force

St. Louis County Police Department

St. Louis Metro Drug Task Force

St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department

South Central Drug Task Force

Southeast Missouri Drug Task Force

Southwest Missouri Drug Task Force

Taney County Sheriff

Wayne County Sheriff

Montana 

Big Horn County Sheriff

Bozeman Police Department

Broadwater County Sheriff

Cascade County Sheriff

Custer County Sheriff

Cut Bank Police Department

Dawson County Sheriff

Eastern Montana Drug Task Force

Gallatin County Sheriff

Great Falls Police Department

Helena Police Department

Lewis and Clark County Sheriff

Liberty County Sheriff

Missoula County Sheriff

Missoula Police Department

Missouri River Drug Task Force

Montana Department of Justice

Division of Criminal Investigation

Montana Highway Patrol

Montana Bureau of Crime Control

Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services

Park County Sheriff

Phillips County Sheriff

Ravalli County Sheriff

Southwest Montana Drug Task Force

University of Montana

Office of Public Safety/Police

Yellowstone County Sheriff

Nebraska 

III Corps Task Force

Alliance Police Department

Beatrice Police Department

Bellevue Police Department

Box Butte County Sheriff

Buffalo County Sheriff

Cass County Sheriff

Chadron Police Department

Columbus Police Department

Compact for the Apprehension of Narcotics Dealers and 

Offenders Task Force

Custer County Sheriff

Dawson County Sheriff

Fremont Police Department

Gering Police Department

Grand Island Police Department

Hall County Sheriff

Hastings Police Department

Kearney Police Department

Kimball Police Department

Lancaster County Sheriff

Lincoln Police Department

Mid Upper Level Enforcement Task Force

Nebraska State Highway Patrol

Headquarters, Lincoln

Troop A, Omaha

Troop B, Lincoln

Troop C, Grand Island

Norfolk Police Division

North Platte Police Department

Omaha Police Department

Otoe County Sheriff

Pawnee County Sheriff

Platte County Sheriff

Plattsmouth Police Department

Richardson County Sheriff

Sarpy County Sheriff

Scottsbluff Police Department

Sidney Police Department

South East Area Drug Enforcement Task Force

South Sioux City Police Department

Specialized Narcotics Abuse Reduction Effort Task Force

Tri-City Drug Task Force

Tri-State Task Force

Valentine Police Department

Wayne Police Department

West Point Police Department

Western Intelligence Narcotics Group

Nevada 

Carson County Sheriff

Douglas County Sheriff

Eastern Nevada Narcotic Task Force

Elko County Sheriff Department

Fallon Police Department

Humboldt County Sheriff

Humboldt/Pershing Narcotics Task Force

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

Mesquite Police Department

Nevada Division of Investigation

Las Vegas Office

Narcotic Task Forces

Elko Combined Narcotics Unit

Headquarters, Carson City
National Drug Intelligence Center

95

Nevada Gaming Control Board

Nevada Office of Attorney General

Nevada Substance Abuse Commission

North Central Narcotic Task Force

North Las Vegas Police Department 

Narcotics Division 

Nye County Sheriff

Omaho Metro Task Force

Pershing County Sheriff

Rural Apprehension Project

Reno Police Department

Scottsbluff County Sheriff

South Lake/El Dorado County Narcotic Enforcement Team

Sparks Police Department

Storey County Sheriff

Tri-County Narcotic Enforcement Team

Washoe County Consolidated Narcotics Unit

Washoe County Sheriff

New Hampshire 

Auburn Police Department

Berlin Police Department

Colebrook Police Department

Conway Police Department

Durham Police Department

Epsom Police Department

Hampton Police Department

Hillsborough County Sheriff

Hudson Police Department

Keene Police Department

Lancaster Police Department

Littleton Police Department

Manchester Police Department

New Hampshire Attorney General

Drug Task Force

New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services

Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse

New Hampshire State Police

Narcotics Investigations Unit

Special Investigation Unit and Forensic Laboratory

Newington Police Department

Pittsburg Police Department

Portsmouth Police Department

Rochester Police Department

Rockingham County Department of Corrections

Rye Police Department

Strafford County Department of Corrections

Troy Police Department

University of New Hampshire

Police Department 

Whitefield Police Department

New Jersey 

Aberdeen Township Police Department

Alpha Police Department

Asbury Park Police Department

Atlantic City Police Department

Atlantic County Prosecutor’s Office Narcotic Task Force

Avalon Police Department

Barnegat Police Department

Barnegat Township Police Department

Bayonne Police Department

Beach Haven Police Department

Belmar Police Department

Bergen County Narcotic Task Force

Bogota Police Department

Borough of Pompton Lakes Police Department

Bradley Beach Police Department

Brick Township Police Department

Burlington County Prosecutor’s Office

Burlington County Narcotic Task Force

Caldwell Police Department

Camden County Narcotic Task Force

Camden Police Department

Cape May City Police Department

Cape May County Narcotic Task Force

Carney’s Point Police Department

Carteret Police Department

Clayton Police Department

Colts Neck Township Police Department

Cranbury Township Police Department

Cranford Police Department

Cumberland County Narcotic Task Force

Deal Police Department

Deptford Police Department

Dunellen Police Department

East Brunswick Police Department

East Orange Police Department

Eatontown Police Department

Edison Police Department

Egg Harbor Township Police Department

Elizabeth Police Department

Englishtown Borough Police Department

Essex County Narcotic Task Force

Essex County Sheriff Bureau of Narcotics

Freehold Borough Police Department

Gloucester County Prosecutor’s Office

Gloucester County Narcotics Task Force

Hackettstown Police Department

Harvey Cedars Police Department

Hoboken Police Department

Hudson County Narcotics Task Force

Hunterdon County Prosecutor’s Office Narcotic Task Force

Hunterdon County Sheriff

Irvington Police Department

Jackson Police Department

Jamesburg Police Department

Jersey City Police Department

Narcotics Unit

Keansburg Police Department

Kearny Police Department

Lakewood Police Department

Linden Police Department

Long Beach Township Police Department

Long Branch Police Department
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

