U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street N.W.

Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno

Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice

Raymond C. Fisher

Associate Attorney General

Laurie Robinson

Assistant Attorney General

Noël Brennan

Deputy Assistant Attorney General

Jeremy Travis

Director, National Institute of Justice

Office of Justice Programs National Institute of Justice

World Wide Web Site World Wide Web Site

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij
Meth Matters:

Report on Methamphetamine

Users in Five Western Cities

Susan Pennell, Joe Ellett, Cynthia Rienick, and Jackie Grimes

April 1999

NCJ 176331
Jeremy Travis

Director

Jack Riley

Program Monitor

This report was supported under award number 96–IJ–CX–0026 to the San Diego Association of

Governments by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the authors and do not necessarily

reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau

of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and

the Office for Victims of Crime.
iii

Acknowledgments

Many individuals contributed to this project

and the San Diego Association of Governments

(SANDAG) gratefully recognizes their efforts.

We commend Jeremy Travis, Director of the

National Institute of Justice (NIJ), for his willingness to provide the resources and thereby

acknowledge that drug use is regional and that

methamphetamine is a serious problem in parts

of the country. Jack Riley, NIJ Program Monitor

and Director of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program, is appreciated as well

for his support and thoughtful comments. Ann

Marie Rocheleau of BOTEC Analysis, Inc.,

assisted in the design of the instrument and the

development of questions. The project could not

have taken place without the support and cooperation of the following ADAM Site Directors

in the participating cities. We are grateful to

Doug Anglin and Kiku Annon at UCLA. Diane

Wiscarson in Portland and Barbara Zugor in

Phoenix provided thoughtful comments during

the design of the interview and review of findings. We appreciate the assistance of the following ADAM staff in San Jose: Cathy Casey,

Linda Ramus, and Martha Wilson. We also

would like to thank the members of the San

Diego Meth Advisory Group, individuals who

can tell the “meth story” and who helped us

interpret our findings. The study would not have

been possible without the support and cooperation of the ADAM interviewers; their work is

admired and gratefully acknowledged. We also

are appreciative of the arrestees who volunteered

to share their experiences with meth. Finally,

several staff in the SANDAG Criminal Justice

Research Division contributed to the preparation

and production of this report. Their contributions are significant and worthy of note: Donna

Allnutt, Ami Caldwell, Angela Levinson, and

Darlanne Hoctor Mulmat.

Susan Pennell, Joe Ellett, Cynthia Rienick, and

Jackie Grimes

San Diego Association of Governments
v

Contents

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................... ix

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

Nature, Uses, and Effects of Methamphetamine ......................................................................... 3

History of Methamphetamine ....................................................................................................... 3

What Is Methamphetamine? ......................................................................................................... 3

Methamphetamine Production...................................................................................................... 4

Methamphetamine Use ................................................................................................................. 5

Indicators of Methamphetamine Use............................................................................................ 5

Consequences of Methamphetamine Production and Use ........................................................... 8

Treatment for Methamphetamine Abuse .................................................................................... 10

Study Findings .............................................................................................................................. 13

Methamphetamine Addendum ................................................................................................... 13

Study Methods ............................................................................................................................ 14

User Profiles ............................................................................................................................... 16

Characteristics of Meth Arrestees and Other ADAM Arrestees ................................................ 19

Drug Use Patterns ....................................................................................................................... 21

Patterns of Meth Use .................................................................................................................. 22

Treatment Experience ................................................................................................................. 26

Drug Market Dynamics .............................................................................................................. 27

Drug Dealing .............................................................................................................................. 30

Meth Cooking ............................................................................................................................. 34

Juvenile Meth Users ..................................................................................................................... 37

Urinalysis Results ....................................................................................................................... 37

Juvenile Profile ........................................................................................................................... 37

Juvenile Meth Users Compared With Other Juvenile ADAM Arrestees ................................... 38

Concluding Remarks .................................................................................................................... 45

Meth Matters: The San Diego Approach to Prevention and Reduction of

 Meth Production, Distribution, and Use ................................................................................. 45

Meth Users Speak ....................................................................................................................... 47

References...................................................................................................................................... 49

Appendixes .................................................................................................................................... 53

A. Adult ADAM Interview......................................................................................................... 55

B. Methamphetamine Addendum ............................................................................................... 61
vi

Map

Five-City Meth Study Percentage Positive for Meth, 1996–1997.......................... 14

Tables

Table 1. Number of Meth Interviews and Percentage of All ADAM Interviews, by Site

ADAM Adult Meth Users, 1996–1997 .................................................................. 15

Table 2. Number of Arrestees Interviewed and Percentage Who Provided Urine Sample

ADAM Adult Arrestees and Meth Users, 1996–1997 ........................................... 15

Table 3. Arrest Charge of Meth Users, by Site

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997 ............................................................ 19

Table 4. Arrest Charge of Nonmeth Users, by Site

ADAM Adult Arrestees, 1996–1997 ...................................................................... 19

Table 5. Arrest Charge, by Meth Use

ADAM Adult Arrestees, 1996–1997 ...................................................................... 19

Table 6. Comparison of Arrestee Characteristics, by Meth Use

ADAM Adult Arrestees, 1996–1997 ...................................................................... 20

Table 7. Meth Users’ Positive Drug Results, by Drug and Site

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997 ............................................................ 22

Table 8. Age First Tried Various Drugs, by Meth Use

ADAM Adult Arrestees, 1996–1997 ...................................................................... 23

Table 9. Consequences of Meth Use

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997 ............................................................ 23

Table 10. Route of Meth Administration, by Site

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997 ............................................................ 25

Table 11. Consequences of Meth Use, by Route of Administration

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997 ............................................................ 25

Table 12. Frequency of Meth Use

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997 ............................................................ 26

Table 13. Meth Use in the Past 3 Days and Positive for Meth, by Site

ADAM Adult Meth Users, 1996–1997 .................................................................. 26

Map, Tables, and Figures
vii

Table 14. Have a Main Source, by Ethnicity

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997 ............................................................ 27

Table 15. Ethnicity of Dealer, by Ethnicity of User

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997 ............................................................ 28

Table 16. Illegal Drug Activity, by Type and Site

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997 ............................................................ 31

Table 17. Characteristics of Drug Activity Participants

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997 ............................................................ 32

Table 18. Making and Selling Meth, by Site

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997 ............................................................ 33

Table 19. Number of Customers and Profit Made by Meth Dealers

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997 ............................................................ 33

Table 20. Characteristics of Meth Dealers and Nondealers

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997 ............................................................ 35

Table 21. Number of Juvenile Meth Interviews and Percentage of ADAM Interviews,

by Site

ADAM Juvenile Meth Users, 1996–1997 .............................................................. 37

Table 22. Demographic Data, by Site

ADAM Juvenile Meth Users, 1996–1997 .............................................................. 39

Table 23. Comparison of Arrestee Characteristics, by Meth Use

ADAM Juvenile Arrestees, 1996–1997.................................................................. 40

Table 24. Source of Income

ADAM Juvenile Meth Users, 1996–1997 .............................................................. 41

Table 25. Money Received and Spent on Drugs in Past 30 Days

ADAM Juvenile Meth Users, 1996–1997 .............................................................. 41

Table 26. Route of Meth Administration

ADAM Juvenile Meth Users, 1996–1997 .............................................................. 41

Table 27. Self-Reported Drug Use Compared With Positive Drug Result

ADAM Juvenile Meth Users, 1996–1997 .............................................................. 41

Table 28. Treatment Experience

ADAM Juvenile Meth Users, 1996–1997 .............................................................. 42

Table 29. Drug-Related Activities

ADAM Juvenile Meth Users, 1996–1997 .............................................................. 43
viii

Figures

Figure 1. Age of Meth Users, by Site

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997 ............................................................... 16

Figure 2. Ethnicity of Meth Users, by Site

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997 ............................................................... 17

Figure 3. Annualized Drug Use, by Site

ADAM Adult Arrestees, 1996–1997 ......................................................................... 21

Figure 4. Parents’ Use of Drugs, by Site

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997 ............................................................... 24

Figure 5. Perception That Price Is Higher Than 1 Year Ago

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997 ............................................................... 29

Figure 6. Perception That Quality Is Worse Than 1 Year Ago

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997 ............................................................... 30

Figure 7. Annualized Drug Use, by Site

ADAM Juvenile Meth Users, 1996–1997 ................................................................. 38
ix

Executive Summary

Background

“Crank,” “meth,” “shabu,” “glass,” “shi-shi,”

“zip,” “spoosh,” and “load of laundry” are a few

of more than 170 slang terms used for methamphetamine as reported by meth users in five

western cities. According to one of more than

1,000 arrestees who reported using methamphetamine, “Meth is an equal opportunity destroyer.”

In February 1998 General Barry R. McCaffrey,

Director of the Office of National Drug Control

Policy, stated, “Methamphetamine has ‘exploded’ from ‘a West Coast biker drug’ into

America’s heartland and could replace cocaine

as the Nation’s primary drug threat” (Copely

News Service, 1998). Indeed, extensive use of

methamphetamine in the United States began in

the West and was associated with motorcycle

gangs. As early as 1996, however, indicators

began emerging of increased methamphetamine

manufacturing and trafficking in various locations throughout the country. This shift was

attributed to the decline in the cocaine trade and

greater interest in methamphetamine by Mexican national drug traffickers familiar with the

dynamics of drug markets. In recent years, meth

laboratory seizures have increased in areas east

of the Rocky Mountains, along with parallel

increases in overdose deaths and treatment

admissions related to methamphetamine abuse

(Drug Enforcement Administration, 1996;

National Institute of Justice, 1998). This diffusion suggested the need to explore the dynamics

of meth production, distribution, and use.

This study, supported by the National Institute

of Justice (NIJ) and conducted by the Criminal

Justice Research Division of the San Diego

Association of Governments (SANDAG), used

the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM)

program to document methamphetamine use

and its consequences among arrestees. The

ADAM program is operational in 35 U.S. cities

and also includes sites in Australia and England. The program began in 1987 to monitor

drug use trends among offenders and identify

potential drug epidemics. The interview obtains

sociodemographic information about arrestees

and solicits information about their current and

historical drug use and drug treatment experience. Participants are asked to volunteer a

confidential urine sample for analysis.

The ADAM process also has been used as a

research platform to address additional issues

in depth with the offender population. For example, patterns of cocaine and heroin use in six

ADAM sites have been explored with an addendum to the ADAM interview (Riley, 1997).

Answers to questions about the possession and

use of illegal firearms have been examined in

11 ADAM sites (Decker et al., 1997).

Within this context, SANDAG researchers sought

to learn more about the patterns of methamphetamine use and its consequences among a highrisk population of arrestees. In addition to a

comparison across five sites, the analyses compared the results to other studies about drug

abusers (Riley, 1997) and contrasted meth users

with other ADAM arrestees. The results suggest

that the production of meth, the profile of meth

users, and the dynamics of the drug market

warrant different enforcement and treatment

approaches. Regional differences indicate that

strategies must be tailored to communities.

This summary describes the results of interviews

with persons arrested and booked into detention

facilities in five cities: Los Angeles, San Diego,
x Meth Matters: Report on Methamphetamine Users in Five Western Cities

and San Jose in California; Phoenix, Arizona;

and Portland, Oregon. All of those interviewed

reported using methamphetamine within 30 days

of the time of the interview. Interviews were

conducted in four ADAM quarterly periods,

from October 1996 through September 1997.

What Is Methamphetamine?

Amphetamine is a sympathomimetic drug that

alleviates fatigue and produces feelings of

mental alertness and well-being. Chemically

similar to adrenaline, a hormone produced by

the adrenal gland, sympathomimetic drugs

stimulate the sympathetic nervous system (part

of the autonomic nervous system that is responsible for controlling bodily functions that are not

consciously directed) and the central nervous

system (the brain and spinal cord). Methamphetamine, or meth, represents the most widely used

amphetamine. A form of methamphetamine also

is found in some cold medicines. Similar to

cocaine, both the rush and the high are believed

to result from the release of high levels of

dopamine into areas of the brain that regulate

pleasure. However, unlike cocaine, meth is not

metabolized to the same extent, and a larger

percentage of the drug remains unchanged in the

user’s body. Because tolerance is developed so

quickly, users are more likely to indulge in a

“binge and crash” pattern in an attempt to

maintain the original high, despite the fact that

high concentrations remain in the body (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1998).

Why Is Meth a Concern?

Certain aspects of the manufacturing, trafficking, and use of methamphetamine have consequences and ramifications quite different from

those of other illegal drugs. These differences

have implications for targeting law enforcement

and for developing effective drug treatment

strategies. Meth is homegrown in the United

States and easy to make, and most of the chemicals in its recipe can be obtained with little

difficulty. The consequences of manufacturing

meth are far reaching: The volatile chemicals

can explode when the ingredients are cooking.

The invisible vapors that emanate from cooking

meth create health problems for people living in

the area. The waste and residue remaining from

meth cooking are harmful to the environment.

(Locations in which meth cookers have operated

must be stripped and fumigated before future

habitation occurs.) Chronic meth users lose

control over their meth use as the drug twists

their brain chemistry and nerve endings die due

to the lack of oxygen, creating sensations like

bugs crawling under the skin.

As with any drug that can be injected, there is

the potential for transmission of hepatitis and

HIV (Lucas, 1997). In the extreme, meth use

has been associated with violent and destructive

behavior, including the individual in San Diego,

California, who commandeered an army tank

and wreaked havoc on people and property

before being shot by police in May 1997. This

individual was an acknowledged methamphetamine user (San Diego Union-Tribune, 1998).

The dire and dangerous consequences of meth

use present challenges for policymakers, educators, law enforcement agents, treatment providers, and families everywhere. The following

discussion presents results of interviews with

more than 1,000 meth users who participated in

the ADAM program and responded to a series of

questions regarding use of methamphetamine,

drug market dynamics, and manufacturing of

meth. It is hoped that these findings will be

helpful to communities where meth use may be

emerging so that appropriate prevention, enforcement, and treatment strategies can be

implemented and targeted appropriately.

Study Findings

Who Is Using Meth?

In the early 1990s on the west coast, meth users

were primarily white males and females in their

early twenties. The majority of meth users in

this study also were white, ranging from 54

percent in San Jose to 94 percent in Portland.
Executive Summary xi

However, there were variations across sites.

In recent years, the ADAM sites have seen an

increase in the proportion of Hispanics testing

positive for meth. For example, in Los Angeles,

Hispanics represented 57 percent of the meth

users. Meth use by blacks was relatively low

based on urinalysis results, ranging from 1

percent in Phoenix to 11 percent in San Diego.

One-third of the adult meth users were women.

The average age of meth users was 30, slightly

younger than the age of cocaine and heroin users

in the Riley study (Riley, 1997). Of the 270

juvenile users in the five cities, Hispanics

constituted the largest ethnic category (47

percent) followed by whites (41 percent).

Arrest Charge

About 40 percent of the adult meth users were

charged with a drug or alcohol violation. About

25 percent were booked for a property offense,

and 16 percent were arrested for violent behavior. The proportion of offenders with charges

involving violence ranged from 8 percent in

Phoenix to 35 percent in Los Angeles. Nonmeth

arrestees were significantly more likely to be

arrested for a violent offense, contrary to a

common perception that associates meth use

with violent behavior. However, meth users

were more likely than other arrestees to have

been both arrested and incarcerated previously.

Of the 929 adult meth users, 15 percent reported

having possessed a gun within 30 days of the

interview. This is similar to the firearm study

conducted by Decker et al. (1997), in which

14 percent of arrestees in 11 sites reported gun

possession. In Los Angeles and Phoenix, nearly

25 percent of the sample reported having had a

gun. For the juvenile meth users, one in five

reported firearm possession.

Drug Use Patterns

Meth users had higher rates of overall drug use

than did the total sample of ADAM arrestees.

For the 12-month period in which interviews

were conducted, significantly more than half

(65 percent) of the ADAM arrestees had positive

urinalysis results for some illegal drug, ranging

from 53 percent in San Jose to 74 percent in

Portland and San Diego. For the meth users,

proportionate usage ranged from 80 percent

positive for any drug in Phoenix to 95 percent in

San Diego. A high proportion of meth users in

all sites also tested positive for marijuana. In

Los Angeles, 30 percent of the meth users also

showed recent use of cocaine, as did 25 percent

of those in Portland. Compared with other

ADAM arrestees, meth users were significantly

more likely to show recent use of multiple

drugs.

Initiation of Meth Use. Ten percent of the

meth users indicated that they were introduced

to meth by their parents or other family members. Most began using meth with their peers to

experiment, get more energy, and get high. For

meth users who had used cocaine, 64 percent

indicated a preference for meth because the high

lasts longer, is less expensive, and has fewer

side effects. The relative lack of side effects is a

misperception of new users and contradicts what

arrestees reported about the consequences of

meth use, which included sleeplessness, weight

loss, dental problems, skin problems, violent

behavior, paranoia, and social and financial

problems. The consequences of methamphetamine use are consistent with the medical

literature, which links the changes in the brain

chemistry to effects in the central nervous

system (Leshner, 1998; Stalcup, 1998). Route of

administration of a drug is of interest because it

suggests the intensity of use. Almost one-half of

the meth users in this study (46 percent) snorted

or inhaled meth and about one-third (31 percent)

preferred smoking. Portland users were far

more likely to inject meth (49 percent). Juvenile

users overall were more likely to smoke meth

(50 percent). Both injecting and smoking result

in the drug getting to the brain more quickly.

Arrestees used meth on average from 10.4 days

in the month prior to the interview in San Jose to

15.8 days in Phoenix. Bingeing, or consecutive

“runs” of use, is common among meth users.
xii Meth Matters: Report on Methamphetamine Users in Five Western Cities

Consecutive days of use ranged from 7.6 days in

Portland to 11.7 days in Phoenix. About one in

four users stated that they use meth four or more

times in a typical day.

Treatment Experience. Despite the problems

or consequences of meth use reported by meth

users, only 28 percent have ever tried to get

treatment. When asked why they had not tried to

get treatment, the most common response was

that they did not need it because they had control over their drug use. This perception is

particularly dangerous because the crossover

from initial use to loss of control is rapid for

meth users, and generally they have lost control

long before they can acknowledge it (Stalcup,

1998). This attitude of denial makes it difficult

to convince meth abusers to enter and stay in

treatment.

Drug Market Dynamics

Features of the meth market suggest that meth

trafficking patterns differ from those of other

illegal drugs in ways that warrant different law

enforcement approaches to address meth: Most

meth users report having a main source from

whom they obtain the drug. Generally, meth is

bought at a residence. The majority of meth

users report never having bought from someone

they did not know. These findings suggest a

more closed market, compared with other drugs.

In the cocaine study, less than 50 percent of the

cocaine and crack users reported having a main

source (Riley, 1997). Meth was widely available

in the five cities during the course of the study,

with 72 percent of the users stating they could

not remember a time when they wanted meth but

could not get it. A small percentage of users

could not get meth in the past month primarily

for these reasons: The dealer was not available,

the dealer was out of meth, and police activity

was intense. None of the users mentioned that

the dealer was charging too much, which was

one reason provided in the cocaine and heroin

study. Price and purity are additional indicators

of drug availability. In the study period (October

1996 through September 1997), almost one-half

of the meth users (48 percent) thought the price

of meth was the same as the year before.