96

Mantua Township Police Department

Mercer County Narcotics Task Force

Middle Township Police Department

Middlesex County Narcotics Task Force

Middlesex County Department of Corrections

Monmouth County Narcotics Strike Force

Montgomery Township Police Department

Morris County Narcotics Task Force

Mountainside Police Department

Neptune City Police Department

Neptune Township Police Department

New Brunswick Police Department

New Jersey County Narcotic Commanders Association

New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services

Division of Addiction Services

New Jersey Narcotics Enforcement Officers Association

New Jersey State Police

Narcotics & Organized Crime Bureau

Central Unit

North Unit

South Unit

Newark Police Department

Newfield Police Department

North Caldwell Police Department

North Wildwood Police Department

Ocean City Police Department

Ocean County Narcotics Strike Force

Oceanport Police Department

Orange Township Police Department

Palisades Park Police Department

Paramus Police Department

Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office

Passaic County Narcotics Task Force

Paterson Police Department

Penns Grove Police Department

Pennsville Police Department

Perth Amboy Police Department

Phillipsburg Police Department

Piscataway Police Department

Plainfield Police Division

Rahway Police Department

Roseland Police Department

Rumson Police Department

Rutgers University Police Department

Salem County Narcotics Task Force

Sayreville Police Department

Ship Bottom Police Department

Somerset County Prosecutors Office

Somerset County Narcotics Task Force

Somerville Police Department

South Plainfield Police Department

Spring Lake Police Department

Stafford Township Police Department

Surf City Police Department

Sussex County Narcotics Task Force

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Police Department

Trenton Police Department

Union Beach Police Department

Union County Prosecutor’s Office Narcotic Strike Force

Union Police Department

Union Township Police Department

Vineland City Police Department

Wall Township Police Department

Warren County Prosecutor’s Office Narcotic Task Force

Watchung Police Department

Wenonah Police Department

West Deptford Township Police Department

West New York Police Department

Wildwood Police Department

Woodbridge Township Police Department

Woodbury Police Department

Woodstown Police Department

Woolwich Township Police Department

New Mexico 

Albuquerque Police Department

Eunice Police Department

Harding County Sheriff

Lincoln County Narcotics Enforcement Unit

McKinley County Sheriff

New Mexico Corrections Department

Probation and Parole Division

Addiction Services

New Mexico Department of Public Safety

New Mexico State Police 

Narcotics Section

Special Investigations Division

Investigations Bureau

Southern Crime Laboratory

New Mexico Drug Enforcement Task Force Region I

New Mexico Drug Enforcement Task Force Region II

New Mexico Drug Enforcement Task Force Region III

New Mexico Drug Enforcement Task Force Region IV

New Mexico Drug Enforcement Task Force Region V

New Mexico Drug Enforcement Task Force Region VI

New Mexico Drug Enforcement Task Force Region VII

New Mexico Gang Task Force

New Mexico Health Department

Office of Epidemiology 

New Mexico National Guard Drug Task Force

Otero County Narcotics Enforcement Unit

Roswell Police Department

Southern New Mexico Gang Multi Agency Task Force 

Taos Pueblo Department of Public Safety Police

New York 

Adirondack Task Force

Allegany County Sheriff

Amityville Village Police Department

Broome County Sheriff

Buffalo City Police Department

Chautauqua County Sheriff

City of Cohoes Police Department

City of Kingston Police Department
National Drug Intelligence Center

97

City of Middletown Police Department

City of New Rochelle Police Department

City of Poughkeepsie Police Department

Clarkstown Police Department

Clinton County Sheriff

District Attorney County of Onondaga

Ellenville Police Department

Erie County Sheriff

Essex County Sheriff

Franklin County Sheriff

Freeport Police Department

Garden City Police Department

Genesee County Sheriff

Glen Cove City Police Department

Hempstead Police Department

Hornell City Police Department

Ithaca Police Department

Jefferson County Sheriff

Johnstown City Police Department