Across sites, increases in price were noted by a

range of 11 percent of the meth users in San Jose

to 25 percent in San Diego. The increase in the

use of additives to process meth may be associated with the finding that 47 percent of the users

reported the quality of meth to be worse than

1 year earlier. Average price paid for meth in

their last purchase was $40.

Drug Dealing. About one-third of all the meth

users reported having been engaged in some

illegal drug activity besides use, with selling

drugs the most typical activity. About 4 in 10

juveniles reported dealing drugs. Variation

across sites became apparent as the drug-related

activities escalated from selling to increased

involvement in manufacturing and trafficking.

For example, 19 percent reported that they cut or

packaged meth, but the range was from none in

Los Angeles to 23 percent in San Diego. With

respect to getting chemicals or equipment to

make meth, 9 percent of the sample reported

participating in this activity. Across sites, the

response ranged from none in Los Angeles to 17

percent in Portland. Two percent of the users in

San Diego reported that they make meth, compared with 9 percent in Portland. These findings

suggest that manufacturing and distribution sites

for meth may not coincide with locations that

have a high number of users. For example, the

St. Louis ADAM site shows minimal use of

meth among arrestees, but other indicators, such

as meth lab seizures, are increasing in Missouri.

Drug Dealers. A series of questions was asked

of the 231 individuals who admitted to selling

meth. Almost one-half of the sample had been

selling meth prior to 1991. They started dealing

to make money and to support their meth addiction. Of those who reported making a profit

from selling meth, a significant proportion had

made $800 and more in the previous month.

One-quarter of the dealers reported that they sold

meth outside the county in which they lived, and
Executive Summary xiii

11 percent said they sold outside the State in

which they lived. The States mentioned most

frequently by those 30 dealers included Arizona,

New York, Texas, Nevada, California, Oklahoma, and Washington. An additional 4 percent

reported selling outside the country, with the

majority selling to individuals in Mexico.

Perception of Risk of Dealing. Meth users were

asked if they worried about the risks of selling

drugs. More than half feared “getting busted” or

being arrested (60 percent). About one-quarter

had no worries, and 16 percent feared “getting

robbed” by drug users or other dealers. With

respect to precautions taken to reduce their risk,

one-half stated that they sell only to people they

know. About one in five said they carry a

weapon. Other cautionary measures include

delivering directly to the customer, not carrying

a lot of drugs or money, and not letting the

customer come to the dealer’s residence. The

meth dealers in the ADAM sample appeared to

be low- to mid-level street dealers who demonstrated a long history of selling drugs to support

a drug habit. High-level traffickers may not be

as revealing in an interview in a detention

facility, and higher level dealers may be arrested

by Federal agents and taken to Federal corrections centers rather than local jails.

Meth Cookers. Twenty-seven adult meth users

also admitted to making meth and responded to

a number of questions about how they learned to

cook it and the chemicals and cooking methods

they used. Most acquired the recipe from

friends, and three individuals said their parents

taught them. Most cooked meth at a residence,

although some also made it in open fields in

rural areas. Meth cookers indicated that it has

become more difficult to obtain some of the

chemicals needed to make meth. The most

common ingredients are ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, red phosphorus, hydrochloric acid, iodine,

FreonTM, and tablets purchased commercially.

Other chemicals mentioned were ether, lye,

hydriodic acid, chloroform, DranoTM, lighter

fluid, ColemanTM fuel, rock salt, dry ice, and

propane. In its purest form, meth is odorless and

colorless. The cookers get their chemicals from

other individuals, retail stores, and mail order

catalogs. Most cookers used the flash method of

cooking or pressure cookers. A new method is

“dry cooking,” which is particularly disturbing

because it does not result in the suspicious odor

that emanates from traditional cooking methods.

Meth cookers who were interviewed showed

little regard for the environment; most take little

care when disposing of the residue from meth

cooking and tend to pour it down the drain or

dump it in the dirt.

Strategies to Address Manufacturing and

Use of Methamphetamine

In those cities, such as San Diego, with a long

history or recent surge of meth use, efforts have

been made to curb the rise in manufacturing,

trafficking, and using meth. Some of the strategies include:

● Enacting ordinances to regulate the sale of

precursor chemicals.

● Educating and informing the public about the

dangers and consequences of meth use.

● Training professionals in various disciplines

(e.g., social workers and educators) to identify

meth users and clandestine laboratories.

● Compiling indicators of meth use from a

variety of sources so that resources can be

targeted appropriately to prevention,

enforcement, and treatment efforts.

● Expanding treatment capacity.

● Supporting legislation that increases penalties

for meth manufacturing and trafficking.

Although this study includes only arrestees in

five western cities who reported using meth,

other indicators suggest that meth use is

increasing well beyond the offender community.

Its uniqueness lies in these facts: It can be made

in the United States, the effects of meth on

human brain chemistry are profound, and the

chemicals used to make it are highly volatile.
xiv Meth Matters: Report on Methamphetamine Users in Five Western Cities

The Federal Government has acknowledged the

spread of meth in other areas of the country and

responded by appropriating funds to address

meth use before it becomes a national epidemic.

The findings presented in this study suggest

that the production and use patterns of meth

are different from those of other illegal drugs.

These differences have policy implications for

prevention, intervention, and control strategies.

A few of these are highlighted.

● The public must be informed about the effects

and consequences of meth production and

use. The national campaign against drugs

must incorporate information about meth.

● Law enforcement agencies need resources

and training to identify and contain meth labs.

The dynamics of the meth market warrant

different enforcement tactics from those used

against open-air drug markets.

● Individuals addicted to meth may need to be

engaged in treatment in a different manner

from that used for other drug users to

encourage retention.
1

Introduction

Methamphetamine has “exploded” from “a West

Coast biker drug” into America’s heartland and

could replace cocaine as the Nation’s primary

drug threat.

Barry R. McCaffrey

San Diego Union-Tribune

February 12, 1998

Certain aspects of the manufacturing, trafficking, and using of the illegal drug methamphetamine (meth) have consequences and ramifications that are quite different from those of other

illegal drugs. These differences have implications for targeting law enforcement and for

developing effective drug treatment strategies.

Meth is homegrown in the U.S. and easy to

make, and most of the chemicals in its recipe

can be obtained with little difficulty. The consequences of manufacturing meth are far reaching:

The volatile chemicals can explode when the ingredients are cooking. The invisible vapors that

emanate from cooking meth create health problems for people living in the area. The waste and

residue from cooking meth are harmful to the

environment. Locations in which meth cookers

have operated must be stripped and fumigated

before future habitation occurs. Finally chronic

meth users lose control over their meth use as

the drug twists their brain chemistry and the

nerve endings die due to lack of oxygen, creating sensations like bugs crawling under the skin.

The consequences of meth use present challenges for policymakers, educators, law enforcement, and treatment providers. This report

increases our knowledge about a specific population of meth users: arrestees. The discussion

includes a review of the current literature about

methamphetamine. Findings from a study sponsored by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ)

are then presented. The Criminal Justice Research Division of the San Diego Association of

Governments (SANDAG) conducted this research with the assistance of administrators from

other cities that are part of the Arrestee Drug

Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program.

In 1996 indicators began emerging of increased

methamphetamine manufacturing and trafficking

in various locations throughout the country. On

the west coast, this increase was actually a resurgence from the late 1980s and early 1990s. Law

enforcement experience suggested that the meth

market, historically initiated by white motorcycle groups, was shifting—with more interest

by Mexican nationals and drug traffickers familiar with the dynamics of drug markets. As a

result of this shift, meth was appearing in laboratory seizure data and drug treatment admission

indicators east of the Rocky mountains (Center

for Substance Abuse Research, 1997; National

Institute of Justice, 1998).

Also in 1996 SANDAG received funding support from NIJ to conduct a methamphetamine

addendum to NIJ’s ADAM program. The purposes of the meth study were to explore patterns

of meth use and dynamics of the meth market.

The project used data from the ADAM program

(formerly the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF)

program) in which recently booked arrestees in

detention facilities across the country participate

in interviews about their drug use and voluntarily

provide a urine sample for analysis. Other data

collected include sociodemographic information,

employment status, educational level, living situation, prior criminal history, and drug treatment

experiences. The ADAM program provides an opportunity to monitor the drug use of a high-risk

population over time. It also identifies potential
2 Meth Matters: Report on Methamphetamine Users in Five Western Cities

drug epidemics that have not yet reached the general population. In addition, the ADAM program

allows for a research platform in which the arrestee population data can be used to address

other issues of public policy.

San Diego has been an ADAM site since 1987

and has initiated and participated in several study

addenda (Pennell, 1990; Decker, Pennell, and

Caldwell, 1997). The meth addendum was patterned after another study that examined heroin

and cocaine markets in six cities. BOTEC Analysis, Inc., developed the interview and conducted

the research in which the San Diego site participated (Riley, 1997).

Prior to a discussion of findings, the following

section describes the history of methamphetamine use, various indicators of use, and the

physiological and environmental consequences

of chronic meth use.
3

History of Methamphetamine

Methamphetamine, a derivative of amphetamine,

was first developed in 1919 by a pharmacologist

in Japan. By the early 1930s, methamphetamine

began to be used therapeutically when it was

found to be useful in treating asthma and an

epileptic seizure disorder called narcolepsy (a

disorder in which the patient repeatedly lapses

into sleep) (Julien, 1985). More recently, the

drug and its derivatives have also been used as

appetite suppressants and in treating certain

attention deficit disorders in children.

In the United States, the original manufacturers,

or “cookers,” of the drug illicitly were members

of motorcycle gangs and other individuals who

made it for themselves and their friends. In recent years, manufacturing by the Mexican drug

cartels has supplemented domestic production

(Smith, n.d.). To illustrate, 795 kilograms of

methamphetamine were seized along the Southwest border in 1996; only 6.5 grams had been

seized 4 years earlier in 1992 (National Narcotics Intelligence Consumers Committee, 1997).

Because ephedrine (a key ingredient in the

manufacturing process) is not regulated in

Mexico and these groups are already familiar

with the trade of other illicit drugs, the addition

of methamphetamine to their operations was

relatively easy. These conditions possibly contributed to more widespread use by individuals

outside the western regions of the United States

(Lucas, 1997).

As early as 1983, illicit methamphetamine production in California was noted as a significant

problem that warranted considerable attention

from law enforcement agencies (Bureau of

Narcotic Enforcement, 1996). Since that time

various strategies have been implemented to

control the use of this substance, including targeting clandestine laboratories and enacting legislation to make the production more difficult.

The Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control

Act of 1996 cracked down on the mail order

industry and chemical supply companies and increased the penalties for such crimes as possession, trafficking, and manufacturing of precursor

chemicals and paraphernalia. In addition, the act

permitted the government to seek a civil penalty

of up to $250,000 for the sale of laboratory supplies to a person who uses them to manufacture

a controlled substance when the sale is in “reckless disregard” of potential illicit use. At the local level, a number of counties and cities in California have considered measures to ban large

purchases of over-the-counter cold medicines

that contain pseudoephedrine, a potential precursor chemical for meth production (Winton and

Riccardi, 1998).

What Is Methamphetamine?

Amphetamine is a sympathomimetic drug that

alleviates fatigue and produces feelings of mental alertness and well-being. Chemically similar

to adrenaline, a hormone produced by the adrenal gland, sympathomimetic drugs stimulate the

sympathetic nervous system (part of the autonomic nervous system that is responsible for

controlling bodily functions that are not consciously directed) and the central nervous

system (the brain and spinal cord). Methamphetamine, is the most widely abused amphetamine

and, along with other amphetamines, has been

categorized as a Schedule II stimulant since

1971 because of its high potential for abuse

(Feucht and Kyle, 1996). Street names for meth

include “boo,” “chicken feed,” “geep,” “spoosh,”

“load of laundry,” “tick tick,” “scootie,” “jet

fuel,” “wake me up,” “lemon drop,” “trash,” and

Nature, Uses, and Effects of Methamphetamine
4 Meth Matters: Report on Methamphetamine Users in Five Western Cities

“schmiz,” according to interviews with meth

users.

Three types of methamphetamine, a synthetic

drug, are currently produced. These types vary

in strength, how they are produced, and severity

of adverse effects associated with their use.

Dextro-meth, or d-meth, is the most commonly

abused type, largely because it is more pure than

the other types, it does not have to be injected,

and it produces no unwanted side effects such as

shakes, stomach cramps, and tremors. Levometh, or l-meth, is the least abused of the three.

This form of meth, which is typically found in

cold medicines, has a greater effect on the cardiovascular, or circulatory, system (the heart and

the network of blood vessels) than on the central

nervous system. This means that negative side

effects precede any pleasurable effects the user

may be seeking. Dextro-levo meth, or dl-meth,

is produced by the phenyl-2-propanone (P2P)

method. This type of meth is less attractive to

producers because the manufacturing process is

more difficult, and it is less attractive to users

because of its lower potency and greater number

of severe negative side effects.

Methamphetamine Production

Labs that produce methamphetamine are located

in both the United States and Mexico. Typically,

Mexican labs are larger and more secure than

their U.S. counterparts and produce greater

quantities of the drug. Clandestine labs in the

United States are often set up in residences,

motels, trailers, public storage lockers, and vans

(Johnson, 1997). In 1996, 52 percent of the labs

seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration

(DEA) were in urban or suburban sites, and 38

percent were in rural areas. In addition, it is

fairly common for these labs to produce meth

on an irregular basis and to move periodically

from one location to another to avoid detection

(National Narcotics Intelligence Consumers

Committee, 1997).

California continues to lead the Nation in the

number of labs seized, with 1,234 targeted in

1997. During the same year, DEA seized 1,273

methamphetamine labs nationwide, up from 879

in 1996. In addition, a significantly greater number of labs also were seized in the Midwestern

States of Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma (California Border Alliance Group, 1998).

As a result of these investigations, officials have

noted disturbing trends, including an increase in

the size and production capabilities of labs, and

lab operators who are more willing to act violently. For instance, a number of recently discovered labs were equipped with scanning devices

and booby-trapped (National Narcotics Intelligence Consumers Committee, 1997).

Methamphetamine can be produced in a variety

of ways, using several types of chemicals. Since

the beginning of the 1990s, the use of P2P to

produce methamphetamine has increasingly

been replaced by the ephedrine reduction

method. Of the 32 chemicals that can be used to

make methamphetamine, one-third are extremely hazardous and almost all are easily obtained through commercial sources or by clandestine production (McCrea and Kolbye, 1995).

The purity of the drug varies from 20 to 90 percent across west coast cities, and prices range

from $50 to $80 per gram (Office of National

Drug Control Policy, 1997).

Ephedrine, which is either derived from the ephedra plant or made synthetically, was first used by

the Chinese approximately 5,000 years ago.

Ephedrine is the most important ingredient in the

ephedrine-reduction method because it is just one

step away from the final product. Specifically,

ephedrine is chemically identical to meth except

that it has one additional atom of oxygen, which

can be removed by combining it with hydriodic

acid. In the United States, ephedrine is currently

controlled by Federal regulations, and individuals

must register to sell it, maintain records of all

sales, and report “suspicious” purchases (Smith,

n.d.). However, international regulations do not

exist, and a number of Mexican organizations

may establish front businesses (e.g., auto body

and paint shops and swimming pool service
Nature, Uses, and Effects of Methamphetamine 5

companies) that require the use of large quantities

of precursor chemicals and may then import them

from such countries as China (Office of National

Drug Control Policy, 1997). In addition, demonstrating their resourcefulness in obtaining precursor chemicals, other labs have resorted to using

pseudoephedrine, which is used in over-thecounter cold medicines, as a substitute.

In the first phase of methamphetamine production, ephedrine is combined with red phosphorous and hydriodic acid. Red phosphorous,

which is considered one of the most dangerous

chemicals used in meth production, can be obtained from computer chips, flares, match sticks,

and fireworks. It burns or turns into phosphine

gas, a World War I nerve agent (Smith, n.d.).

During the second stage of production, sodium

hydroxide is added to convert the acidic mixture

to a basic one, and FreonTM is used to extract the

d-meth from it. The sodium hydroxide creates

most of the waste material left at a production

site. Finally, when treated with hydrogen chloride gas, the liquid d-meth converts into a white

crystalline powder (McCrea and Kolbye, 1995).

Another method of production that has become

more common (104 of the labs seized in 1996

used this method, up from 5 labs in 1995) is

called the “Nazi method,” or “dry cook.”

This technique, which uses ephedrine or

pseudoephredine, sodium or lithium, and anhydrous ammonia, is growing in popularity because it is quick and inexpensive, requires little

setup time or equipment, and produces a high

yield of the drug (National Narcotics Intelligence Consumers Committee, 1997).

Methamphetamine Use

Methamphetamine can be smoked, snorted,

orally ingested, or injected. Other forms of

methamphetamine include a “meth speedball”

(a combination of methamphetamine and

heroin), “hot rolling” (liquefying methamphetamine in an eye dropper and inhaling the

vapors), and “ice” (a crystallized form of methamphetamine that is high in purity).

Consumption preferences seem to vary by region

of the country. For example, in Los Angeles,

Minneapolis/St. Paul, Phoenix, and some parts

of the East and Midwest, snorting is the preferred route of administration. In San Diego the

primary route of administration has recently

shifted from snorting to smoking. Smoking is

the overwhelming choice in Hawaii and injecting is the most common route in Denver, San

Francisco, Seattle, and the State of Texas

(National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1998a).

Indicators of Methamphetamine Use

Nationally, a variety of measures are used to

determine how drug use changes over time for

different populations. In general, these statistics

show that methamphetamine is most common

in Western and Southwestern States and that the

apparent decline in use noted a few years ago

has most recently been followed by a return to

previously higher levels. Following are descriptions of these various measures and the most

recent figures on use.

● The National Household Survey on Drug

Abuse (NHSDA) samples the civilian,

noninstitutionalized population of the United

States age 12 and older and is primarily used

to monitor drug abuse trends in the general

population. The NHSDA estimates that in

1997 the number of people who had tried

methamphetamine in their lifetime was 5.3

million, or 2.5 percent of the population, a

significant increase from 1994 when 1.8 million people were estimated to have tried the

drug (Substance Abuse and Mental Health

Services Administration, 1998a).

● The Monitoring the Future Program,

administered by the University of Michigan,

annually asks students in the 8th, 10th, and

12th grades about their history of substance

use. The most recent statistics (1997) show

that 4.4 percent of teens have tried methamphetamine in their lifetime, a significant increase from 3.3 percent in 1991 (Institute for

Social Research, 1998).
6 Meth Matters: Report on Methamphetamine Users in Five Western Cities

● The Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) is

collected by the Substance Abuse and Mental

Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)

and includes drug use profiles of clients who

enter treatment facilities that receive public

funding. According to TEDS, an increasing

number of individuals are seeking drug treatment for meth use. For example, in San Diego

clients admitted for primary stimulant abuse

are the largest group in treatment (37 percent),

and in other areas they nearly equal primary

marijuana admissions (Hawaii) and heroin

admissions (Arizona) (National Institute on

Drug Abuse, 1998a).

● The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring

(ADAM) program, funded by NIJ, collects

drug urinalysis and self-reported drug use

information from adult and juvenile arrestees.

Between 1994 and 1996, the rates of methamphetamine use in a number of cities that had

previously reported increases had decreased.

However, in 1997 these numbers had almost

returned to their 1994 high for each city, with

the exception of Los Angeles (National Institute of Justice, 1998).

● The Drug Abuse Warning Network

(DAWN) collects information on drug-related

episodes from hospital emergency departments in 21 metropolitan areas. DAWN

data show that the 261-percent increase in

methamphetamine-related episodes nationally

between 1991 and 1994 (from 4,900 to

17,700) was followed by a 39-percent decrease between 1994 and 1996. However,

there was an increase of 70 percent between

the first and second half of 1996 (from 4,000

to 6,800) (Substance Abuse and Mental

Health Services Administration, 1998b).

At the 44th meeting of the Community Epidemiology Work Group (CEWG) in June 1998, 21

representatives from around the country presented

the most recent information available regarding

drug trends and patterns in their communities.

While approximately half of these areas had not

noticed widespread or increased use of methamphetamine (Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago,

Miami, Newark, New Orleans, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C.), the other half had.

The following information, compiled from the

proceedings of this and the previous meetings

(National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1998a; Community Epidemiology Work Group, 1998) and the

most recently available ADAM data (National Institute of Justice, 1998), indicates how meth use

varies across the country in these sites:

● Dallas, Texas: DEA agents seized seventyseven labs in Dallas in 1996. In 1997, 3 percent of both male and female arrestees tested

positive for methamphetamine and 6 and 7 percent, respectively, had previously injected it.

● Denver, Colorado: Between 1991 and 1997,

methamphetamine use steadily increased in

Denver, with a number of individuals using the

drug concurrently or sequentially with crack.

In 1996 there were 106 emergency room mentions of methamphetamine, up from 31 in 1992

and down from 193 in 1995. Additionally, the

proportion of methamphetamine treatment

admissions more than quadrupled, with 1,651

methamphetamine abusers entering treatment

in 1997. Although injection remains the most

common route of administration, an increasing

number of users are reporting a preference for

smoking the drug. Overall, females accounted

for 48 percent of primary methamphetamine

admissions in 1997, but constituted 82 percent

of those 18 and younger using meth. As a result of recent regulations, red phosphorus has

become more difficult to acquire, which has

led to an increase in home-based production of

a less potent form of the drug, “bathtub crank,”

that cannot be injected. In 1996, 88 methamphetamine labs were seized in Denver where

meth sold at $25 per one-quarter gram. Five

percent of both male and female arrestees

tested positive for methamphetamine in 1997.

● Honolulu, Hawaii: Crystal methamphetamine

remains the drug of choice in the island chain.

In 1997 methamphetamine treatment admissions increased 48 percent over 1996 and the

number of methamphetamine cases reported

by police departments also increased.
Nature, Uses, and Effects of Methamphetamine 7

● Los Angeles, California: In 1996 there were

15 emergency department methamphetamine

mentions and 52 labs were seized by DEA

agents in Los Angeles. In 1997, 45 percent of

methamphetamine admissions were female.

Also in 1997, 5 percent of male and 9 percent

of female arrestees tested positive for methamphetamine; 2 and 6 percent of each group,

respectively, reported injecting the drug at

least once.

● Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota: Treatment

admissions in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area

more than doubled from 1996 numbers to 586

in 1997. Most of the treatment clients were

white and reported sniffing as the primary

route of administration. According to local

law enforcement, availability and trafficking

increased and emergency room mentions

increased by 13 percent from 1995 to 1996.

It appeared that Mexican nationals were the

primary source of the drug, with local

production also taking place in rural areas

(19 clandestine labs were dismantled by law

enforcement agents in Minnesota between

January and October 1997). Also, a growing

number of teenage girls are using the drug to

suppress appetite and control weight. Methamphetamine sold for $100 per gram.

● Phoenix, Arizona: Although 1996 indicators

suggested that methamphetamine use in Phoenix was declining or stabilizing, the most recent information suggests otherwise. For example, the number of emergency department

methamphetamine mentions was the second

highest in the Nation (35) and 83 labs were

seized by DEA agents in 1996. ADAM data

for 1997 show that 16 percent of males, 26

percent of females, and 7 percent of juveniles

tested positive for methamphetamine.

● St. Louis, Missouri: Since 1995 various

indicators have shown that methamphetamine

use is increasing in St. Louis. For example, in

1996 treatment admissions for methamphetamine outnumbered heroin admissions, and

the midwestern field division of DEA has

been overwhelmed with clandestine methamphetamine labs; 292 labs were seized in 1996.

Hispanic traffickers are the predominant distributors in this new methamphetamine scene.

Women are heavily involved as producers and

distributors, and use has become more widespread among high school and college students who do not consider it as dangerous as

crack or cocaine. Methamphetamine sold for

$37 to $100 per gram. Less than 1 percent

of male arrestees and 2 percent of female

arrestees tested positive for meth in 1997.

● San Diego, California: Following 1995 and

1996 decreases, methamphetamine treatment

admissions rose in 1997 to 3,855 and accounted for 37 percent of all admissions in

San Diego. Forty-two percent of these individuals reported smoking the drug, 39 percent

reported snorting it, and 18 percent said they

inject it. Sixty-two overdose deaths were associated with methamphetamine in 1997, the

highest ever reported in San Diego. Additionally, there were 26 emergency department

methamphetamine mentions in 1997 and 53

labs were seized by DEA agents in 1996.

Methamphetamine sold for $50 to $80 per

gram, and its purity in 1997 ranged from 20

to 40 percent. Forty percent of male arrestees

and 42 percent of female arrestees tested positive for meth in 1997.

● San Francisco, California: Use of methamphetamine in the bay area is increasing, especially among young heterosexual whites. For

example, 76 percent of the primary methamphetamine treatment admissions in 1997 were

male. Injecting was the preferred route of use

for more than half of these individuals. At 66,

emergency department mentions were highest

in San Francisco in 1997. Eighty-seven labs

were seized by DEA agents in 1996. Methamphetamine sold for $60 to $100 per gram.

● Seattle, Washington: There were 10 emergency department methamphetamine mentions in Seattle in 1996. Prices per gram of

methamphetamine varied from $80 to $120,

and purity ranged from 35 to 90 percent.
8 Meth Matters: Report on Methamphetamine Users in Five Western Cities

Consequences of Methamphetamine

Production and Use

Effects on the User

Methamphetamine is cheaper than cocaine, and

because it is resistant to metabolism, the high

lasts longer, making it popular among drug

users. The effects of methamphetamine depend

on who is using it, the route of administration,

which chemicals are used, how much is used,

and the settings in which it is consumed. Smoking or injecting methamphetamine generally

results in a intense rush that lasts a few minutes,

while snorting or oral ingestion produces a

euphoric high within 5 minutes (for snorting)

or 20 minutes (for ingesting) that is less extreme

but longer lasting. As with cocaine, both the rush

and the high are believed to result from the release of very high levels of the neurotransmitter

dopamine into areas of the brain that regulate

feelings of pleasure.

Methamphetamine is not metabolized to the

same extent as cocaine, and a larger percentage

of the drug remains unchanged in the user’s

body. Specifically, methamphetamine use can

result in an 8- to 24-hour high, and 50 percent

remains in the user’s body 12 hours after consumption. In contrast, cocaine creates a 20- to

30-minute high, and 50 percent of the substance

is removed from the body after 1 hour (National

Institute on Drug Abuse, n.d.). Because tolerance develops quickly, users are likely to indulge

in a “binge-and-crash” pattern in an attempt to

maintain the original high, despite the fact that

high concentrations of the drug remain in the

body (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1998b).

The period of time between when a user binges

and comes down is often called “tweaking.”

Chronic users are typically identifiable as appearing gaunt and having poor hygiene and rotten teeth (Potter, 1996).

In general, the drug has many effects. Users

may initially take meth in search of feelings of

euphoria, increased energy and self-confidence,

and decreased appetite. However, other effects

may include paranoia, depression, pupil dilation,

tremors, memory loss, insomnia, irritability, a

heightened sense of smell, increased sex drive,

chest pain, hypothermia, hypertension, convulsions, and heart spasms. Additionally, injection

of the drug is associated with increased risk of

transmitting hepatitis B and C and HIV. The

chemicals used in manufacturing methamphetamine have side effects as well, which include

chemical pneumonia, sore throat, throat cancer,

fainting, and nausea. Because lead acetate is

sometimes used as a reagent in the production

process, meth can become contaminated, and

lead poisoning may also be a risk (National

Institute on Drug Abuse, 1998b).

Long-term and heavy use of meth is often associated with addiction and tendencies toward violence. Abusers often experience delusions, anxiety, confusion, extreme paranoia, drastic mood

swings, weight loss, homicidal and suicidal

thoughts, and visual and auditory hallucinations.

Heavy users have been described as closely resembling paranoid schizophrenics and may frequently carry weapons. Additionally, although

users develop tolerance to these behaviors, sensitization (a reaction to multiple exposures that

lead to the development of new effects, such as

seizures) after one dosage, may also occur. Prolonged use may lead to brain damage or death.

Animal studies have shown that a single high dose

of the drug can cause nerve damage and that prolonged exposure to low levels can cause damage to

50 percent of the dopamine-producing cells in the

brain (National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1998b).

In addition, under conditions of unlimited access,

animals self-administer methamphetamine until

its toxic effects cause death (Lucas, 1997). In a

NIDA-supported study, positron emission tomography (PET) scans of a monkey’s brain following a

10-day regimen of amphetamine use showed diminished dopamine production that did not begin

to return to normal levels until 1 year later; full

recovery took almost 2 years (Office of National

Drug Control Policy, 1997).
Nature, Uses, and Effects of Methamphetamine 9

Although no physical manifestations of withdrawal are associated with methamphetamine

(National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1998b), users

may experience an intense need for the drug,

depression, a decline in energy (anergia), and the

inability to feel pleasure or interest in life (anhedonia) when they stop using it. In addition to

sleeping for long periods of time, the drastic

drop in mood can also make the potential for

suicide a serious concern. “Ice” users may also

have an increased heart rate, blood pressure, and

temperature; may be nervous, nauseated, anxious, depressed, and irritable; and may experience hot flashes and mental confusion.

Effects on Infants and Children

Children constitute a growing percentage of the

innocent victims of methamphetamine production and use. They are at risk when they are

exposed to the drug before birth, they are at an

increased risk of child abuse and neglect when

their parent or caregiver uses the drug, and they

are faced with the potential for physical injury

when they live in a residence where the drug is

produced.

In Iowa, for example, experts estimate that 4,000

newborns a year, or 10 percent of all newborns,

are affected by drugs and that for 90 percent of

these, the drug is methamphetamine (Lucas,

1997). Methamphetamine use during pregnancy

can adversely affect the fetus through reduced

blood flow or direct toxic effects on the developing brain. Specifically, methamphetamine, like

cocaine, can rapidly cross the placenta and can

result in premature birth, growth retardation, and

altered neonatal behavioral patterns, such as abnormal reflexes and extreme irritability. Infants

born addicted to the drug may experience physical trembling, have trouble making eye contact,

have problems feeding, or become ill from

their mother’s breast milk. Infants exposed to

the drug prenatally are very similar to infants

exposed to cocaine, with a few important differences. These include a tendency to sleep very

deeply for long periods of time and an aversion

to being touched on the hands or feet. Additionally, because the effects of meth are longer lasting on users, they probably are more long lasting

on the infants as well. One Swedish study, which

followed children exposed prenatally to amphetamines for 16 years, found that, although they

scored in the normal range on IQ tests, by the

age of 7 or 8, they exhibited higher levels of aggressive behavior, had greater difficulty adjusting to different environments, and had higher

rates of school failure than other children

(Lucas, 1997).

The dangers of a parent’s use also are not limited to prenatal exposure. In Riverside County,

California, for example, a 40-year-old mother

killed her children, ages 1, 2, and 3, when she

was using her kitchen stove to cook meth, and

an explosion ensued. Convicted of second degree murder, this case sparked State legislation

that increased penalties for the presence of children at meth labs. Specifically, the Fourth District Court of Appeals ruled that manufacturing

methamphetamine is an inherently dangerous

felony for the purpose of the second degree

felony-murder rule that states that any homicide

directly caused by the commission of a felony

constitutes at least second-degree murder

(Manning and Vedder, 1998).

In California, as part of a State-funded project,

children discovered in locations in which meth

was manufactured are removed from the residence and tested for meth toxicity.

Effects on the Community

Because the chemicals used to make methamphetamine are highly toxic, the presence of clandestine laboratories in a community introduces

the risk of toxic gases, fires, and explosions. In

rural areas, buried meth waste can contaminate

water supplies. In urban areas, meth fumes can

travel through central air conditioning units to

unsuspecting victims. During raids of clandestine labs, law enforcement officers may be

putting themselves at risk of cancer and other

chronic conditions that are directly traceable to
10 Meth Matters: Report on Methamphetamine Users in Five Western Cities

the chemicals with which they have come into

contact (Green, 1996).

A number of highly volatile chemicals are used

during production that pose a potential risk for

anyone in the immediate vicinity. In addition, a

lack of proper ventilation and temperature control at many locations adds to the potential for

fire and explosion. Phosphine gas, which is

generated when ephedrine, hydriodic acid, and

red phosphorus are cooked dry, is a highly unstable and poisonous gas that is distinctive because of its garlic-like odor. Full-strength hydriodic acid will eat through most commercial

containers (Lungren, n.d.). Red phosphorous, in

addition to emitting toxic fumes, is highly flammable and will autoignite when combined with

water or air and a nearby flame. In fact, various

State authorities indicate that as many as onethird of all meth labs catch fire before being discovered (Smith, n.d.).

After a meth lab site has been abandoned, the

risk of a chemical fire or explosion remains. For

instance, vapors from hydriodic acid that has

been allowed to boil out of a reaction vessel can

remain in sink traps, open containers, and other

equipment. When this vapor meets a spark or

flame, a chemical fire results. Similarly, friction

alone can ignite red phosphorous, making the

dismantling of equipment a dangerous process.

Chemical fires have been caused by red phosphorous that had been buried for as long as 10

years (McCrea and Kolbye, 1995).

Finally, waste left at a lab scene or buried also

poses a risk to the environment. According to the

Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (Lucas,

1997), for every pound of finished product, five

to six pounds of chemical waste are left at an illicit lab site. The bulk of this waste is composed

of sodium hydroxide solution, which is often

discarded in Freon cans. The cost to clean up

these chemical toxins can easily run into thousands of dollars per site (Office of National Drug

Control Policy, 1997).

Treatment for Methamphetamine Abuse

The California Department of Alcohol and Drug

Programs in collaboration with the California

Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment, or

CALDATA, embarked on an ambitious effort to

determine the epidemiology of substance abuse

and the outcomes of substance abuse treatment.

A 1994 report revealed that individuals addicted

to stimulants were more likely to receive outpatient treatment and that outpatient treatment was

associated with a lower participant dropout rate

than other treatment models. Additionally, the

average outpatient treatment length was 150 days,

with 24 percent remaining in treatment for less

than 1 month, 33 percent for 2 to 3 months, and

44 percent for more than 3 months (Gernstein et

al., 1994).

Despite the prevalence of methamphetamine

abusers in Western States for a number of years,

there have been few evaluations of what treatment strategies are most successful for this type

of abuse. Rather it appears that until recently,

many providers applied their experiences and

treatment models for working with cocaine

abusers to this population (Huber et al., 1997).

A recent comparison between cocaine and methamphetamine abusers who participated between

1988 and 1995 in the MATRIX drug treatment

program operating in the Los Angeles area,

suggests that this approach may not be totally

inappropriate (Huber et al., 1997). Although the

authors of this study found that the two populations had significantly different profiles (e.g.,

methamphetamine users were more likely to be

female, Caucasian, single, and unemployed; to

be more consistent users; and to have received

no previous treatment), the two groups did not

differ significantly in the number of treatment

hours received, the number of breaks in treatment, the number of weeks in treatment, the

number of urine samples given, or the percentage of samples testing positive for the primary

drug. Similarly, CALDATA showed that treatment for problems with the major stimulant
Nature, Uses, and Effects of Methamphetamine 11

drugs, including methamphetamine, was found

to be just as effective as treatment for alcohol

problems and somewhat more effective than

treatment for heroin problems (Gernstein et al.,

1994).

In the fall of 1998, SAMHSA announced a $31

million study to test the MATRIX treatment

model. The study will compare 16- and

8-week programs in 7 sites to determine if the

MATRIX program can be replicated with

diverse treatment populations of methamphetamine users (Knopf, 1999).
13

Methamphetamine Addendum

The meth supplementary interview followed the

ADAM (then DUF) protocol and contained 60

questions asked of arrestees who reported using

meth in the previous 30 days. Interviews took

place over four quarters, beginning in October

1996 and concluding in September 1997. (Meth

interviews are still being conducted in San Diego due to the continued high usage rates and

interest by policymakers.) Four additional

ADAM sites participated in the meth interview

based on what appeared to be increasing meth

use in their cities: Los Angeles, California,

Phoenix, Arizona, Portland, Oregon, and San

Jose, California. Interviews were conducted with

adults and juveniles. The meth addendum information was merged with the ADAM interview

data for a complete profile of the arrestees. The

following topic areas were covered in the interview questions:

● Arrestee profile

— Gender

— Age

— Ethnicity

— Arrest charges

— Education level

— Employment sources of income (legal

and illegal)

— Living arrangements

— Prior criminal history (arrests, convictions, and time served)

● Drug use patterns

— Urinalysis results

— Initiation of use

— Motivation for use

— Preference of meth over cocaine or

crack

— Route of administration

— Daily use

— Duration of use

— Cessation of use

— Consequences of use

— Quantity used

— Treatment experience

● Drug market dynamics

— Location of purchase

— Dealer access and profile

— Mode of contact

— Frequency of purchase

— Availability of meth

— Quality of meth

— Price fluctuation

— Weapon possession and meth use

— Drug-related activities

● Drug dealing and cooking

— Length of time selling meth

— Motivation for dealing

— Profit from meth

— Number of individuals sold to

— Locations sold in

— Kinds of precautions taken

Study Findings
14 Meth Matters: Report on Methamphetamine Users in Five Western Cities

— Meth cooking

— How learned to cook

— Type of location

— Access to chemicals

— Types of chemicals

— Cooking methods

— Handling of waste materials

The questions began with meth use. If users admitted also to dealing and/or making meth, they

moved to a second and third set of questions. If

they did not report selling or cooking meth, the

interview was terminated.

Study Methods

In the previous chapter, drug use indicators were

summarized for a number of geographical locations. Each data set has limitations with respect

to target population, time period, and the behavior or event measured (e.g., emergency room

mentions, arrests, seizures, self-reported use,

price, and purity). However, taken together, the

indicators suggest that meth production, distribution, and use are occurring in a number of

locations. The data also point out that drug use

and manufacturing require local responses tailored to address the specific nature and scope of

drug manufacturing and use in communities.