Kent Town Police Department

Larchmont Police Department 

Lewis County Sheriff

Livingston County Sheriff

Long Beach City Police Department

Malone Police Department

Mahopac Police Department

Malverne Village Police Department

Mamaroneck Town Police

Massena Police Department

Maybrock Police Department

Monroe County Sheriff

Montgomery County Sheriff

Mount Vernon Police Department

Nassau County District Attorney’s Office

Nassau County Police Department

Narcotics/Vice Bureau

New York Police Department

Drug Enforcement Task Force

Gang Unit

New York State Police

Bureau of Criminal Investigation

Crime Analysts Unit

Special Investigations Unit

Troop B

Troop F

North Star Industries Substance Abuse Treatment Clinic

Office of the District Attorney Franklin County

Office of the District Attorney St. Lawrence County

Office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor for the City of 

New York

Old Westbury Police Department

Oneida City Police Department

Oneida County Sheriff

Onondaga County Sheriff

Orange County Sheriff

Oswego County Drug Task Force

Peekskill Police Department

Pelham Police Department

Plattsburgh Police Department 

Port Washington Police Department 

Putnam County Sheriff

Queens County District Attorney

Rochester Police Department

Rockville Center Village Police Department 

Saratoga Springs City Police Department

Sherrill City Police Department

Southold Town Police Department

Spring Valley Police Department 

Steuben County Sheriff

Suffolk County District Attorneys Office

Suffolk County Police Department

Syracuse Police Department

Town of Caramel Police Department

Town of Montgomery Police Department

Town of Niskayuna Department of Police

Troy City Police Department

Utica Police Department

Watertown City Police Department

Wayne County Sheriff

Westchester County District Attorney’s Office

Wyoming County Sheriff

Yonkers Police Department

North Carolina 

Alexander County Sheriff

Alleghany County Sheriff

Ashe County Sheriff

Brunswick County Sheriff

Asheville-Buncombe Metropolitan Enforcement Group

Asheville Police Department

Catawba County Sheriff

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department

Clay County Sheriff

Columbus County Sheriff

Cumberland County Sheriff

Durham Police Department

Duplin County Sheriff

Emerald Isle Police Department

Fayetteville Police Department

Forsyth County Sheriff

Gaston County Police Department

Gastonia Police Department

Graham County Sheriff

Greensboro Police Department

Guilford County Sheriff

Henderson County Sheriff

Hickory Police Department

High Point Police Department

Hoke County Sheriff

Iredell County Sheriff

Jacksonville Police Department

Kinston Police Department

Montgomery County Sheriff

Nags Head Police Department
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

98

New Hanover County Sheriff

North Carolina State Highway Patrol

North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation

Onslow County Sheriff

Pender County Sheriff

Raleigh Police Department

Reidsville Police Department

Robeson County Sheriff

Rocky Mountain Police Department

Tyrrell County Sheriff

University of North Carolina at Wilmington

Police Department

Wake County Sheriff

Watauga County Sheriff

Wilmington Police Department

Winston-Salem Police Department

Yanceyville Police Department

North Dakota 

Beulah Police Department

Bismarck Police Department

Burke County Sheriff

Burleigh County Sheriff

Devils Lake Police Department

Dickinson Police Department

Grand Forks Police Department

Grand Forks Sheriff

Grand Forks Drug Task Force

Jamestown Police Department

Mandan Police Department

Mercer County Sheriff

Metro Area Narcotics Task Force 

Morton County Sheriff

North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation

North Dakota Division of Mental Health 

& Substance Abuse Services

North Dakota Highway Patrol

North Dakota Youth Correctional Center

Division of Juvenile Services

Red River Valley Drug Task Force

South Sakakawea Narcotics Task Force

Stark County Sheriff

Stutsman County Sheriff

Stutsman County Task Force

Ward County Task Force

Williston Police Department

Northern Mariana Islands 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

Department of Public Safety

DEA/ Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands Narcotic Task Force