The data set used in this research has limitations.

First, the study took place in locales in which

methamphetamine use has been prevalent for

some time. Second, the individuals who participated in the study were arrestees booked into

local detention facilities. These factors suggest

that the characteristics of these drug users may

differ from other drug users, thus restricting the

generalizability of the findings. Nonetheless, as

meth indicators emerge in other areas, the results

presented in this study may be of interest to law

enforcement and drug treatment providers when

they develop strategies to address methamphetamine in their communities.

The primary purpose of this research was to examine the characteristics of meth users and their

patterns of drug use and drug market participation. The data collected from interviews permit

several levels of comparative analyses. The total

population of meth users in the five sites is compared, when appropriate, with another study of

cocaine and heroin users in six cities. That research, supported by the National Institute of

Justice and the Office of National Drug Control

Policy, provided the foundation for the current study of

meth users by addressing

characteristics of users, patterns of use, and procurement

activities within the ADAM

population of arrestees (Riley,

1997). Two sites in the current meth study, Portland (Oregon) and San Diego, also

participated in the cocaine

and heroin procurement

study.

The primary analysis of meth

users is the across-site comparison, which highlights

similarities and differences.

The meth users also are

compared with ADAM

Five-City Meth Study

Percentage Positive for Meth, 1996–1997

Portland

18%

San Jose

21%

Los Angeles

7%

San Diego

40%

■ Phoenix 18%

 ■

 ■

 ■

 ■
Study Findings 15

arrestees in the five-site data set, suggesting diversity with regard to user characteristics as well

as drug use patterns.

The results of the adult interviews are presented

separately from the juvenile data set. Although

33 percent of all meth users were adult females,

the analyses combine males and females. Our

initial analysis of female meth users demonstrated that they were similar to females in the

larger ADAM data set in that their drug use was

proportionately higher than their male counterparts, as evidenced by urinalysis results. With

the exception of marijuana, ADAM female

arrestees generally had higher rates of positive

drug tests (National Institute of Justice, 1998).

Female meth users were also similar to other

female drug users in that they were more likely

than males to report drug dependency, less likely

than males to be arrested for a violent offense,

and more likely than males to report initial drug

use at later ages.

There were 929 completed interviews across

sites with arrestees who self-reported using meth

in the month prior to the interview. The number

of interviews represented 13 percent of the total

7,355 ADAM interviews in the 5 sites. The percentage of adult meth interviews of overall

ADAM interviews ranged from 3 percent in Los

Angeles (46) to 31 percent in San Diego (393)

(table 1). (The meth interview totals constitute

all completed interviews, regardless of whether a

urine sample was collected. Data from the

ADAM interview represent only those meth users who provided urine samples. This is the reason for different totals for certain variables.)

ADAM sites overall have high response rates to

requests for voluntary urine samples. This was

true for the five study sites as well for more than

90 percent of arrestees who agreed to provide

urine samples. There was no difference between

self-reported meth users and other ADAM

arrestees with regard to provision of the sample.

Table 2. Number of Arrestees Interviewed and Percentage Who Provided Urine Sample

ADAM Adult Arrestees and Meth Users, 1996–1997

ADAM Arrestees Meth Users

Provided Provided

Interviewed Urine Sample Interviewed Urine Sample

(%) (%)

Los Angeles 1,539 97 46 100

Phoenix 1,600 99 162 99

Portland 1,630 85 148 85

San Diego 1,287 88 393 89

San Jose 1,299 93 180 93

Total 7,355 92 929 91

Table 1. Number of Meth Interviews and Percentage of All ADAM Interviews, by Site

 ADAM Adult Meth Users, 1996–1997

Los San San

Angeles Phoenix Portland Diego Jose Total

Meth Interviews 46 162 148 393 180 929

ADAM Interviews 1,539 1,600 1,630 1,287 1,299 7,355

Percentage of

 ADAM Interviews 3 10 9 31 14 13
16 Meth Matters: Report on Methamphetamine Users in Five Western Cities

Very slight differences were noted across sites

but not within sites. That is, the proportion

agreeing to give urine samples was similar for

ADAM arrestees and meth users, but some sites

had slightly lower rates of volunteerism (for example, 85 percent in Portland versus 99 percent

in Phoenix) (table 2).

User Profiles

Age

More than 40 percent of all meth users were age

32 or older, with a mean age of 30.2. This finding is not remarkable given that the arrestee

population is aging along with the general adult

population. Los Angeles and San Jose had

slightly lower average ages of 28.8 and 29.1,

respectively. This is consistent with the proportion of Hispanic meth users in Los Angeles.

Census information suggests that the Hispanic

general population is younger than the median

age of the general population (age 26 compared

with age 35) (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1998).

A recent NIJ report on heroin, cocaine, and

crack suggests slightly older users of other types

of drugs. For example, Portland arrestees who

used both heroin and crack had median ages of

37.8. The same variable for San Diego users was

age 33.6 for heroin and crack users. As the author of that report suggests, age has practical

significance with respect to initiation rates

(Riley, 1997). (See figure 1 for age of meth users

by site.)

0

10

20

30

40

50

18–24 years

60

25–31 years 32+ years

Percent

Los Angeles Phoenix Portland San Diego San Jose

27 27

45

25

32

43

26 26

48

24

31 32

38

30

46

Figure 1. Age of Meth Users, by Site

ADAM Arrestees, 1996–1997
Study Findings 17

Ethnicity

Results from the ADAM data set presented in

annual NIJ reports suggest that some drugs are

more likely to be associated with specific ethnic

groups. This association varies somewhat by

region but not by arrest offense (drug versus

nondrug offense). The aforementioned heroin

and cocaine study showed the intersection of

drugs and race and indicated that drug use

among blacks is concentrated in crack, followed

by heroin. Drug use among whites and Hispanics is fairly evenly distributed across cocaine and

heroin (Riley, 1997). Methamphetamine users

best demonstrate the wide disparity across racial

groups with respect to drug preference. Overall,

25 percent of meth users were Hispanic. Differences were significant across sites. In four sites,

whites constituted the majority of meth

users, ranging from 54 percent in San Jose to 94

percent in Portland. In Los Angeles, however,

whites represented only 30 percent of meth users

and Hispanics reflected 57 percent. San Diego

had the highest percentage of black meth users

(11 percent). The range for blacks in the other

sites was from 1 percent in Phoenix to 6 percent

in San Jose. More than one-third (35 percent) of

the meth users in San Jose were Hispanic. Hispanics reflected only 2 percent of the meth users

in Portland and about 20 percent in Phoenix.

Other ethnic groups represented 4 percent of the

entire meth sample, from 1 percent in Phoenix to

11 percent in Los Angeles (figure 2).

0

20

40

60

80

100

White Black Hispanic Other

Percent

Los Angeles Phoenix Portland San Diego San Jose

30

2

57

11

78

1

20

1

94

58

11

26

5

54

6

35

6

2 2 2

* Significant at the .05 level.

Figure 2. Ethnicity of Meth Users, by Site*

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997
18 Meth Matters: Report on Methamphetamine Users in Five Western Cities

Living Arrangements

The majority of meth users (90 percent) stated

that they lived in a house or apartment. The percentage of those living in houses, overall, was

much higher than those in the cocaine and heroin

study because of the impact of apartment dwellers

in Manhattan and Chicago. The proportion living

in public housing was also lower among meth

users. These differences are more likely associated with geographic location than type of drug.

That is, the east coast, compared with the western

cities, has more apartment dwellers and higher

population density contributing to more public

housing units. Five percent or less of all meth

sites, excluding Portland, had meth users reporting living on the street or being homeless. In Portland, 10 percent of the users stated that they were

homeless. In the cocaine and heroin study, the figures for homelessness are much higher. The differences may be more associated with drug type

rather than location. For example, although 5 percent of the San Diego meth users reported living

on the street, 16 percent of the San Diego crack

users in Riley’s study said they were homeless, as

did 43 percent of the users of both crack and

heroin (Riley, 1997).

In this study meth users and other ADAM

arrestees were equally likely (6 percent) to report being homeless, and 87 percent of the

nonmeth users lived in a private residence.

Educational Achievement

With the exception of Los Angeles, more than

60 percent of the meth users at each site reported

having graduated from high school or had a high

school equivalent degree. Los Angeles was significantly lower at 35 percent.

Income

About three-quarters (74 percent) of all meth

users reported legal sources of income from

working either full or part time or from other

sources, such as family. Only 10 percent of meth

users (varying from 6 percent in Portland to 14

percent in San Diego) reported public assistance

as their primary source of income, compared

with 15 percent among other ADAM arrestees

(significant at the .05 level). Public subsidy

income was far more likely to be reported by

cocaine and heroin users in the study authored

by Riley (1997). For example, 20 percent or

more of heroin and crack users in Portland

reported receiving public assistance. Illegal income was reported by one in five (20 percent) of

all meth users, varying from 13 percent in San

Jose to 26 percent in Los Angeles and Portland

(significant at the .05 level). Meth users were almost four times more likely than other ADAM

arrestees to report drug dealing as income (11

percent versus 3 percent).

Money spent on drugs in an average month

ranged from a median of $100 in San Jose and

San Diego to $400 in Portland.

Arrest Charge

Forty percent of the meth arrestee sample was

booked for a drug or alcohol violation. Sites varied significantly, from 20 percent in Los Angeles

to 53 percent in San Diego. Violent offenses for

meth users constituted 16 percent of the meth

sample. This figure is higher than the 11.8 percent of heroin and cocaine users in the drug procurement study (Riley, 1997). Violent offense

arrests showed wide disparity across sites, from

8 percent in Portland to 35 percent in Los Angeles (significant at the .05 level). Although

violent behavior can be a consequence of meth

use, the ADAM arrest data do not support this

contention. When compared with other drug

offenders, meth users were not more likely to be

arrested for a violent offense. As tables 3 and 4

show, other nonmeth ADAM arrestees across

sites were significantly more likely to be arrested for violent offenses. In San Diego, the

differential was 14 percentage points (more

nonmeth arrestees charged with violent offenses)

(tables 3 and 4).

Nearly half of all meth users reported having

been arrested in the 12 months prior to the interview (45 percent). Of these, 4 of 10 reported
Study Findings 19

having been arrested 2 or more times in the previous year. Thirty-nine percent had served time

in the previous year.

Characteristics of Meth Arrestees and

Other ADAM Arrestees

Arrest Charge

The merging of the ADAM interview data with

the meth addendum provided the opportunity to

compare meth users with other arrestees on a

number of characteristics (table 5). As the site

comparison suggested, meth users were significantly less likely than other arrestees to be

charged with a violent offense (16 percent versus

28 percent). This is an important finding given

the anecdotal information surrounding meth use

and violent behavior, confirmed in part by the

medical literature that reports the effects of meth

on the brain chemistry and its possible association with paranoia. But the popular press has

sensationalized those cases in which a violent

act occurred while the suspect was under the

influence of meth (San Diego Union-Tribune,

1998). Meth users in this data set were almost

twice as likely as other arrestees to be charged

with drug violations, either possession or sales

(40 percent compared with 21 percent) (significant at the .05 level).

Table 3. Arrest Charge of Meth Users, by Site*

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997

Los Angeles Phoenix Portland San Diego San Jose Total

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Violent 35 11 8 15 26 16

Drug/Alcohol 20 22 36 53 39 40

Property 43 21 20 24 24 24

Other Charges 2 46 37 9 11 20

*Significant at the .05 level.

Table 4. Arrest Charge of Nonmeth Users, by Site*

ADAM Adult Arrestees, 1996–1997

Los Angeles Phoenix Portland San Diego San Jose Total

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Violent 41 18 15 29 38 28

Drug/Alcohol 16 16 28 35 16 21

Property 33 26 19 23 27 26

Other Charges 10 40 38 13 19 25

*Significant at the .05 level.

Table 5. Arrest Charge, by Meth Use*

ADAM Adult Arrestees, 1996–1997

Meth User Nonmeth User

n=849 n=5,921

(%) (%)

Violent 16 28

Drug/Alcohol 40 21

Property 24 26

Other Charges 20 25

*Significant at the .05 level.
20 Meth Matters: Report on Methamphetamine Users in Five Western Cities

Ethnicity

The drug procurement

study by Riley showed that

cocaine and crack users

were predominately black.

In contrast, meth arrestees

were significantly more

likely than other arrestees

to be white. Nearly twothirds (65 percent) of the

meth users were white compared with 36 percent of the

entire ADAM sample in the

five sites. Conversely, only

6 percent of the meth users

were black, whereas other

ADAM arrestees were almost five times more likely

to be black (28 percent).

Hispanic arrestees were

more proportional,

reflecting 25 percent of the

meth users and 30 percent

of the other ADAM

arrestees (significant at the

.05 level) (table 6).

Age

Nearly half of both the meth

users and the other ADAM

arrestees were age 32 or

older. The difference in mean age, although significant, is not as great as shown in the comparison with the cocaine and heroin users from the

procurement study. Meth users were an average

age of 30.2 and other arrestees had a mean age

of 31.6 (table 6).

Education

The majority of both groups of offenders

(60 percent or more) had graduated from high

school or had attained an equivalent degree

(table 6).

Criminal History

Meth users were significantly more likely to report having been arrested previously (45 percent

versus 37 percent) as well as having served time

or been incarcerated in the previous 12 months

(39 percent versus 28 percent) (table 6).

Serious Drug Use

More than two-thirds (67 percent) of the meth

users showed positive results for two or more

drugs compared with only 26 percent of the

other ADAM arrestees, suggesting that meth

users are more likely to use multiple drugs

(significant at the .05 level) (table 6).

Table 6. Comparison of Arrestee Characteristics, by Meth Use

ADAM Adult Arrestees, 1996–1997

Meth User Nonmeth User

Ethnicity*

White 65% 36%

Black 6% 28%

Hispanic 25% 30%

Other 4% 5%

Total 849 5,901

Age*

≤ 24 26% 27%

25–31 30% 26%

≥ 32 44% 47%

Mean Age 30.2 31.6

Total 847 5,920

High School Grad/GED

Yes 62% 60%

No 38% 40%

Total 848 5,916

Prior Arrests in the Past 12 Months*

Yes 45% 37%

No 55% 63%

Total 849 5,924

Time Served in the Past 12 Months*

Yes 39% 28%

No 61% 72%

Total 849 5,916

Positive for Two or More Drugs*

 67% 26%

*Significant at the .05 level.
Study Findings 21

Gun Possession

In the entire meth sample, 15 percent of the

arrestees admitted to possession of a gun in the

30 days prior to the interview. This is similar to

the finding in the firearm study that showed that

14 percent of the ADAM arrestees in 11 sites reported possessing guns (Decker et al., 1997). In

Los Angeles and Phoenix, the percentages were

higher (24 percent and 23 percent, respectively)

(significant at the .05 level). The lowest proportion of meth users reported having guns was in

Portland (10 percent). When asked if they had a

gun in the past month when procuring meth, the

percentages were far lower but showed parallel

results to the previous question in that arrestees

in Los Angeles and Phoenix were the sites more

likely to respond affirmatively (11 percent and

17 percent), compared with arrestees in the other

three sites, in which 4 percent or less said they

had carried a gun during a meth purchase (significant at the .05 level).

Drug Use Patterns

For the 12-month period in which the interviews

were conducted, urinalysis results indicate that

significantly more than half (65 percent) of all

the ADAM arrestees showed recent use of some

illegal drug, varying significantly from 52 percent in San Jose to 74 percent in Portland

(figure 3).

Figure 3. Annualized Drug Use, by Site*

ADAM Adult Arrestees, 1996–1997

0

10

20

30

50

40

60

70

80

Positive for Meth Positive for Any Drug

Percent

Los Angeles Phoenix Portland San Diego San Jose

7

65

18

63

18

74

40

73

21

52

* Significant at the .05 level.
22 Meth Matters: Report on Methamphetamine Users in Five Western Cities

Meth users had higher rates of overall use than

users in the total ADAM sample, varying from

80 percent of the meth arrestees in Phoenix to 95

percent of the meth users in San Diego. Overall

use is the percentage testing positive for any

illegal drug (table 7).

With respect to comparisons of meth positives

for the entire ADAM sample in the 5 sites, 4

in 10 (40 percent) of the San Diego arrestees

showed recent meth use based on an average of

the 4 study quarters. Los Angeles had the lowest

percentage of meth use at 7 percent. About one

in five arrestees in San Jose were meth positive

(21 percent), and the Phoenix and Portland sites

each had 18 percent of the arrestees reflecting

recent meth use. Differences were significant

across sites (figure 3).

For the 849 meth user interviews with urine results, 73 percent tested positive for meth, ranging from 54 percent in Los Angeles to 86 percent in San Diego. Again, differences were

significant across sites (table 7).

Meth users, similar to many drug abusers, also

reflect multiple drug use. In Los Angeles, one

in five meth users (22 percent) also had positive

urinalysis results for marijuana, and nearly onethird (30 percent) tested positive for cocaine.

Only 7 seven percent in Los Angeles tested positive for heroin or opiate use.

In Phoenix, more than one-third (39 percent) of

the meth users also tested positive for marijuana,

and one out of five showed cocaine use. Nine

percent tested positive for heroin.

Portland had the highest proportion of meth

users who also tested positive for marijuana (47

percent). One-quarter (25 percent) of the meth

users tested positive for cocaine, and 18 percent

showed recent use of heroin.

Forty-two percent of San Diego meth users also

tested positive for marijuana. Thirteen percent in

San Diego showed recent use of cocaine, and 7

percent tested positive for heroin.

Meth users in San Jose followed similar patterns

of multiple drug use, with 43 percent showing

evidence of marijuana use and 4 percent testing

positive for cocaine and heroin use.

Patterns of Meth Use

Age of Initiation

Early initiation of drug use has been associated

with both drug abuse in adulthood and multiple

drug use (Merrill et al., 1994; Galvin, 1995).

Before examining patterns of meth use, the

ADAM arrestees and the meth users were compared regarding the age they first tried various

substances. With the exception of heroin, meth

users initiated their drug use at earlier ages than

nonmeth users for all the listed drugs. Both arrestee groups followed the same progression of

use from alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana to cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine. However,

meth users reported first trying alcohol at an

Table 7. Meth Users’ Positive Drug Results, by Drug and Site*

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997

Los Angeles Phoenix Portland San Diego San Jose

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Marijuana 22 39 47 42 43

Cocaine 30 20 25 13 4

Heroin 7 9 18 7 4

Meth 54 59 69 86 70

Any Drug 85 80 92 95 86

*Significant at the .05 level.
Study Findings 23

average age of 13, compared with age 15 for

other ADAM arrestees. Marijuana use occurred

at age 13.8 for meth users and at age 15.2 for

other drug users. Similarly, initial meth use by

meth arrestees was at an average of 20.1 and

21.6 for others. These results imply that meth

users become involved in substance use at earlier

ages than other arrestees who have used drugs

(significant at the .05 level) (table 8).

Initiation of Use and Motivation for Using

Their peers and friends most likely introduced

meth users to meth, although parents’ use of

drugs also had an impact. Overall, 10 percent of

the meth sample indicated that either their parents or other family members had introduced

them to meth. When asked specifically if their

parents had used drugs, 29 percent said yes. In

Los Angeles and Portland, the percentages were

significantly higher: 43 and 40 percent, respectively (figure 4). As to motivation for using

meth, sites had similar responses: to experiment

(34 percent); because their friends used it (25

percent); to get high (18 percent); and to get

more energy (17 percent).

Preference for Meth

The meth users were asked if they preferred

meth to cocaine or crack. Eighteen percent of

the sample stated that they had never used cocaine or crack. But 64 percent reported that they

preferred meth to cocaine. Across sites,

preferences for meth varied significantly,

from 60 percent in Phoenix to 71 percent

in Portland.

When arrestees were asked why they

preferred meth, the following reasons

were given: The high lasts longer (53

percent); the high is better (41 percent); it

is cheaper (20 percent); and it has fewer

side effects (12 percent). The last reason

is of interest given what arrestees report

as the consequences of meth use.

Consequences of Meth Use

Respondents were given a list of potential results

or consequences of using meth and asked if they

had experienced any of them. The following

conditions were mentioned most frequently:

sleeplessness (85 percent), weight loss (72

percent), family problems (64 percent), legal

problems (58 percent), financial problems (50

percent), work problems (46 percent), dental

problems (43 percent), paranoia (42 percent),

hallucinations (37 percent), violent behavior

(33 percent), and skin problems (28 percent)

(table 9).

Table 8. Age First Tried Various Drugs, by Meth Use

ADAM Adult Arrestees, 1996–1997

Meth User Nonmeth User

Age N Age N

Alcohol* 13.0 840 15.0 5,622

Tobacco* 13.2 812 14.6 4,955

Marijuana* 13.8 821 15.2 4,459

Cocaine/Crack* 18.5 385 20.3 1,675

Heroin* 23.1 287 22.2 1,124

Methamphetamine* 20.1 849 21.6 1,404

Inhalants 14.8 212 15.1 457

*Significant at the .05 level.

Table 9. Consequences of Meth Use*

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997

n=882

(%)

Sleeplessness 85

Weight Loss 72

Family Problems 64

Legal Problems 58

Financial Problems 50

Work Problems 46

Dental Problems 43

Paranoia 42

Hallucinations 37

Violent Behavior 33

Skin Problems 28

*Includes multiple responses.
24 Meth Matters: Report on Methamphetamine Users in Five Western Cities

Route of Administration

Similar to other drugs, there are various ways to

ingest methamphetamine. The differences are

associated with how quickly the drug, or “high,”

gets to the brain to produce the desired result.

Overall, nearly half of the meth arrestees (46

percent) reported snorting as the method most

often used. Smoking was mentioned by 31 percent of the total but was less likely used in Los

Angeles, Phoenix, and Portland. In Portland users have a high proportion of injectors (49 percent) as do Phoenix users (27 percent). In Los

Angeles, injection levels are lower (11 percent);

snorting was preferred by 68 percent and smoking by 18 percent of arrestees. The reasons for

higher injection use in Phoenix and Portland are

associated with the relatively high proportion of

heroin users in those sites. Differences were significant across sites (table 10).

Table 11 suggests that the route of administration of meth may be related to the types of

consequences or effects reported by users. For

example, 59 percent of those who injected meth

had dental problems, compared with about onethird (34 percent) of the users who snorted, and

about half of those who reported smoking meth

(47 percent). Nearly one-quarter of the injectors

(23 percent) admitted to having medical problems, compared with 12 percent of the smokers

and 8 percent of the snorters. Four in 10 of the

smokers and those who snort stated that feeling

paranoid was an effect of meth, whereas 53 percent of the injectors reported this effect. Obviously, there are confounding factors regarding

Figure 4. Parents’ Use of Drugs, by Site*

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997

* Significant at the .05 level.

0

10

20

30

40

50

Percent 

Los Angeles Phoenix Portland San Diego San Jose Total

43

20

40

26

30 29
Study Findings 25

Table 10. Route of Meth Administration, by Site*

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997

Los Angeles Phoenix Portland San Diego San Jose Total

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Snort 68 43 28 46 57 46

Smoke 18 27 17 39 32 31

Inject 11 27 49 12 5 19

Other 2 3 5 2 6 3

*Significant at the .05 level.

these differences, such as the use of dirty

needles, risk of infection, length of drug use,

and general mental and physical health of the

arrestees. Nonetheless, it is clear that when

drugs are injected, they affect the bloodstream

and brain chemistry in ways different from other

routes of administration.

Frequency of Use

Examining drug use patterns can elaborate on

the severity of use by and different profiles of

users. Arrestees were first asked how many days

in the past month that they had used meth.

Table 11. Consequences of Meth Use, by Route of Administration*

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997

Route of Administration

Snort Smoke Inject

n=386 n=274 n=175

(%) (%) (%)

Weight Loss 67 73 84

Sleeplessness 85 84 86

Dental Problems 34 47 59

Money Problems 43 49 65

Family Problems 56 71 69

Work Problems 39 46 58

High Blood Pressure 13 18 21

Skin Problems 27 30 28

Paranoia 40 40 53

Hallucinations 34 35 51

Violent Behavior 31 35 38

Legal Problems 51 58 72

Medical Problems 8 12 23

Other 5 5 5

*Includes multiple responses.

Across sites, the mean number of days varied significantly, from 10.4 days in San

Jose to 15.8 days in Phoenix.

About one in four meth users

stated that they use meth four

or more times in a typical

day. When asked how many

consecutive days, or “runs,”

of meth they had had in the

previous 30 days, responses

varied significantly, from 7.6

days in Portland to 11.7 days

in Phoenix (table 12).

The converse of the “use”

question was asked: “During

the last month, what were

the most days that you went

without using meth?” Consecutive days that meth was

not used varied significantly,

from 12.6 in San Diego to 16.2 days in Portland

(table 12).

When asked why they did not use meth for a

number of days, 38 percent of the 739 users

replied that they were not daily or dependent

users. Other reasons (10 percent or less) included the following: wanted to change/improve

life; tired of life associated with meth; needed to

sleep; in jail; could not afford it; and health

reasons.

A related variable was the number of times in

the previous 7 days the meth users had bought
26 Meth Matters: Report on Methamphetamine Users in Five Western Cities

meth. For the total sample, 42 percent reported

having bought meth in the previous 7 days and

60 percent of these users stated that they bought

two or more times the week before their arrest.

These numbers may be misleading because they

refer only to meth procured for a dollar amount.

In another question, arrestees were asked if they

obtained meth in the past 30 days without paying

for it; 77 percent said yes.

Perhaps a more reliable indicator of meth use

is those who reported use in the 3 days prior to

arrest and booking. Table 13 shows the percentages by site of those who admitted recent meth

use. Slightly more than one-half (54 percent) of

the meth arrestees in Portland reported using

meth in the previous 3 days. The highest proportion of arrestees reporting recent meth use was

in San Diego at 73 percent (significant at the .05

level) (table 13).

Table 13. Meth Use in the Past 3 Days and Positive for Meth, by Site*

ADAM Adult Meth Users, 1996–1997

Used in Past Positive Drug

3 Days Result†

(%) (%)

Los Angeles 64 74

Phoenix 66 70

Portland 54 91

San Diego 73 94

San Jose 66 86

*Significant at the .05 level.

†Drug results based on number of persons who admitted meth use in the past 3 days.

Of interest in table 13 is the

congruence between those

who reported recent meth use

and the percentage that actually tested positive for meth

use. The range across sites

was 70 percent of the meth

users in Phoenix to 94 percent of the arrestees in San

Diego who reported using

and who also had positive

urinalyses (significant at the

.05 level).

Treatment Experience

Despite the relatively high

proportion of arrestees who

reported meth use in the 5

sites, only 28 percent of the

924 meth users have ever

tried to get treatment for their

drug use. The range for sites

varied significantly, from 9

percent in Los Angeles to 34

percent in Portland who had

either received treatment or

tried to get treatment. When

asked why they had not sought treatment, threequarters (75 percent) of the meth users stated that

they do not need treatment. Another 14 percent

said they do not want treatment. Elaboration of

these responses included these typical comments:

“not a daily user,” “can stop anytime,” “have control over it,” and “use is not a problem.” These

comments characterize the classic denial of drug

abusers. According to Dr. Alex Stalcup, an expert

on meth addiction, this view is particularly dangerous for meth users because the loss of control

over use can occur quickly. Generally, the users

have lost control long before they can acknowledge it (Stalcup, 1998).

Of those who sought treatment (257), 79 percent

got into a program. The most frequently mentioned type of treatment was inpatient residential

(46 percent), followed by outpatient, drug-free

treatment (33 percent). When asked if they had

Table 12. Frequency of Meth Use*

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997

Mean Days Used Consecutive Consecutive Days

in the Past Month Days Used Without Meth

Los Angeles 10.8 8.6 15.8

Phoenix 15.8 11.7 13.6

Portland 10.8 7.6 16.2

San Diego 14.1 10.1 12.6

San Jose 10.4 7.7 14.9

Overall 13.0 9.5 14.0

*Significant at the .05 level.
Study Findings 27

completed the most recent treatment, 55 percent

stated that they had not. Of the 104 arrestees

who did not complete treatment, the following

reasons were most often cited: wanted to start

using again (18 percent); got arrested or other

circumstances made it impossible (18 percent);

and got “kicked out” of program (6 percent).

Thirteen percent provided reasons related to the

type of program or problems with staff. Fourteen

percent were still enrolled in the program or had

not yet started the program. Retention of treatment clients is a major issue for practitioners.

There may be aspects of meth use, in particular,

that affect retention behavior, such as the effects

of meth on the brain and certain “triggers” that

encourage use some months after abstinence,

according to Stalcup (1998).

Of the 52 arrestees who attempted to but did not

get in a program, the primary reasons offered

were the following: too expensive, got arrested,

waiting list too long, did not take the initiative,

and changed their mind.

Drug Market Dynamics

A number of the features related to the meth

market suggest a closed market compared with

other types of drugs; this closed market has implications for law enforcement strategies. Fiftynine percent of meth users reported having a

main source from whom they get their meth,

varying significantly from 49 percent in Portland

to 70 percent in Los Angeles. This is in contrast

to buying patterns of heroin and cocaine users

reported in the drug procurement study, in which

less than 50 percent cited using a main source.

Also, according to the current study, blacks were

least likely to buy from a single source, but differences across ethnicity were not significant

(table 14). Similar to the Riley (1997) study,

meth users tended to buy from individuals

within their own ethnic group, with the exception of 45 percent of blacks who were more

likely to use a Hispanic source for meth (table

15). About half (48 percent) of all users had used

this source for 1 year or longer. Forty-one percent reported that their source of meth lived in

their neighborhood. Almost two-thirds of the

arrestees (66 percent) reported never having

bought meth from someone they did not know,

ranging from 63 percent in Portland and San

Jose to 72 percent in Los Angeles. When asked

what they usually do if their main source is not

available, more than half of the meth users (55

percent) reported that they would not buy and,

instead, go without meth. Slightly more than

one-third (36 percent) said they would buy from

someone else. This finding is consistent with responses to the question: “How many different

people have you bought meth from in the past 7

days?” The average answer was 2.7, ranging

from 1.7 in Los Angeles to 4.8 in Portland.

Dealers were generally contacted by telephone

(51 percent), followed by direct contact at residence (33 percent), by beeper (26 percent), and

on the street (10 percent).

Location of Purchase

In contrast to other types of drug dealing, meth

purchases were primarily made indoors (81 percent) rather than outdoors (18 percent), and the

Table 14. Have a Main Source, by Ethnicity

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997

White Black Hispanic Other Total

n=545 n=54 n=208 n=37 n=844

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Yes 62 54 57 59 59

No 39 46 43 41 41
28 Meth Matters: Report on Methamphetamine Users in Five Western Cities

majority of meth indoor buys occurred at residences (93 percent). In the drug procurement

study, purchases of crack and heroin were far

more likely to occur outdoors (Riley, 1997).

Gender and Ethnicity of Main Source

Most meth connections were male (73 percent) according to the meth arrestees. The ethnicity of the

main source often was the same as that of the meth

user: 60 percent of the connections were white, 28

percent were Hispanic, 8 percent represented Asian

and other ethnic categories, and only 4 percent

were black (table 15). There were significant differences across sites. The range of connections

who were white varied from 46 percent in San Jose

to 86 percent in Portland. Main sources who were

of Hispanic descent ranged from 9 percent in Portland to 43 percent in San Jose.

Other Drugs

When asked if they get drugs other than meth

from their main source, only 23 percent said

yes. Of those, marijuana was the drug most

frequently mentioned.

Meth Availability

An indicator of the wide availability of meth was

revealed by 72 percent of meth users reporting

that they could not remember a time in the previous month when they had the money to buy

meth but could not get it. (This is in contrast to

the cocaine and heroin study, despite the variation by drug and across sites; the percentages

were higher for those with failed transactions in

the past year.) For the 28 percent of users who

had failed to purchase meth, the primary reasons

were that the dealer was not available (37 percent), the dealer was out of meth (34 percent),

and police activity levels were high (12 percent).

Phoenix users were most likely to report that police activity levels were high, while Los Angeles

users were least likely to mention this as a reason for not being able to obtain meth (significant

at the .05 level). None of the meth users mentioned that the dealer was charging too much as

a reason for failure to obtain meth. With the exception of the last reason, the heroin and cocaine

study revealed similar reasons for failed transactions (e.g., dealer not available, dealer out of the

drug, and police activity), with variation across

sites (Riley, 1997).

The majority of meth users (77 percent) stated

that they obtained meth in the past month without paying cash for it. Of the 710 respondents,

80 percent stated they got it for free, most often

from a friend. A smaller percentage reported that

their dealer owed them or their dealer “fronted”

the meth (allowed them to pay later).

Slightly more than 40 percent stated that they

had bought meth in the previous 7 days. When

asked how many times they had bought, the

average was 3.6 times, with San Diego arrestees

buying the most times (4.7).

When asked how much they paid for meth in

their most recent purchase, the average across

Table 15. Ethnicity of Dealer, by Ethnicity of User

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997

White Black Hispanic Other Total

n=326 n=29 n=118 n=22 n=495

Dealer Ethnicity (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

White 76 31 26 32 60

Black 3 14 5 0 4

Hispanic 17 45 61 18 28

Other 5 10 8 50 8

*Differences significant at the .05 level between white users and other users and between Hispanic users and other users.
Study Findings 29

sites for 587 meth users was $40, with Phoenix

and Portland users reporting that they paid $50.

Price and Purity of Meth

Measures of price and purity are of interest to

law enforcement because they are indirect indicators of availability and they reflect supply and

demand. Meth users were asked if they detected

any changes in the past year regarding meth

price and quality.

With respect to price, nearly half of the arrestees

(48 percent) reported that the price was the same

as it was a year earlier. The percentages of those

who thought the price of meth had increased varied significantly, from 11 percent in San Jose to

26 percent in San Diego (figure 5). Just over onequarter (26 percent) of the users in Los Angeles

stated that the price was lower than a year earlier.

Of interest is the finding that 47 percent of the

entire sample perceived the quality or purity of

meth to be worse at the time of the interview,

compared with a year earlier. This finding may

be associated with the additive chemicals used to

process meth. Across sites, one-third (33 percent) of the San Jose users felt that the quality of

meth was worse; 55 percent of the users in San

Diego said the same thing (significant at the .05

level) (figure 6).

Figure 5. Perception That Price Is Higher Than 1 Year Ago*

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997

* Significant at the .05 level.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Percent Yes

Los Angeles Phoenix Portland San Diego San Jose

17

13

15

26

11
30 Meth Matters: Report on Methamphetamine Users in Five Western Cities

Drug Dealing

Meth Users Who Are Also Meth Dealers

About one-third of all the meth users admitted to

engaging in some illegal drug-related activities.

The most typical response to a list of such activities was that of selling drugs (65 percent), followed by acting as a middleman (59 percent).

Variation across sites became more apparent as

the drug activities escalated from selling to

increased involvement in manufacturing and

trafficking. For example, 18 percent of the

sample reported that they cut or packaged meth,

but the range was none in Los Angeles to 23 percent in San Diego. Nine percent of the total

sample reported getting chemicals or equipment

to make meth; across sites, the response ranged

from none in Los Angeles to 17 percent in Portland. Two percent of the users in San Diego reported that they made meth, compared with 9

percent in Portland (table 16). These findings

suggest that manufacturing and distribution sites

for meth may differ from sites in which meth is

used heavily. For example, in St. Louis, an

ADAM site, minimal meth use has been measured through urinalysis tests of arrestees. However, other indicators, such as lab seizures, are

increasing (Community Epidemiology Work

Group, 1998).

Figure 6. Perception That Quality Is Worse Than 1 Year Ago*

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997

* Significant at the .05 level.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Percent Yes

Los Angeles Phoenix Portland San Diego San Jose

50

40

47

55

33
Study Findings 31

Comparison of Arrestees Who Participate in

Drug-Related Activities and Those Who Do Not

Some interesting differences emerged when

meth arrestees who admitted to drug-related

activities besides use were compared with those

who did not report such illegal behavior. Druginvolved offenders were significantly more

likely to be younger (65 percent were age 31 or

younger), with a mean age of 28.7 compared

with age 31 for other arrestees. Those who admitted involvement in other drug-related activities reported less legal income but more illegal

income and more money spent on drugs in the

past 30 days than meth arrestees who did not report participation in other drug-related activities.

Perhaps not surprising, drug-involved meth users

were also more likely to have been arrested for

drug and alcohol violations (significant at the

.05 level). Also significant was that arrestees involved in other drug-related activities were

almost four times more likely to have had a gun

in the 30 days prior to the interview (28 percent

versus 8 percent). Drug-involved meth users

revealed a median of 20 days of meth use in the

previous month compared with 6 days of meth

use by other arrestees. Also, the arrestees who

were involved in other drug activities had an

average of 7 days of consecutive use compared

with 3 days for the other arrestees (table 17).

The next section presents information about

arrestees who admitted to also being drug dealers. Issues discussed include the length of time

selling drugs, motivation for selling, profits

made, and precautions taken to protect

themselves.

The majority of the meth users in all sites reported that they neither sold nor made meth in

the 12 months prior to the interview (75 percent). The following findings refer to the 231

individuals (25 percent) who stated that they had

dealt and/or cooked meth in the past 12 months.

Results for the five sites are combined in

table 18.

Sixty-six percent of the arrestees had sold meth

for more than 2 years and an additional 13 percent had been selling for more than 1 year.

Almost half began selling prior to 1991. One in

five said they had been selling less than 1 year.

When asked why they started dealing meth, respondents most frequently reported the reason

for dealing was to make money (48 percent). An

additional 40 percent said they did it to support

their addiction. Only 1 percent said they were

already dealing another drug before they started

selling meth.