Office of the Attorney General

Investigation Unit

Ohio 

Akron Police Department

Athens Police Department

Brooklyn Heights Police Department

Butler County Sheriff

Cincinnati Police Division

Drug Diversion Unit

Cleveland Police Department

Columbus Airport Police Department

Columbus Police Department

Narcotics Bureau

Cuyahoga County Sheriff

Delaware County Sheriff

Dublin Police Department

Erie County Drug Task Force

Franklin County Sheriff

Greene County Task Force 

Hamilton County Sheriff

Hamilton Police Department

Mahoning Valley Drug Task Force

Marietta Police Department

Metro Drug Task Force

Miami University

Police Department

Middleburg Heights Police Department

Monroe County Police Department

Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation

Ohio State Highway Patrol

Ohio University

Police Department

Oregon Police Department

Oxford Police Department

Paulding County Sheriff

Salem Police Department

Summit County Sheriff

Trumbull County Drug Task Force

Upper Arlington Police Department

Valley View Police Department

Village of Yellow Springs Police Department

Warren County Drug Task Force

Washington County Sheriff

Wood County Sheriff

Wyandot County Sheriff

Youngstown Police Department
National Drug Intelligence Center

99

Oklahoma 

Association of Oklahoma Narcotics Enforcers

Buffalo Police Department

Cherokee County District Attorney

Cimarron County Sheriff

Coal County Sheriff

Muskogee Police Department

Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics & Dangerous Drug Control

Oklahoma City Police Department

Oklahoma Department of Mental Health 

and Substance Abuse Services

Oklahoma District Attorneys Council

Drug Task Force Coordinator’s Office

Oklahoma Highway Patrol

Special Operations Division

Oklahoma Military Department

Oklahoma National Guard

Counterdrug Section

Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigations

Pawnee County Sheriff

Pittsburg County Sheriff

Stillwater Police Department

Tulsa Police Department

Special Investigations Division

Yukon Police Department

Oregon 

Baker County Drug Task Force

Blue Mountain Narcotics Enforcement Team

Central Oregon Drug Enforcement Team

Clatsop Interagency Narcotics Team

Columbia Enforcement Narcotics Team

Douglas Interagency Narcotics Team

Gresham Police Department

Hillsboro Police Department

Independence Police Department

Interagency Gang enforcement Team

Jackson County Narcotic Enforcement Team

Josephine Interagency Narcotics Team

Klamath County Interagency Drug Team

Lake County Sheriff

Lane Interagency Narcotics Team

Lakeview Police Department

Lincoln Interagency Narcotics Team

Malheur-Harney County Narcotics Task Force

Marion Area Gang and Narcotics Task Force

Medford Police Department

Mid Columbia Interagency Narcotics Team

Multi-Agency Drug Enforcement Response & 

Interdiction Team

Multnomah County Sheriff

Ontario Police Department

Oregon Department of Justice

Oregon State Police

Polk Interagency Narcotics Team

Portland Airport Interagency Narcotics Team

Regional Organized Crime Narcotics Team

South Coast Interagency Narcotics Team

Tillamook Interagency Narcotics Team

Union/Wallowa County Drug Task Force

Valley Interagency Narcotics Team

Westside Interagency Narcotics Team

Yamhill County Interagency Narcotics Team

Pennsylvania 

Allentown Police Department

Altoona Police Department

Narcotic Unit

Bethlehem Police Department

Butler City Police Department

City of Beaver Falls Police

City of Coatesville Police Department

City of Pittsburgh Department of Public Safety

Corry City Police Department

Easton Police Department

Easttown Township Police Department

Galeton Borough Police

Harrisburg Bureau of Police

Indiana Township Police Department

Johnstown City Police

Lancaster Bureau of Police

Manor Township Police Department

Northampton Township Police Department

Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General

Bureau of Narcotics Investigations

Allentown Regional Office

Butler Regional Office

Erie Regional Office

Greensburg Regional Office

Harrisburg Regional Office

State College Regional Office

Philadelphia Regional Office

Wilkes-Barre Regional Office

Pennsylvania State Police

Bureau of Drug Law Enforcement

Troop K Vice and Narcotics Unit

Philadelphia Police Department

Commissioner’s Office

Intelligence Division

Narcotics Division

Philadelphia Department of Health

Drug and Alcohol Abuse Section

Reading Police Department

Scranton Police Department

Shaler Township Police Department

Upper Merion Township Police Department

Warrington Township Police Department

West Whiteland Township Police

West Pottsgrove Township Police Department

Wilkes-Barre City Police Department
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

100

Puerto Rico 

Policia de Puerto Rico

Department of Drugs, Narcotics, and Vice, Guayama

Rhode Island 

Burrillville Police Department

Central Falls Police Department

Cranston Police Department

Narcotics Unit

Bryant College 

Department of Public Safety 

Campus Police

East Providence Police Department

Foster Police Department

Glocester Police Department

Narcotics Unit

Jamestown Police Department

Johnston Police Department

Little Compton Police Department

Newport Police Department

North Kingstown Police Department

North Smithfield Police Department

Pawtucket Police Department

Providence Police Department

Rhode Island College

Campus Police

Rhode Island State Police

Narcotics Unit

Richmond Police Department

Scituate Police Department

Smithfield Police Department

South Kingstown Police Department

Warren Police Department

Warwick Police Department

West Warwick Police Department

South Carolina 

Aiken County Sheriff

Anderson Police Department

Anderson County Sheriff 

Beaufort Police Department

Beaufort County Sheriff

Calhoun County Sheriff

Charleston County Sheriff

Charleston Police Department

Charleston Port Authority Police Department

Clemson Police Department

Clemson University Police Department

Columbia Metropolitan Airport Police Department

Darlington County Combined Drug Unit

Edgefield Police Department

Florence Police Department

Georgetown Police Department

Greenville County Sheriff

Greenville Police Department

Greenville/Spartanburg Airport Police

Horry County Police Department

Lancaster Police Department

McCormick County Sheriff

Myrtle Beach Police Department

North Charleston Police Department

Port Royal Police Department

Richland County Sheriff

Spartanburg Public Safety Department

South Carolina Highway Patrol

South Carolina State Port Authority

The Citadel

Department of Public Safety/Law Enforcement

University of South Carolina

Police Department

West Columbia Police Department

York County Multi-Jurisdictional Drug Unit

South Dakota 

Davison County Sheriff

Hanson County Sheriff

James Valley Drug Task Force

Minnehaha County Sheriff

Mitchell Police Department

Northern Black Hills Drug Task Force

Northern Plains Safe Trails Task Force

Pennington County Sheriff

Platte Police Department

Rapid City Police Department

Sanborn County

Sioux Falls Area Drug Task Force

Sioux Falls Police Department

South Dakota Highway Patrol

State of South Dakota

Office of the Attorney General

Division of Criminal Investigation

Drug Prosecution Task Force

Todd County Sheriff

Unified Narcotics Enforcement Team

Tennessee 

1st Judicial District Drug Task Force

3d Judicial District Drug Task Force

4th Judicial District Drug Task Force

5th Judicial District Drug Task Force

8th Judicial District Drug Task Force

9th Judicial District Drug Task Force

10th Judicial District Drug Task Force

12th Judicial District Drug Task Force

17th Judicial District Drug Task Force

20th Judicial District Drug Task Force
National Drug Intelligence Center

101

31st Judicial District Drug Task Force

Alcoa Police Department

Anderson County Sheriff

Bartlett Police Department

Bledsoe County Sheriff

Bolivar Police Department

Bradley County Sheriff

Bristol Police Department

Brownsville Police Department

Carter County Sheriff

Chattanooga Police Department

Cheatham County Sheriff

Claiborne County Sheriff

Clarksville Police Department

Cleveland Police Department

Collierville Police Department

Crossville Police Department

Dayton Police Department

Dickson County Sheriff

Dyersburg Police Department

Germantown Police Department

Grainger County Sheriff

Hamblen County Sheriff

Hamilton County Sheriff

Hardeman County Sheriff

Hawkins County Sheriff

Humboldt Police Department

Jackson/Madison County Metro Narcotics

Jefferson City Police Department

Johnson City Police Department

Johnson County Sheriff

Kingsport Police Department

Knox County Sheriff

Knoxville Police Department

Lawrence County Sheriff

Lawrenceburg Police Department

Lewisburg Police Department

Lincoln County Sheriff

Loudon County Sheriff

Macon County Sheriff

Marshall County Sheriff

Maryville Police Department

McKenzie Police Department

McMinnville Police Department

Meigs County Sheriff

Memphis Police Department

Metropolitan Hartsville/Troutsville County Sheriff

Metropolitan Moore County Sheriff

Metropolitan Nashville Police Department

Moore County Sheriff 

Morgan County Sheriff

Morristown Police Department

Newport Police Department

Oak Ridge Police Department

Paris Police Department

Polk County Sheriff

Portland Police Department

Putnam County Sheriff

Red Bank Police Department

Rhea County Sheriff

Ripley Police Department

Robertson County Sheriff

Rutherford County Sheriff

Scott County Sheriff

Sevier County Sheriff

Shelby County Sheriff

Shelbyville Police Department

Sparta Police Department

Sullivan County Sheriff

Sumner County Sheriff

Tennessee Association for Alcohol 

and Drug Abuse Services, Inc.