Table 16. Illegal Drug Activity, by Type and Site*

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997

Los Angeles Phoenix Portland San Diego San Jose Total

n=15 n=43 n=46 n=148 n=40 n=292

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Sell Drugs 73 51 57 74 53 65

Act as Middleman 47 42 46 70 58 59

Hold Drugs or Money 7 30 39 57 35 45

Cut/Package Meth 0 7 22 23 13 18

Provide Street Security 0 9 15 23 10 17

Act as Enforcer 7 5 9 19 10 13

Get Chemicals or

 Equipment for Cooking 0 12 17 6 8 9

Make Meth 7 7 9 2 3 4

*Includes multiple responses.
32 Meth Matters: Report on Methamphetamine Users in Five Western Cities

One-third (33 percent) of the meth dealers

reported no profit or money gained from selling

meth in the 30 days prior to the interview. Of

those who reported earnings, 45 percent made

more than $800 in the past month. The median

figure across sites was $500 (table 19).

The majority of the dealers said they sell to persons outside their own racial or ethnic group.

When asked how many

individuals they had sold

to in the previous 7 days,

31 percent said they had

sold to no one, perhaps

suggesting a population of

relatively low-level street

dealers. However, a smaller

proportion (17 percent) had

sold to four to six different

individuals and 28 percent

had sold to more than seven

people in the previous

week, implying a somewhat

higher level of drug dealing. Across sites, the median number of individuals

to whom drugs were sold

was 5, with a high of 15 in

Los Angeles (table 19).

One-quarter of the dealers

(25 percent) reported that

they sold meth outside of

the county in which they

lived. Eleven percent of the

224 dealers admitted to

selling meth outside the

State in which they lived.

Of the 25 dealers who said

they sold outside their

State, 14 were San Diego

arrestees. The States mentioned most frequently included Arizona, New York,

Texas, Nevada, California,

Oklahoma, and Washington. An additional 4 percent

stated that they sold meth outside the United

States, with the majority stating that they sold to

customers in Mexico.

When asked what they worry about when dealing drugs, more than one-half (60 percent) mentioned “getting busted,” 27 percent said they had

no worries, and 16 percent expressed concern

about getting robbed. Only 5 percent worried

about getting hurt.

Table 17. Characteristics of Drug Activity Participants

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997

 Participated in Drug Activities

Yes No

Ethnicity

White 65% 64%

Black 4% 7%

Hispanic 27% 24%

Other 3% 5%

Total 289 553

Age*

≤ 24 34% 22%

25–31 31% 30%

≥ 32 35% 48%

Mean Age 28.7 31.0

Total 288 552

Past 30 Days n n

Legal Income $600 215 $700 496

Illegal Income $1,000 190 $600 78

Money Spent on Drugs $225 200 $100 320

Most Serious Charges*

Property 27% 22%

Drug/Alcohol Offense 43% 38%

Violent 13% 18%

Other Charge 17% 22%

Total 289 553

Own or Possess a Gun in

 Past 30 Days*

Yes 28% 8%

No 72% 92%

Total 307 609

n n

Median Days Used in Past 30 Days 20 284 6 549

Median Days Used in a Row 7 307 3 605

Number of Times Used in a Day 3 302 2 576

*Significant at the .05 level.
Study Findings 33

Arrestees responded to a closed-end question

about the types of safety and security precautions

they take when dealing meth. Among the 194

dealers, slightly more than half (51 percent) said

that they sell only to friends. Twenty-five percent

reported that they carry a weapon. Other responses included delivering directly to the customer (22 percent), not carrying a lot of drugs

(18 percent) or money (12 percent), and not letting the customer come to the dealer’s house

(13 percent).

The following question was asked of meth dealers: “When you are selling meth for someone

else, how do you get paid?” Forty-one percent

responded that they get a cash portion of the

profits. Thirty-four percent stated that they were

singular dealers and sold only for themselves, not

for anyone else. Another 18 percent stated that

they received meth as payment.

More than half of the dealers (57 percent) reported

that they no longer were selling meth. The reasons given include: in jail (29 percent), tired of

the lifestyle (27 percent), for my family (9 percent), and tired of getting busted (6 percent). Police activity as a reason for not selling was noted

by only 2 percent.

This brief description of meth dealers suggests

that users who also sell do so to support a drug

habit or make a profit. The impression is that

these dealers are relatively low-level meth dealers, with perhaps a few who are at higher levels

of marketing. Also, high-level dealers whose life

business is trafficking meth may be reluctant to

share this information in a jail setting. Known

high-level drug traffickers targeted by the Drug

Enforcement Administration or a local or regional narcotics task force are less likely to be

booked into local detention facilities. These drug

violators, if arrested, would likely show up in the

Federal detention center and be charged with

Federal narcotics violations.

Table 18. Making and Selling Meth, by Site*

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997

Los Angeles Phoenix Portland San Diego San Jose Total

n=46 n=162 n=147 n=390 n=177 n=922

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Sold 22 12 20 27 17 21

Made 0 0 1 <1 1 <1

Sold/Made 4 4 5 3 2 3

Neither Made nor Sold 74 83 73 70 80 75

*Difference significant at the .05 level by site for those who sold and/or cooked and those who did not.

Table 19. Number of Customers and Profit Made by Meth Dealers

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997

Los Angeles Phoenix Portland San Diego San Jose Total

Median Number

of Customers in

Past 7 Days 15 6.5 4 5 9.5 5

Median Dollar

Amount Made From

Meth in Past 30 Days $1,600 $1,000 $750 $400 $1,100 $500
34 Meth Matters: Report on Methamphetamine Users in Five Western Cities

Meth Cooking

Meth Users Who Are Also Meth Cookers

Only 34 of the 929 meth users admitted to being

meth cookers. They responded to questions about

how they learned how to make it, the location of

cooking, chemicals used, and cooking methods.

The majority of meth cookers learned the recipe

from friends, and three said their parents or other

family members taught them how to cook it.

Multiple responses were given regarding the location of cooking, with most stating that it took

place inside, at their own residence or that of a

friend. Twelve individuals indicated that they

cooked in an open area, such as a field. Six said

they cooked in a vehicle, and five said they

cooked meth at a hotel or motel.

Most thought it was difficult to obtain the chemicals needed to make meth. When asked which

chemicals were used, the following chemicals

were reported (the corresponding number of individuals who mentioned each chemical are presented in parentheses): red phosphorus (24),

ephedrine (19), hydrochloric gas/acid (19), iodine (15), pseudoephedrine (12), Freon (12), tablets (7), lactose (2), and caffeine (2).

Eleven individuals also noted additional chemicals, including ether, acetone, lye, hydriotic acid,

denatured alcohol, chloroform, miratic acid,

Drano, lighter fluid, Coleman fuel, rock salt, dry

ice, and propane.

When asked where they get the ephedrine and

other chemicals needed, 12 individuals said they

got them from someone dealing in meth or

chemicals. Fourteen said they got chemicals from

a retail outlet store, and three said they got them

from mail order catalogs.

Most cookers used the flash method of cooking

or pressure cookers (12 each). Eight said they

“dry” cooked, and five stated that they crushed

tablets.

As mentioned previously, the chemicals used

in meth are highly toxic and dangerous to the

environment. Drug cookers appear to have little

regard for this fact, given what they do with the

waste products after cooking the meth. Most

pour it down the drain (9), bury it (8), or dump it

on the ground (2). Four stated that they abandoned the leftover chemicals in containers.

Comparison of Dealers and Cookers With

Nondealers and Noncookers

The interview results of the meth arrestees who

admitted being involved in drug sales and making or cooking meth were combined and compared with meth users who reported no illegal

drug activity besides use. Similar to the previous

analysis, the dealers and cookers were significantly younger than other arrestees (mean age

28.7 versus 30.7) and significantly more likely

to be white (71 percent versus 62 percent)

(table 20).

Also, the dealers and cookers reported more illegal income and more money expended on drugs

than the other meth users. Three of 10 dealers

and cookers reported possessing a firearm within

30 days of the interview, but only 1 of 10 of the

nondealers reported carrying a gun (significant

at the .05 level) (table 20).

The drug use patterns of the dealers and cookers

affirms the likelihood of more serious drug involvement. The dealers and cookers reported a

median of 21 days during which meth was used

in the previous month. The arrestees who were

not dealers had a comparable figure of 6 days of

meth use. Dealers and cookers reflected more

chronic meth use, with an estimated 12 days of

consecutive use compared with only 3 days by

the nondealer arrestees. Finally, the dealers and

cookers reported an average meth use of three

times a day, with nondealers reporting two times

a day (table 20). These results, along with the

previous analysis, suggest that meth users who

also sell and make drugs and get involved in
Study Findings 35

other drug-related activities are more likely to

engage in serious drug use. These findings have

implications for the justice system as well as the

treatment community with regard to targeting

offenders who may benefit from drug treatment

but may be incarcerated in State prison based on

drug sales or manufacturing convictions.

Table 20. Characteristics of Meth Dealers and Nondealers

ADAM Adult Meth Arrestees, 1996–1997

Nondealer/

Dealer/Cooker Noncooker

Ethnicity*

White 71% 62%

Black 3% 7%

Hispanic 22% 26%

Other 3% 5%

Total 214 629

Age*

≤ 24 35% 23%

25–31 31% 30%

≥ 32 35% 47%

Mean Age 28.7 30.7

Total 214 627

Past 30 Days n n

Legal Income $652.5 166 $700 546

Illegal Income $1,000 152 $750 116

Money Spent on Drugs* $250 143 $100 378

Most Serious Charges*

Property 28% 22%

Drug/Alcohol Offense 45% 38%

Violent 11% 18%

Other Charge 17% 21%

Total 214 629

Own or Possess a Gun in Past 30 Days*

Yes 30% 10%

No 70% 90%

Total 231 686

n n

Median Days Used in Past 30 Days 21 213 6 620

Median Days Used in a Row 12 229 3 683

Number of Times Used in a Day 3 227 2 652

*Significant at the .05 level.
37

This chapter presents findings from the meth

addenda interviews with juveniles in the five

ADAM sites. All sites except San Diego interviewed boys and girls. A total of 270 juveniles

responded to the meth interview questions, with

San Diego having 81 and Portland having 24

youths. Overall, the meth interviews constituted

11 percent of all the ADAM interviews of juveniles in the timeframe under study, ranging from

5 percent in Portland to 19 percent in San Diego

(table 21). Generally, the analysis combines interview results of all sites.

Urinalysis Results

Annualized urinalysis results suggested a youthful offender population of drug users in the five

sites. Almost three-quarters (72 percent) of the

263 juvenile meth users who provided a urine

specimen were positive for some illegal drug,

varying from 45 percent in Portland to 92 percent in San Diego (significant at the .05 level).

The proportions that revealed meth use paralleled the overall drug use; 18 percent of the

juveniles in Portland were positive for meth and

47 percent of the San Diego youths were methpositive (figure 7).

Juvenile Profile

The juveniles interviewed were primarily males,

with about one in five (19 percent) being females.

Nearly half (47 percent) were Hispanic, varying

significantly from 14 percent in Portland to 62

percent in San Diego. Only 4 percent were black,

with a range from 1 percent in San Diego to 9

percent in Portland. Overall, 41 percent were

white, with a wide disparity across sites ranging

from 26 percent in Los Angeles to 73 percent in

Portland (significant at the .05 level). Juveniles in

other ethnic groups represented 8 percent of all

the juveniles. The majority of the juveniles were

over age 14 at time of arrest, with an overall mean

age of 15.8 years (see table 22).

Arrest Charge

In Los Angeles 35 percent of the juveniles were

arrested for a violent offense, compared with 13

percent in Phoenix (significant at the .05 level).

Eleven percent of the entire sample was involved

in a drug or alcohol violation, varying significantly across sites from 5 percent in Los Angeles

and Portland to 19 percent in San Diego.

School Attendance

Fifty-nine percent of all youths were attending

school according to interview responses. Of the

108 who did not go to school, 64 percent stated

that they had dropped out and 29 percent reported having been suspended or expelled.

Table 21. Number of Juvenile Meth Interviews and Percentage of ADAM Interviews, by Site

ADAM Juvenile Meth Users, 1996–1997

Los Angeles Phoenix Portland San Diego San Jose Total

Meth Interviews 43 61 24 81 61 270

ADAM Interviews 617 502 509 429 362 2,419

Percentage of ADAM

Interviews 7 12 5 19 17 11

Juvenile Meth Users
38 Meth Matters: Report on Methamphetamine Users in Five Western Cities

Criminal History

Most of the juveniles admitted being arrested in

the 12 months prior to the interview (70 percent). Fifty-nine percent had been incarcerated

in the previous 12 months. More than one in five

(23 percent) of the juveniles reported owning or

possessing a gun in the 30 days prior to the interview, varying significantly from 13 percent in

San Jose to 46 percent in Portland.

Juvenile Meth Users Compared With

Other Juvenile ADAM Arrestees

Table 23 compares characteristics of juveniles

who reported meth use with those who did not

use meth. All differences were significant.

Figure 7. Annualized Drug Use, by Site

ADAM Juvenile Meth Users, 1996–1997

* Significant at the .05 level.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Positive for Meth Positive for Any Drug*

Percent

Los Angeles Phoenix Portland San Diego San Jose Total

37

72

33

68

18

45 47

92

38

59

38

72

Eighty-eight percent of meth users were Hispanic or white. Blacks were five times more

likely to be nonusers than users.

Meth users tended to be older than the other

ADAM arrestees, with 87 percent age 15 or

older. According to self-reports, meth users were

far less likely to attend school (59 percent versus

72 percent), were more likely to have been arrested previously (70 percent versus 57 percent),

and were more likely to have been incarcerated

(59 percent versus 46 percent). Finally, juvenile

meth users were much more likely than nonusers

to test positive for two or more drugs (39 percent

versus 11 percent).
Juvenile Meth Users 39

Table 22. Demographic Data, by Site

ADAM Juvenile Meth Users, 1996–1997

Los San San

Angeles Phoenix Portland Diego Jose Total

Gender*

Male 88% 72% 54% 100% 72% 81%

Female 12% 28% 46% 0% 28% 19%

Total 43 61 24 81 61 270

Ethnicity

Black 7% 2% 9% 1% 7% 4%

White* 26% 67% 73% 27% 34% 41%

Hispanic* 58% 28% 14% 62% 49% 47%

Other 9% 3% 5% 9% 10% 8%

Total 43 60 22 77 61 263

Age

11–12 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 1%

13–14 9% 3% 27% 10% 16% 11%

15–16 53% 68% 45% 43% 59% 54%

17–18 37% 28% 27% 45% 23% 33%

Mean Age 15.9 16.0 15.3 16.1 15.5 15.8

Total 43 60 22 77 61 263

Arrest Charge*

Violent 35% 13% 18% 26% 26% 24%

Drug/Alcohol 5% 7% 5% 19% 13% 11%

Property 26% 30% 32% 32% 11% 26%

Juvenile/Status 5% 5% 9% 10% 16% 10%

Other 30% 45% 36% 12% 33% 29%

Total 43 60 22 77 61 263

Attend School*

Yes 72% 42% 73% 64% 56% 59%

No 28% 58% 27% 36% 44% 41%

Total 43 60 22 77 61 263

Reasons Not in School

Grad/GED 8% 9% 0% 4% 7% 6%

Suspended/Expelled 8% 20% 50% 29% 44% 29%

Dropped Out 83% 71% 50% 68% 44% 64%

Other 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 1%

Total 12 35 6 28 27 108

*Significant at the .05 level.

Source of Income and Expenditures on Drugs

More than one-third (35 percent) of the juveniles

reported their families as their primary source of

income. Seventeen percent were employed either

full or part time. Slightly more than one-quarter

(27 percent) obtained their primary source of

income through illegal means, primarily drug

dealing (table 24). When asked how much

money they had made illegally in the previous

30 days, the median figure across sites was

$200.
40 Meth Matters: Report on Methamphetamine Users in Five Western Cities

Table 23. Comparison of Arrestee Characteristics, by Meth Use

ADAM Juvenile Arrestees, 1996–1997

Meth User Nonmeth User

Ethnicity*

White 41% 30%

Black 4% 22%

Hispanic 47% 39%

Other 8% 9%

Total 263 2,054

Age*

≤ 12 1% 3%

13–14 11% 19%

15–16 54% 50%

≥ 17 33% 29%

Mean Age 15.8% 15.5%

Total 263 2,065

Attend School*

Yes 59% 72%

No 41% 28%

Total 263 2,064

Prior Arrests in Past 12 Months*

Yes 70% 57%

No 30% 43%

Total 263 2,063

Time Served in Past 12 Months*

Yes 59% 46%

No 41% 54%

Total 263 2,061

Positive for Two or More Drugs* 39% 11%

Total 263 2,065

*Significant at the .05 level.

This figure was higher than

funds obtained legally

($90) and the amount spent

on drugs ($60) (table 25).

Drug Use Patterns

Unlike their adult counterparts, juvenile meth users

were more likely to smoke

meth. Half (50 percent) of

the juveniles reported this

method as the most frequently used, and almost

half (47 percent) inhaled or

snorted meth. Only 2 percent reported injecting meth

(table 26). There were minimal differences by age with

respect to route of administration. Juveniles were initiated to meth most likely

through friends, and the

primary reason for first use

of meth was “to experiment,” according to 75 percent of the youths. Other

reasons included: because

friends used (24 percent), to

get high (13 percent), to stay

awake (6 percent), and to

get more energy (4 percent).

When asked if their parents

had ever used drugs, nearly half (47 percent) of

the juvenile meth users said yes and 9 percent

indicated that they had been introduced to drugs

by either their parents or another family member. Consequences of meth use reported by juveniles were similar to the adult responses, with

sleeplessness, weight loss, paranoia, family

problems, hallucinations, and violent behavior

most frequently reported.

Juveniles were asked questions about various

drugs, including self-reported drug use (table

27). Almost all of the 263 juvenile meth users

had tried alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana (98

percent or more) at some time. More than twothirds (68 percent) had used cocaine and 39 percent admitted to using inhalants. Of the total

sample, 17 percent had tried heroin. With respect

to age at first use, alcohol and tobacco were first

tried at an average age of 11.6, followed by marijuana at age 12. Inhalant use was tried at age 12.8,

followed by cocaine and methamphetamine at age

13.9 and 14, respectively. Those who reported

heroin use first initiated it at age 14.3. With respect to recent use (prior 3 days), 45 percent of

the juveniles who had used in the past 12 months

reported having used alcohol, and 92 percent admitted to tobacco use. The urinalysis tests do not
Juvenile Meth Users 41

Table 24. Source of Income

ADAM Juvenile Meth Users, 1996–1997

(%)

Family 35

Employment 17

Other Legal 8

Welfare or Supplemental

 Security Income 1

Illegal Means 27

No Income 11

Table 25. Money Received and Spent

on Drugs in Past 30 Days

ADAM Juvenile Meth Users, 1996–1997

Median N

($)

Legal 90 201

Illegal 200 106

Spent on Drugs 60 138

screen for these two drugs. More than half of the

youths who had used in the past 12 months (55

percent) reported marijuana use in the prior 3 days,

and 56 percent of the sample tested positive for

marijuana, reflecting high congruence between

self-reports and urinalysis results. Nearly half (47

percent) admitted using meth recently, and 38 percent showed positive results. Although 37 percent

reported recent cocaine or crack use, only 18 percent revealed a positive urine test. Similarly, 31

percent of those who had used in the past 12

months reported heroin use, but 15 percent tested

positive. This could indicate that many youths are

not certain which drugs they are ingesting.