Tennessee Bureau of Investigation

Tennessee Highway Patrol

Tipton County Sheriff

Trousdale County Sheriff

Union City Police Department

University of Tennessee, Knoxville

Police Department

Washington County Sheriff

Wayne County Sheriff

White County Sheriff

Williamson County Sheriff

Wilson County Sheriff

Winchester Police Department

Texas 

33d Judicial Narcotics Team

63d Judicial District Narcotics Task Force

216th Judicial District Narcotics Task Force

Abilene Police Department

Agriplex Drug Task Force

Amarillo Police Department

Andrews County Sheriff

Andrews Police Department

Department of Public Safety

Anthony Police Department

Big Spring Police Department

Brewster County Sheriff

Brownwood Police Department

Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad Police

Central East Texas Narcotics Task Force

Collin County Sheriff

Combined Governmental Drug Enforcement and Special 

Crimes Task Force

Crane County Sheriff

Crockett County Sheriff

Cross Timbers Narcotics Task Force

Culberson County Sheriff 

Deep East Texas Regional Narcotics Trafficking Task Force

Del Rio Police Department

Dimmit County Sheriff

Drug Enforcement Task Force

Ector County Sheriff

Edwards County Sheriff

El Paso Community College

Police Department
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

102

El Paso County Sheriff

El Paso Independent School District

Police Department

El Paso Metro Task Force

El Paso Police Department

Southwest Border Unit Watch Command

Fort Bend County Narcotics Task Force

Fort Stockton Police Department

Fort Worth Police Department

Harris County Sheriff

Hidalgo Police Department

Horizon City Police Department

Houston Police Department

Howard County Sheriff

Hudspeth County Sheriff

Independence Narcotic Task Force

Jeff Davis County Sheriff

Kenedy County Sheriff

Kent County Sheriff

Killeen Police Department

Kimble County Sheriff

Kinney County Sheriff

La Grange Police Department 

Laredo Multi Agency Narcotics Task Force

Loving County Sheriff

Lubbock County Sheriff

Lubbock Police Department

Maverick County Sheriff

Mesquite Police Department

Midland County Sheriff

Midland Police Department

New Caney Independent School District

Police Department

North Central Texas Narcotics Task Force

North Richland Hills Police Department

North Texas Regional Drug Enforcement Task Force

Northeast Area Drug Interdiction Task Force

Odessa Police Department

Office of the Texas Attorney General

Panhandle Regional Narcotics Task Force

Paris Police Department

Pecos County Sheriff

Pecos Police Department

Plainview Police Department

Port Arthur Police Department

Presidio County Sheriff

Reeves County Sheriff

Resource Protection Team

Rio Concho Multi-Agency Drug Enforcement Task Force

Roanoke Police Department

San Angelo Police Department

San Antonio Police Department

Smith County Sheriff

Socorro Police Department

South Plains Regional Narcotics Task Force

South Texas Specialized Crime and Narcotics Task Force

Southwest Texas Narcotics Task Force

Stafford Police Department

Sterling County Sheriff

Sutton County Sheriff

Tarrant County Sheriff

Taylor County Sheriff

Terrell County Sheriff

Terrell Police Department

Texarkana Police Department

Texas Department of Public Safety 

Texas Department of Public Safety

Narcotics Service

Post Seizure Analysis Team

Crime Records

Texas Crime Information Center

Tom Green County Sheriff

Trans Pecos Drug Task Force

Tri County Task Force

Tyler Police Department

Union Pacific Railroad Police Department

University of Texas, El Paso

Police Department

University of Texas System Police

Uvalde County Sheriff

Val Verde County Sheriff

Ward County Sheriff

West Central Texas Inter-Local Crime Task Force

West Texas Council on Drug Abuse and Alcoholism

West Texas Narcotics Enforcement Task Force

Wichita Falls Police Department

Winkler County Sheriff

Utah 

Alpine Police Department

American Fork Police Department

Bountiful Police Department

Box Elder County Sheriff