Youths were asked how many days they had

used specific drugs in the previous 30 days. Tobacco revealed the highest usage, with 24.9 days

reported. Marijuana followed with 14.4 days

used (table 27). Despite the seemingly regular

use of illegal drugs, the majority of youths did

not think they needed treatment for drug use.

Thirty-two percent reported having received

treatment and 34 percent expressed a need for

treatment (table 28).

Meth was reported to be used 8.9 days in the

previous 30 days, followed by alcohol (8.1

days). When asked how many consecutive days

they had used meth, the average across sites was

5.8 days. Youths in San Jose reported the least

number of days (4) and Los Angeles juveniles

Table 26. Route of Meth Administration

ADAM Juvenile Meth Users, 1996–1997

n=262

(%)

Smoke* 50

Snort 47

Inject 2

Other 1

*Alone or in combination with other drugs.

Table 27. Self-Reported Drug Use Compared With Positive Drug Result

ADAM Juvenile Meth Users, 1996–1997

Ever Number of Days Used in Past Positive

Tried Mean Age Used in Past 30 3 Days* Drug Test*

(%) First Tried Days* (%) (%)

Alcohol 98 11.6 8.1 45 n/a

Tobacco 98 11.6 24.9 92 n/a

Marijuana 99 12.0 14.4 55 56

Cocaine/Crack 68 13.9 6.1 37 18

Heroin 17 14.3 10.1 31 15

Methamphetamine 100 14.0 8.9 47 38

Inhalants 39 12.8 2.6 16 n/a

*Based on respondents who admitted use in the past 12 months.
42 Meth Matters: Report on Methamphetamine Users in Five Western Cities

reported the most consecutive days of meth use

(7.6). Conversely, when asked how many days in a

row they had not used meth, the average across sites

was 15.6 days, with San Diego youths significantly

lower at 13.2 days. The use of meth by youths was

similar to that of their adult counterparts.

A more precise indicator of level of use is how

many times meth is used in a typical day. Across

sites, the number of times used was 3.4, varying

from 2.4 in Phoenix to 4.2 in Los Angeles.

Juvenile drug use is less likely than adult use to

be affected by having the money to buy drugs.

Ninety-one percent of the youths reported obtaining meth without paying cash for it in the 30

days prior to the interview. About the same percentage said they got it for free, most often from

a friend. Only 11 percent stated that they got it

from their dealer or took it “off the top” as dealers themselves. These responses explain why

only 58 youths reported buying meth in the 7

days prior to the interview. When asked how

many times they had bought, the average across

sites was 1.9, with San Diego youths revealing

the most buys (3.1) (significant at the .05 level).

Drug Market Dynamics

The drug procurement activities by juvenile

meth users generally paralleled those of their

adult counterparts.

● Almost two-thirds (64 percent) of the juveniles got their meth indoors, from a residence.

● Dealers were contacted by telephone (36 percent),

directly (33 percent), or by beeper (30 percent).

● When asked how many different people they

obtained meth from in the previous 7 days, 30

percent stated none and 40 percent said one.

The average across sites was 3.4, with Los

Angeles youths stating the highest number of

individuals (4.7).

● About half (52 percent) of the juveniles reported

having a main source for meth (clearly proportionately less than adults). Of those, 49 percent

had used that source for more than 6 months.

● The main source also supplied other drugs,

according to 47 percent of the youths. Drugs

secured by the main source included marijuana, cocaine, and LSD.

● If their source is not available, most youths

(51 percent) do without, but 37 percent buy

from someone else.

● More than half (55 percent) reported that their

source was a dealer or middleman, and 17

percent noted that the source was a dealer and

a cooker.

● Similar to the youthful users, 49 percent of

the main source individuals were Hispanic,

according to the respondents. Forty percent

were white.

● Youths were not likely to buy from someone

they did not know, and for 83 percent there

was no time during the previous 30 days when

meth was not available to them.

● A total of 130 youths responded to the question: “How much did you pay the last time

you bought meth?” The median dollar amount

across sites was $40, with Portland and Phoenix juveniles paying more ($80 and $60, respectively) and Los Angeles juveniles paying

the least ($20).

● Thirty-nine percent of youths replied affirmatively when asked if they had participated in

any drug-related activities besides use in the

previous 30 days. Activities included: selling

drugs (59 percent), acting as a middleman

(40 percent), holding drugs or money (37 percent), providing street security or protection

(20 percent), cutting or packaging meth

(10 percent), and acting as an enforcer or

Table 28. Treatment Experience

ADAM Juvenile Meth Users, 1996–1997

Have you received treatment?

Yes 32%

No 68%

Total 263

Could you use treatment?

Yes 34%

No 66%

Total 263
Juvenile Meth Users 43

“taxman” (10 percent) (table 29). The

primary reasons given for drug involvement

were to make money and to get drugs.

● Eighty-eight youths admitted to selling or

making meth in the year prior to the interview.

Half (52 percent) said they began selling

within 6 months of initiating meth use; 15 percent dealt meth before they began using it.

Forty-four percent had been dealing for 1 year

or more, and 71 percent started dealing to

make money. Asked why they currently deal,

39 percent said for the profit and 35 percent

said for both the profit and the drug habit.

● About one-third (34 percent) of the juveniles

reported making no money from dealing in the

previous 30 days. Of the 55 juveniles who had

made money, about half reported making

more than $200, with a median figure across

sites of $250.

● Of 84 juveniles responding, 39 percent stated

that they had sold to no one in the previous

7 days. For those who sold, 59 percent said

that they had sold to more than 4 people, with

an average across sites of 7.4 individuals.

● Seven juveniles reported that they sold meth

outside the State in which they lived. The

States included California, Hawaii, Idaho,

Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, and Washington.

● Asked what they worry about when they are

dealing meth, the most frequently expressed

response was “getting busted” (58 percent);

about one-quarter of the youths (27 percent)

said they had no worries. Other responses

included getting robbed and getting hurt.

● About half (51 percent) of the dealers reported

carrying a weapon for security when they were

dealing meth. Other precautions included selling only to friends (37 percent), not carrying a

lot of drugs (13 percent) or cash (12 percent),

using a pay phone (13 percent), and delivering

to the customer (13 percent).

● When working for someone else, 43 percent of

the juveniles reported that they got paid cash

out of the profits made, and 20 percent stated

that they got paid with meth. About onequarter (27 percent) said that they sold for

themselves and did not work for anyone else.

● Almost half (49 percent) of 85 youths responding said they were currently selling

meth. For those who said they were no longer

dealing, the most prevalent reason was that

they were in jail. Other reasons given were associated with not being a regular dealer, being

tired of the lifestyle, getting busted, and police

activity being a deterrent.

• Nine juveniles reported being meth cookers.

The majority of these learned the process from

their friends. Ephedrine and pseudoephedrine,

red phosphorous, and iodine were the most

frequently used chemicals. Chemicals were

obtained primarily from other cookers or from

retail outlets. Three juveniles reported using a

“dry cook” method. The waste from cooking

is poured down the drain, dumped on the

ground, or abandoned in containers, according

to the cookers.

The analysis of juveniles also compared youths

who reported involvement with drug activity

with those youths who did not admit such involvement. The differences between the two

groups were not as striking as those for the

adults. One significant difference was that 38

percent of those with illegal drug involvement

reported gun possession in the previous month.

Only 13 percent of the other juvenile arrestees

reported having a gun.

Table 29. Drug-Related Activities

ADAM Juvenile Meth Users, 1996–1997

(%)

Participation in Drug-Related Activities

Yes 39

No 61

Types of Activities*

Sell Drugs 59

Act as Middleman 40

Hold Drugs or Money 37

Provide Street Security 20

Cut/Package Meth 10

Act as Enforcer/“Taxman” 10

*Includes multiple responses.
45

Concluding Remarks

[M]eth is an equal opportunity destroyer that

does not discriminate. . . . [It] will wreck your

life, if given a chance.

 Meth User

This study includes only arrestees in five western cities who reported using meth, but other indicators suggest that meth use is increasing well

beyond the offender community. Its uniqueness

lies in that it can be made in the United States

and that its effects are profound with respect

to human brain chemistry and volatility of the

chemicals. The Federal Government has

acknowledged the spread of meth in other areas

of the country and responded by appropriating

funds to address meth use before it becomes a

national epidemic.

The findings presented in this study suggest that

the production and use patterns of meth are different from those of other illegal drugs. These

differences have policy implications for prevention, intervention, and control strategies. A few

of these are highlighted.

First, the public needs to be informed about the

effects and consequences of meth production

and use. The national campaign against drugs

must incorporate information about meth.

Law enforcement agencies need resources and

training to identify and contain meth labs. The

dynamics of the meth market warrant different

enforcement tactics than those used in open-air

drug markets.

To encourage retention in treatment, individuals

addicted to meth may need to be engaged in

treatment in a different manner than other

users are.

Addressing any type of drug abuse requires a

multifaceted approach that includes many agencies and systems. An example of one region’s

efforts is described below.

Meth Matters: The San Diego Approach

to Prevention and Reduction of Meth

Production, Distribution, and Use

San Diego has had a long history of meth use

and trafficking, interrupted sporadically by

intense enforcement efforts and regulation of

chemicals. As noted earlier, what once was a

business controlled by motorcycle gangs has become a lucrative venture for those Mexican nationals already proficient in the manufacturing

and trade of cocaine. The instability of the Mexican government is one obstacle to effectively targeting the availability or supply of meth.

Both the supply of and the demand for meth are

being targeted by the Methamphetamine Strike

Force in San Diego, a group spearheaded in

March 1996 by a member of the San Diego

County Board of Supervisors. The supervisor

convened a diverse group of more than 70 representatives of myriad agencies and systems,

including the criminal justice arena, schools,

public health, social services, universities, and

the medical community. The group divided into

subcommittees representing prevention, intervention, treatment, and interdiction and developed an integrated regional plan to reduce methamphetamine problems in San Diego County.

The strike force is cochaired by the undersheriff

and the director of the county Health and Human

Services Agency. Early on, it was acknowledged

that drug use—and meth use in particular—

required a coordinated approach. Drug use is

not solely a police problem, or solely a school
46 Meth Matters: Report on Methamphetamine Users in Five Western Cities

problem. To effectively address drug use requires interagency cooperation in and commitment to a long-term comprehensive strategy. The

strike force is still in operation, and the dedication of the involved individuals has not wavered.

As the undersheriff stated: “Never before in the

time I have been in the county have I seen this

number of people with such diverse backgrounds

come together to concentrate on a problem like

methamphetamine.”

Following a number of meetings and conferences, the strike force developed a series of

recommendations centered on prevention, intervention, treatment, and interdiction. An annual

report card on methamphetamine was developed

to assess the efforts of the strike force by measuring changes in meth indicators, including

arrests, seizures, price, purity, treatment admissions, overdose deaths, hospital mentions, and

ADAM results. A July 1998 progress report

summarized a number of past efforts that may

have future impacts on meth trafficking and use.

The strike force is not directly responsible for

all of the following accomplishments but had

a hand in most of them. These efforts are

described below (San Diego County, 1998):

● Intensive media efforts educated and informed

the public about methamphetamine use and its

consequences. Currently, the county is coordinating efforts with the Partnership for a DrugFree America.

● Videotapes were made and distributed to

county schools. The videos feature experts

on drug abuse summarizing ADAM juvenile

arrestee interview results and personal accounts from youthful users who are in recovery for meth use.

● The county sponsored two, 2-day conferences

on methamphetamine, with local and statewide experts providing information about

the nature and scope of meth use, profiles of

users, and types of treatment modalities. Both

conferences were well attended by educators,

medical personnel, law enforcement agents,

social service providers, and researchers.

● The presiding judge of the juvenile court

developed a drug dependency court, based on

the finding that a significant number of children are in foster homes because their parents

have drug abuse problems. The dependency

court mandates parents into drug treatment

and also shortens the time for families to

unify before the child is eligible for adoption.

● Both the city and the county of San Diego

drafted and passed ordinances modeled after

those in San Bernardino and Chino, California, that restrict the sale of precursor, overthe-counter ingredients used to make methamphetamine.

● State funding has allowed San Diego to develop a pilot project to assist children who are

exposed to meth cooking. A team comprising

law enforcement, the district attorney’s office,

and the Health and Human Services Children’s

Bureau takes immediate action when a child is

in a home in which a lab seizure takes place.

The children are taken into protective custody

and tested for meth toxicity.

● Based on the San Diego County Treatment on

Demand Initiative, about 400 residential and

nonresidential treatment slots have been

added for adolescents.

● Based on the success of a north county program, screening, behavioral, and intervention

(SBI) services were identified by strike force

members as promising technology for screening and monitoring drug use. Several health

care organizations have developed plans to integrate SBI prevention services into their current service delivery systems.

● A meth hotline was set up by the Narcotics

Information Network of the California Department of Justice. Staffed by volunteers, the

hotline receives several hundred calls each

month regarding suspected meth labs or dealers and questions about treatment. Since its

inception in December 1996, 54 arrests were

made and 2 meth labs were seized as a direct

result of hotline calls.
Concluding Remarks 47

● The California Border Alliance Group,

through the Office of National Drug Control

Policy, is providing funding for the strike

force infrastructure.

● The San Diego Association of Governments

(SANDAG) and the EYE, a local drug treatment agency, became partners to implement

and evaluate a specialized treatment program

for female meth users. Funding is provided by

the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment of

the U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services.

● A number of strike force members participated in a video about meth issues developed

by the California State Attorney General’s

Office to be disseminated around the State.

The Methamphetamine Strike Force Progress

Report acknowledges that meth is a “chronic and

persistent problem in San Diego, and no single

measure or time period can direct public policy.”

Strike force members remain committed to action and hope that their efforts will have an impact on the meth problem in San Diego. The

next step will be to select a target community

within the county that will tackle the meth problem using an integrated approach. The strike

force will commit resources to the target community and assess its efforts with an eye toward

creating a model for the entire county, and quite

possibly the Nation.

Meth Users Speak

The interviews with meth users afforded an

opportunity to obtain comments that were not

directly related to the structured interview questions. The following quotes illustrate the many

observations made by meth users:

● “. . . would like to know more about the effects of long-term use. . . like to see real studies of physical effects.”

● “. . . learned how to cook meth in high school

biochemistry. . . . That’s what started [my]

career.”

● “Don’t do it. It turns everybody into a slave.

I’m sorry to the people I’ve ever sold to.”

● “. . . turns you into a human rollercoaster. I’ve

got to stop. . . wish there was more information about support or counseling and what is

really in it.”

● “At this point in my life I wish the drug didn’t

control me, and I wish that I and my old lady

could stay clean.”

● “. . . very bad drug. . . ruins your family and

your life.”

● “. . . need more rehab places, instead of

prisons.”

● “The legal system needs to treat drug use

differently—with more compassion, not necessarily less seriously.”

● “Everybody needs help if they use meth. It

destroys a lot of people’s lives. It needs to be

stopped.”

● “If you snort it, don’t smoke or slam it. If you

smoke, don’t slam. Don’t move up to the next

level; stay where you are. Don’t use it if

you’re pregnant until you’ve given birth and

you are done breastfeeding.”

● “Since the day I first used meth, it has gripped

my life. . . more addictive psychologically

than physically.”

● “My friend told me that everything I make

goes right back into it. I didn’t want to believe

it, but when I honestly think about it, it’s

true.”

● “. . . highly addictive. . . ruins your life. . . not

a joking matter.”

● “Meth is a very addictive drug. The comedown is terrible, so that’s where the addiction

comes in. [With] other drugs, like cocaine,

the addiction comes into play during the rush.

You want that rush again. With meth, you feel

like garbage. You want to stop that feeling, so

you use.”
49

References

Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM)

Program (1998). 1997 Drug Use Forecasting:

Annual Report on Adult and Juvenile Arrestees.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 171672.

Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement (1996). Methamphetamine: The New Epidemic. Sacramento,

CA: Office of the Attorney General.

California Border Alliance Group (1998). FY

1999 Narcotics Threat Assessment. San Diego:

San Diego/Imperial County Regional Narcotic

Information Network.

Center for Substance Abuse Research (1997).

Methamphetamine Use in the Western United

States: An In-Depth Look, CESAR FAX. College Park: Center for Substance Abuse Research,

University of Maryland, Vol. 6, No. 29, July 28.

Community Epidemiology Work Group (1998).

Epidemiologic Trends in Drug Abuse: Advance

Report. Washington, D.C.: National Institutes

of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse,

December.

Copley News Service (1998). “Methamphetamine Seen As Next Major Threat.” San Diego

Union-Tribune, February 12.

Decker, S., S. Pennell, and A. Caldwell (1997).

Illegal Firearms: Access and Use by Arrestees.

Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,

NCJ 163496.

Drug Enforcement Administration (1996). The

Supply of Illicit Drugs to the United States: The

NNICC Report 1996. Washington D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement

Administration.

Feucht, T.E., and G.M. Kyle (1996). Methamphetamine Use Among Adult Arrestees: Findings

From the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Justice, November, NCJ 161842.

Galvin, D. (1995). Findings From the High Risk

Youth Grants: A Preliminary Report. Presentation to the Annual Conference on Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation, Washington, D.C.,

July 11.

Gernstein, D.R., R.A. Johnson, H.J. Harwood,

D. Fountain, N. Suter, and K. Malloy (1994).

Evaluating Recovery Services: The California

Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment

(CALDATA) General Reports. Sacramento:

Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs.

Gil-Rivas, V., M.D. Anglin, and J. Annon

(1997). “Patterns of Drug Use and Criminal

Activities Among Latino Arrestees in California:

Treatment and Policy Implications.” Journal of

Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 19,

161–174.

Golub, A.L., and B. Johnson (1997). Crack’s

Decline: Some Surprises Across the United

States. Research in Brief. Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Department of Justice, NCJ 165707.

Green, R. (1996). “Some Meth Raiders of

‘80s Now Ill.” San Diego Union-Tribune,

December 9, A3–A4.

Huber, A., W. Ling, S. Shoptaw, V. Gulati, P.

Brethen, and R. Rawson (1997). “Integrating

Treatments for Methamphetamine Abuse: A

Psychosocial Perspective.” Journal of Addictive

Diseases 16, 41–50.
50 Meth Matters: Report on Methamphetamine Users in Five Western Cities

Institute for Social Research (1998). The Monitoring the Future Study. Available online at

(http://www.isr.umich.edu).

Johnson, R. (1997). “Meth Labs: An Explosive

Problem.” San Francisco Chronicle, January 6,

A19.

Julien, R.M. (1985). A Primer of Drug Action.

New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Knopf, A. (ed.) (1999). Substance Abuse Report.

Vol. 30, No. 2. Boston: Warren, Gorham, and

Lamont, January 15.

Leshner, Alan I. (1998). “Addiction Is a Brain

Disease and It Matters.” National Institute of Justice Journal Issue 237. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, National Institute of

Justice, NCJ 173825, October.

Lucas, S.E. (1997). Proceedings of the National

Consensus Meeting on the Use, Abuse, and

Sequelae of Abuse of Methamphetamine With

Implications for Prevention, Treatment, and

Research. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services, DHHS Publication

No. SMA 96–801 3.