Brigham Young University Police Department

Cache County Sheriff

Cache/Rich Counties Drug Task Force

Carbon County Metro Drug Task Force

Cedar City Police Department

Central Utah Narcotics Task Force

Clearfield Police Department

Davis County Sheriff

Davis Metro Narcotics Task Force

Emery County Drug Task Force

Grand County Sheriff

Grand/San Juan Counties Narcotic Task Force

Grantsville City Police Department

Iron County Sheriff

Iron/Garfield Counties Narcotics Task Force

Kaysville Police Department

Layton Police Department

Lehi Police Department

Logan Police Department

Mapleton City Police

Midvale Police Department

Moab Police Department

Morgan County Sheriff

Murray City Police Department
National Drug Intelligence Center

103

North Park Police Department

Ogden City Police Department

Ogden/Weber County Gang Unit

Orem Police Department

Park City Police Department

Payson Police Department

Piute County Sheriff

Pleasant Grove Police Department

Provo Police Department

Rich County Sheriff

Roy Police Department

St. George Police Department

Salem Police Department

Salt Lake Area Gang Project

Salt Lake City District Attorney

Wasatch Front Range Task Force

Salt Lake City Police Department

Salt Lake County Sheriff

San Juan County Sheriff

Sandy City Police Department

Sanpete County Sheriff

Santaquin Police Department

Sevier County Sheriff

South Salt Lake Police Department

Spanish Fork Police Department

Springville Police Department

University of Utah

Police Department

Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice

Utah County Major Crimes Task Force

Utah County Sheriff

Utah Department of Corrections

Utah Department of Commerce

Occupational and Professional Licensing Department

Utah Department of Public Safety

Criminal Investigations Bureau

Utah National Guard

Utah State University Police Department

Washington County Drug Task Force

Washington County Sheriff

Wayne County Sheriff

Weber/Morgan Counties Strike Force

West Jordan Police Department

West Valley City Police Department

Woods Cross Police Department

Vermont

Bennington Police Department

Brattleboro Police Department

Burlington Police Department

Caledonia County Sheriff

Lamoille County Sheriff

Montpelier Police Department

Newport City Police Department

Rutland Police Department

St. Johnsbury Police Department

Stowe Police Department

Swanton Police Department

Vermont Center for Justice Research

Vermont Department of Health

Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs

Vermont Department of Public Safety

Division of Criminal Justice Services

Criminal Information Center

Vermont State Police

Drug Task Force

Special Investigations Unit

Criminal Intelligence Unit

Virgin Islands 

Territory of the Virgin Islands

Virginia 

Albemarle County Police Department

Alexandria Police Department

Alleghany County Sheriff

Alleghany Highlands Drug Task Force

Arlington County Police Department

Bath County Sheriff

Blacksburg Police Department

Bluefield County Sheriff

Bluefield Police Department

Bridgewater Police Department

Charlottesville Police Department

Charlottesville Sexual Assault Resource Agency

Chesapeake Police Department

Chesterfield County Police Department

Christiansburg Police Department

Clarke County Sheriff

Clifton Forge Sheriff

Clifton Forge Police Department

Colonial Narcotics Enforcement Task Force

Covington Police Department

Danville Sheriff

Emporia Police Department

Fairfax City Police Department

Fairfax County Police Organized Crime and Narcotic Unit

Fairfax County Police Department

Fairfax County Sheriff

Fauquier County Sheriff

Frederick County Sheriff

Front Royal Police Department

George Mason University

Police Department

Sexual Assault Services Coordinating Council

Harrisonburg Police Department

Henrico County Police Department

Herndon Police Department

Highland County Sheriff

James City County Police Department

Jefferson Area Drug Enforcement Task Force
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

104

King and Queen County Sheriff

Loudoun County Sheriff

Lynchburg Police Department

Montgomery County Sheriff

New River Regional Drug Task Force

Newport News Police Department

North West Virginia Regional Task Force

Page County Sheriff

Prince William County Police Department

Radford Police Department

Radford Women’s Resource Center

Richlands Police Department

Richmond Police Department

Roanoke County Sheriff

Roanoke Police Department

Rockingham County Sheriff

Rockingham Unit State Police Harrisonburg Task Force

Salem Police Department

Shenandoah County Sheriff

Southampton County Sheriff

Spotsylvania County Sheriff

Stafford County Sheriff

Surry County Sheriff

Tazewell County Drug Task Force

Tazewell County Sheriff

Tazewell Police Department

University of Virginia

Police Department

Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Commission

Virginia Association of Law Enforcement 

Intelligence Documentation 

Virginia Beach Police Department Special Investigations

Virginia State Police

Bureau of Criminal Investigation

Drug Enforcement Division

Appomattox Field Office

Fairfax Field Office

Salem Field Office

Virginia Tech University Campus Police

Vienna Police Department

Warren County Sheriff

West Point Police Department

Westmoreland County Sheriff

Williamsburg Police Department

Winchester Police Department

Wytheville Police Department

Wythe County Sheriff

Washington 

Clark/Skamania Narcotics Task Force

Columbia River Drug Task Force

Cowlitz-Wahkiakum Narcotics Task Force

Eastside Narcotics Task Force

Ferry County Sheriff

Grant County Sheriff

Grays Harbor County Drug Task Force

Interagency Narcotics Enforcement Team

King County Sheriff

Law Enforcement Against Drugs

North Central Washington Narcotics Task Force

Northwest Regional Drug Task Force

Olympic Peninsula Narcotics Enforcement Team

Pierce County Sheriff

Quad Cities Drug Task Force

Skagit County Interlocal Drug Enforcement Unit

Snohomish County Regional Drug Task Force

Spokane County Sheriff

Spokane Regional Drug Task Force

State-wide Incident Response Team

Thurston County Narcotics Task Force

Tri-City Metro Drug Task Force

Unified Narcotics Enforcement Team

Valley Narcotics Enforcement Team

Washington State Patrol

West Sound Narcotics Enforcement Team

Whatcom County Sheriff

Yakima Police Department

West Virginia 

Barboursville Police Department

Beckley Police Department

Berkley County Sheriff

Bluefield Police Department

Boone County Sheriff

Brexton County Sheriff

Bridgeport Police Department

Brooke County Sheriff

Cabell County Sheriff

Central West Virginia Drug Task Force

Charles Town Police Department

Charleston Police Department 

Chesapeake Police Department

Clarksburg City Police Department

Doddridge County Sheriff

Dunbar Police Department

Eastern Panhandle Drug Task Force 

Fairmont Police Department

Fayette County Sheriff

Gilbert Police Department

Gilmer County Sheriff

Hancock County Prosecutor’s Office

Hancock County Sheriff

Hancock/Brooke/Weirton Task Force

Harpers Ferry Police Department

Harrison County Sheriff

Harrison-Lewis County Drug and Violent Crime Task Force

Huntington Police Department

Huntington Violent Crime-Drug Task Force

Jefferson County Sheriff

Kanawha County District Attorney’s Office 

Kanawha County Sheriff

Lewis County Sheriff

Lincoln County Sheriff

Logan County Drug Task Force

Logan County Sheriff
National Drug Intelligence Center

105

Madison Police Department

Marion City Police Department

Marion County Sheriff

Marshal County Sheriff

Marshal University Prevention Resource Center 

Martinsburg City Police Department

Mason County Sheriff

McDowell County Sheriff

Mercer County Sheriff

Metropolitan Drug Enforcement Task Force

Mon Valley Drug Task Force

Monongalia County Sheriff

Monroe County Sheriff

Morgantown Police Department

Nicholas County Sheriff

Nitro Police Department

Ohio County Sheriff

Ohio Valley Task Force

Parkersburg Multi-Jurisdictional Task Force

Parkersburg Police Department

Pleasants County Sheriff

Pocahontas Police Department

Point Pleasant Police Department

Preston County Sheriff

Princeton Police Department

Raleigh County Sheriff

Ranson Police Department

Ridgewood Police Department

St. Albans Police Department

Southern Regional Drug and Violent Crime Task Force

Summersville Police Department

Trident Drug Task Force

Vienna Police Department

Webster County Sheriff

Webster Springs Police Department

Weirton Police Department

West Virginia National Guard

West Virginia Prosecuting Attorney’s Institute

West Virginia Public Service Commission

West Virginia State Police

Weston Police Department

Wheeling Police Department

Wood County Sheriff

Wisconsin 

Ashland Police Department

Bayfield County Sheriff

Brown County Sheriff Drug Task Force

Central Wisconsin Drug Task Force

Cudahy Police Department

Douglas County Drug Task Force

Douglas County Sheriff

Eau Claire County Sheriff

Fitchburg Police Department

Florence County Sheriff

Fond du Lac Police Department

Iron County Sheriff

Janesville Police Department

Kewaunee County Sheriff

La Crosse Metropolitan Enforcement Group

La Crosse Police Department

Manitowoc County Sheriff

Marathon County Drug Task Force

Marathon County Sheriff

Milwaukee County Sheriff

North Central Drug Enforcement Task Force

Northwest Wisconsin Area Crime Unit

Oneida County Sheriff

Ozaukee County Sheriff

Platteville Police Department

Portage County Sheriff

Rock County Sheriff

Stevens Point Police Department

Superior Police Department

Village of Fox Point Police Department

West Central Drug Task Force

Wisconsin Division of Criminal Investigation

Wisconsin Division of Narcotics Enforcement

Wyoming 

Albany County Sheriff

Buffalo Police Department

Casper Police Department

Cheyenne Police Department

Cody Police Department

Diamondville Police Department

Evanston Police Department

Green River Police Department

Johnson County Sheriff

Kemmerer Police Department

Laramie County Sheriff

Laramie Police Department

Lincoln County Sheriff

Lyman Police Department

Natrona County Sheriff

Platte County Sheriff

Rawlins Police Department

Rock Springs Police Department

Sheridan County Sheriff

Sheridan Police Department

Sublette County Sheriff

Thermopolis Police Department

Uinta County Sheriff

University of Wyoming

Chemical Abuse Research and Education

Police Department

Wheatland Police Department

Wyoming Department of Education

Wyoming Department of Family Services

Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation

Statewide Drug Task Forces

Wyoming Health Department

Substance Abuse Division 

Wyoming Highway Patrol
National Drug Threat Assessment 2002

106

This page intentionally left blank.