Lungren, D. (n.d.). Methamphetamine:

California’s Deadly “Speed” Trap. Sacramento,

CA: Office of the Attorney General.

Manning, T., and D. Vedder (1998). “Toxic

Chemicals. Toxic Kids.” Law Enforcement

Quarterly 27, 20–23.

McCrea, B.A., and K.F. Kolbye (1995). Hazards

of D-Methamphetamine Production: Baseline

Assessment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department

of Justice, National Drug Intelligence Center,

June, NDIC Pub. No. 95–C0109–002, NCJRS,

NCJ 164382.

Merrill, J.C., K. Fox, S.R. Lewis, and G.E.

Pulver (1994). Cigarettes, Alcohol, Marijuana:

Gateways to Illicit Drug Use. New York: Center

on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia

University.

National Institute of Justice (1998). 1997 Annual

Report on Adult and Juvenile Arrestees. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,

National Institute of Justice, NCJ 171672.

National Institute of Justice (1997). 1996 Drug

Use Forecasting Annual Report on Adult and

Juvenile Arrestees. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,

NCJ 165691.

National Institute on Drug Abuse (n.d.).

Comparing Methamphetamine and Cocaine.

Available online at (http://www.nida.nih.gov).

National Institute on Drug Abuse (1998a).

Epidemiologic Trends in Drug Abuse: Community Epidemiology Work Group (Volume II:

Proceedings December 1997). Washington,

D.C.: National Institutes of Health, National

Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH Publication

No. 98–4298.

National Institute on Drug Abuse (1998b). Methamphetamine Abuse and Addiction Research

Report Series. Available online at

(http://www.nida.nih.gov).

National Narcotics Intelligence Consumers

Committee (1997). The Supply of Illicit Drugs to

the United States. Available online at

(http://www.usdoj.gov/dea).

Office of National Drug Control Policy (1997).

Pulse Check: National Trends in Drug Abuse.

Washington, D.C.: Office of National Drug

Control Policy.

Pennell, S., (1990). “Ice: DUF Interview Results

From San Diego,” NIJ Reports. Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Summer, No. 221.

Potter, M.J. (1996). Effects of D-Methamphetamine. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of

Justice, National Drug Intelligence Center,

NDIC Pub. No. 96–C0109–003.
References 51

Riley, J.K. (1997). Crack, Powder Cocaine, and

Heroin: Drug Purchase and Use Patterns in Six

U.S. Cities, Research Report. Washington D.C.:

U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of

Justice and Office of National Drug Control

Policy, NCJRS, NCJ 167265.

San Diego Association of Governments (1997).

DUFINFO. San Diego, CA: San Diego Association of Governments.

San Diego County (1998). Methamphetamine

Strike Force Progress Report. San Diego, CA:

San Diego County, July.

San Diego Union-Tribune (1998). Search

Results. “959 documents found for query:

(methamphetamine)” Available online at

(http://www.uniontrib.com/news/utarchives/cgi/

libsearch.cgi).

Smith, J.M. (ed.) (n.d.). Drug Pharmacology

(Second Edition). Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement

Administration.

Stalcup, A. (1998). Methamphetamine Training,

San Diego, California. Personal observation,

January.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration (1998a). Preliminary Results

From the 1997 National Household Survey on

Drug Abuse. Available online at

(http://www.samhsa.gov).

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration (1998b). Year End Preliminary

Estimates From the 1996 Drug Abuse Warning

Network. Available online at

(http://www.samhsa.gov).

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration (1997). The Basics of Brain

Imaging. Available online at

(http://www.samhsa.gov).

U.S. Bureau of the Census (1998). United States

Population Estimates, by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin, 1990 to 1997, PPL–91. Suitland,

MD: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population

Division, Nov. 1.

Winton, R., and N. Riccardi (1998). “Meth War

Hits Close to Home—at Local Pharmacy.” Los

Angeles Times, January 31, A1.
APPENDIXES
APPENDIX A: Adult ADAM Interview
NOTICE–Information contained on this form which would permit identification of any

individual or released to others without the consent of the individual or the establishment

has been collected with a guarantee that it will be held in strict confidence, will be used

only for purposes stated for this study, and will not be disclosed or released to others

without the consent of the individual or the establishment in accordance with section 42

USC 3789g and 28 CODE (CFR) Part 22. Public reporting burden for this collection of

information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response. Send comments regarding

this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Director, National Institute of Justice, 810 Seventh

Street, NW, Washington, DC 20531; and to the Office of Management and Budget,

Paperwork Reduction Project (0920–0214), Washington, DC 20503.

ADULT ADAM INTERVIEW

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE

OMB No. 1121-0137

INTERVIEW DATE

___ ___/___ ___/___ ___

ADAM SITE ID#

 ___ ___

PERSON ID#

___ ___ ___ ___ ___

VIOLENT OFFENSES

1.01 Assault

1.02 Blackmail/Extortion/Threat

1.03 Kidnapping

1.04 Manslaughter by negligence

1.05 Murder/Homicide (Nonnegligent Manslaughter)

1.06 Robbery

1.07 Sexual Assault/Rape by force

1.08 Weapons

1.09 Domestic Violence

1.10 Child Abuse

1.11 Spouse/Partner Abuse

1.12 Child Neglect

1.13 Violation of Protection Order

DRUG/ALCOHOL-RELATED

OFFENSES

2.01 Driving While Intoxicated

Driving Under the Influence

2.02 Drug Possession

2.03 Drug Sale

2.04 Liquor

2.05 Possession of alcohol

2.06 Under the influence of a

Controlled Substance

PROPERTY OFFENSES

3.01 Arson

3.02 Bribery

3.03 Burglary

3.04 Burglary Tools

3.05 Damage/Destroy Property

3.06 Forgery

3.07 Fraud

3.08 Larceny/Theft

3.09 Stolen Property

3.10 Stolen Vehicle

3.11 Trespassing

MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES

5.01 Commercial Sex/Prostitution

5.02 Embezzlement

5.03 Fare Beating

5.04 Flight/Escape/Bench Warrant

5.05 Gambling

5.06 Obscenity (e.g., indecent

exposure)

5.07 Obstructing Police/Resisting

Arrest

5.08 Other (specify above)

5.09 Public Peace/Disturbance/

Mischief/ Reckless

Endangerment

5.10 Pickpocket/Jostling

5.11 Sex Offenses

5.12 Unspecified Probation/Parole/

ROR Violation

INFORMATION FROM RECORDS (COMPLETE BEFORE APPROACHING ARRESTEE)

Year of Birth: ____ ____ SEX: 1 - Male 2 - Female

Ethnicity Information:

1 - Black (Not Hispanic) 2 - White (Not Hispanic) 3 - Hispanic 4 - American Indian or Alaskan Native

5 - Asian or Pacific Islander 6 - Other: Specify _______________________________

Precinct/location of arrest: ___________________________________ Location of arrest ZIP Code ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

(or other code) _________________

Arrestee’s residence ZIP Code ___ ___ ___ ___ ___

(or other code) _________________

Was the person charged with a warrant only? 0 - NO 1 - YES

Was the person charged with a probation/parole/ROR violation? 0 - NO 1 - YES

Law Enforcement 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0

(WRITE IN CHARGE, WITH NO ABBREVIATIONS)

Charge Code

(from list below) Penal Law Code Misd Felony Status

Most serious charge: ______________________________ ________________ ________________ M F S

Second most serious charge: _______________________ ________________ ________________ M F S

Third most serious charge: _________________________ ________________ ________________ M F S

1
NOTE: INTERVIEWER INSTRUCTIONS ARE IN CAPITAL LETTERS. READ ANSWER CHOICES TO THE RESPONDENT

ONLY WHEN INSTRUCTED TO DO SO. EVERYTHING ELSE IN LOWER CASE OR INITIAL CAPS MUST BE READ TO

RESPONDENT. USE PEN, NOT PENCIL, TO COMPLETE INTERVIEW.

(CIRCLE ONE)

1 Agreed to interview

2 Declined

3 Not available (ill, asleep, taken to court)

4 Other reason not interviewed (Specify) _______________________

(CIRCLE ONE)

1 Spanish

2 English

3 Other

(IF GREATER THAN 48 HOURS, DISCONTINUE INTERVIEW)

______ HRS

___ ___

(EXAMPLES: 9th Grade=09; H.S. Graduate=12;

1 Year College=13; Never Attended School=00)

(CIRCLE ONE)

1 High School Graduate

2 GED

3 Currently in High School

4 Neither

10 Other (Specify)_________________________

(READ ALL CHOICES, CIRCLE ONE)

1 Single, Never Married

2 Married

3 Separated, Divorced

4 Living with boyfriend/girlfriend

5 Widowed

(PROBE AND CODE INTO ONE OF THE FOLLOWING

CATEGORIES)

0 Public housing (GO TO QUESTION 6)

1 Private apartment/condo./hotel (GO TO QUESTION 6)

2 House/mobile home (GO TO QUESTION 6)

3 Emergency or short-term shelter (GO TO QUESTION 7)

4 Jail or prison (GO TO QUESTION 7)

5 Half-way or honors facility (GO TO QUESTION 7)

6 Drug/alc. treatment facility (GO TO QUESTION 7)

7 No fixed residence; on the street (GO TO QUESTION 7)

8 Other (Specify) ________________ (GO TO QUESTION 7)

______

(1=SELF, IF GREATER THAN 1, ASK A)

CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY: SPECIFY NUMBERS OF FOLLOWING:

0 Mother 6 ______ Grandparents

1 Father 7 ______ Parent(s)-in-law

2 Stepmother 8 _____ Biological Children

3 Stepfather 9 _____ Adopted or stepchildren

4 Spouse 10 _____ Brothers or sisters

5 Boyfriend/girlfriend 11 _____ Other relatives

12 _____ Friends/roommates

13 _____ Other unrelated people

(READ ALL CHOICES, CIRCLE ONE, SELF-EMPLOYED IS

FULL- OR PART-TIME WORK, DO NOT RECORD

EMPLOYER’S NAME)

0 Welfare, SSI

1 Working Full-Time

 (Specify type of employment) _______________________________

2 Working Part-Time or Odd-Jobs

 (Specify type of employment) _______________________________

Interviewer’s Initials: ___ ___

READ AS WRITTEN: This interview is part of a federally funded

study. Your participation is voluntary. The information you provide is

confidential and anonymous, and it will not help or hurt your case. At

the end of the interview I will ask you to provide a urine sample.

INTERVIEW CONDUCTED IN:

1. How many hours ago were you arrested?

2. What is the highest grade you have successfully finished in school?

3. Did you graduate from high school or get a GED certificate?

4. What is your current marital status?

5. In the past month, what kind of place did you live in?

(PROBE: What kind of building? Where did you stay?

Was it public or private housing?)

6. In the past month, how many people have lived in your household on

a regular basis, including yourself?

A. How are these people related to you?

7. In the past 30 days, what was the main source of your income or

spending money?

2
(CIRCLE “0” FOR NO AND “1” FOR YES)

3 Family

4 Other Legal (Specify)_____________________________________

5 Prostitution

6 Dealing/Drug Sales

7 Other Illegal (Specify)_____________________________________

8 No Income

$ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___.00

COMPARE THE RESPONSE IN Q7 FOR CONSISTENCY.

$ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___.00

$ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___.00

IF AMOUNT EXCEEDS DOLLAR AMOUNT IN Q8 & Q9,

PROBE REASONS FOR EXCESS.

PROCEED DOWN THE COLUMNS FOR EACH DRUG THE ARRESTEE EVER TRIED

12. When you first tried (NAME

DRUG) how old were you?

13. Have you used (NAME DRUG)

during the last 12 months?

IF NO, SKIP TO QUESTION 18 (SKIP MAY DIFFER FOR EACH DRUG)

14. In the past 3 days did you use

(NAME DRUG)?

15. How many days did you use

(NAME DRUG) in the past 30

days? IF RESPONSE IS 28

OR MORE DAYS, CHECK

CONSISTENCY WITH Q14.

16. During the past 12 months, have

you consciously tried to cut down

or quit using (NAME DRUG) on

your own?

A. If yes, were you successful?

17. Have you felt that you needed or

were dependent on (NAME

DRUG) in the past 12 months?

18. Are you now receiving treatment

or detox for (NAME DRUG)?

19. Have you received treatment or

detox for (NAME DRUG) in

the past?

20. Do you feel you could use

treatment for (NAME DRUG)?

AGE_________

(CALCULATE FROM Y.O.B.

AND VERIFY WITH

ARRESTEE)

11. Have you ever tried any of the

following drugs? (READ ALL

DRUGS) 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1

0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1

0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1

0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1

0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1

21. Are there any other drugs that you have used illegally in the past

30 days?

0 No

1 Yes (Specify) ______________________________________

8. In the past 30 days, how much money did you receive from all legal

sources (such as wages, food stamps, and/or welfare)?

9. In the past 30 days, how much money did you receive from all illegal

sources?

READ AS WRITTEN: The next several questions concern drugs used

illegally and do not include drugs prescribed by a doctor.

10. In the past 30 days how much did you spend on drugs for yourself

(not including alcohol and tobacco)? Remember, everything you tell

me is confidential.

0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1

0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1

0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1

0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Alcohol Tobacco Marijuana Crack Powder Cocaine Heroin, Black Tar, Dilaudid, Morphine (opiates) PCP/Angel Dust Amphetamines/ Speed (pills) Downers/ Barbiturates Quaaludes/Ludes Street Methadone Methamphetamine/ Crystal Meth. Valium or other Tranquilizers LSD/Acid Inhalants

3
22. Have you ever injected drugs illegally?

A. What drugs have you EVER injected?

23. When was the last time you injected any drug illegally?

24. At the time the police said you committed this crime:

A. Were you in need of drugs or alcohol?

B. Were you under the influence of drugs or alcohol?

25. Are there any new drugs on the street that you have heard are being

used?

26. Have you ever been a patient at a Hospital Emergency Room for a drug

overdose or any other drug-related incident?

A. Was it during the past 12 months?

READ AS WRITTEN: The next several questions concern previous

arrests, not including the current charge.

27. During the past 12 months, have you been arrested and booked for

breaking a law, whether or not you were guilty?

A. How many times during the past 12 months?

B. What were the charges?

28. Have you served time in the past 12 months?

29. SPECIMEN (AFTER ANY ADDITIONAL

QUESTIONS/ADDENDA) WAS:

READ AS WRITTEN: As I mentioned at the start of the interview, the last

part of the interview is getting a urine sample. Again, this is completely

confidential. No names will appear on the specimens and the results will not

be given to the police or affect the outcome of your case. I’m going to ask

the Officer to take you to a restroom for me. After you’ve finished I can give

you a (incentive) for participating in the study. Thank you.

0 No (GO TO QUESTION 24)

1 Yes (ASK A)

(CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

1 Heroin

2 Cocaine

3 Amphetamines/speed/crystal meth

4 Other(s) (Specify) ___________________________________

COMPARE THESE ANSWERS TO Q11. MUST BE CONSISTENT

WITH DRUGS EVER TRIED.

1 Within the past 30 days

2 More than 1 month ago but less than 6 months ago

3 6 or more months ago but less than 1 year ago

4 1 or more years ago

(CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

0 No

1 Alcohol

2 Cocaine/Crack

3 Marijuana

4 Other(s) (Specify) ____________________________________

(CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

0 No

1 Alcohol

2 Cocaine/Crack

3 Marijuana

4 Other(s) (Specify) ___________________________________

0 No

1 Yes (Specify Effects, How Used, Cost, etc.) ____________________

______________________________________________________________

0 No (GO TO QUESTION 27)

1 Yes (ASK A)

0 No

1 Yes

0 No (GO TO QUESTION 28)

1 Yes (ASK A AND B)

___ ___

Number of Times

(LIST ALL CHARGES AND NUMBER OF TIMES DURING THE

PAST 12 MONTHS FOR EACH, I.E., Charge/Number of Times)

___________/_____ ___________/_____ ___________/_____

SUPERVISOR: WRITE OFFENSE CODE BELOW. (LIST IN

ORDER OF MOST SERIOUS TO LEAST SERIOUS.)

_____ _____ _____

0 No

1 Yes

0 Refused/did not try

1 Provided

2 Tried/could not produce specimen

4
APPENDIX B: Methamphetamine Addendum
(1) What term do you use to refer to meth? (CIRCLE

ALL THAT APPLY)

1. Crystal

2. Tweek

3. Shit

4. Dope

5. Speed

6. Crank

7. Go-Fast

8. Root beer

9. Peanut butter

10. Other ______________________ __ __

(2) How do you usually use meth? (ONE ANSWER -

PROBE FOR METHOD USED MOST OFTEN)

1. Snort

2. Smoke alone

3. Smoke in combo with _________ __ __

4. Inject

5. Inject in combo with __________ __ __

6. Eat/drink

7. Other ______________________ __ __

(3) Who introduced you to meth? (CIRCLE ONE)

1. Friend

2. Parents

3. Spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend

4. Other family

5. Co-worker

6. Dealer

7. Other ______________________ __ __

(4) Do/Did your parents ever use drugs?

1. Yes

2. No

3. Don’t know

(5) Why did you start using meth? (CIRCLE ALL THAT

APPLY)

1. To get high

2. To get more energy

3. To lose weight

4. To experiment

5. To escape

6. To stay awake

7. To replace another drug

8. Friends/peers use

9. Other ______________________ __ __

(6) Do you prefer meth over cocaine or crack?

1. Yes (ASK Q. 6a)

2. No (SKIP TO Q. 7)

3. No cocaine or crack use (SKIP TO Q. 7)

(6a) Why do you prefer it? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

1. The high is better

2. It’s easier to get

3. I can make it

4. Fewer side effects

5. It’s cheaper

6. The high lasts longer

7. Other _________________ __ __

(7) Has your meth use resulted in any of the following: (READ

AND CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

1. Weight loss

2. Sleeplessness

3. Dental problems

4. Financial problems

5. Family problems

6. Work problems

7. High blood pressure

8. Skin problems

9. Paranoia

10. Hallucinations

11. Violent behavior

12. Legal problems

13. Required medical treatment

14. Other ______________________ __ __

(8) Do you usually buy/get meth indoors, outdoors, or from a

vehicle?

1. Indoors (ASK Q. 8a)

2. Outdoors (SKIP TO Q. 9)

3. Mobile vehicle (SKIP TO Q. 9)

(8a) Do you usually buy at a: (READ ALL, CIRCLE ONE)

1. Residence

2. Business

3. Hotel/motel

4. Your workplace

5. Other _________________ __ __

METHAMPHETAMINE ADDENDUM

DUF ID __ __ __ __ Interviewer Initials __ __

SEX ___ (1 = man, 2 = woman, 3 = boy, 4 = girl)

SITE # __ __

DATE __ __ / __ __ / __ __

INTRODUCTION

You said earlier that you’ve used crystal meth in the past 30 days. Now I’d like to ask you some more detailed questions

about your experience with meth. Remember that everything you say is still confidential. It’s very important for the

research that we get accurate and honest information, so if there’s a question you don’t want to answer, just let me know.

1
(9) How do you contact your dealer? (CIRCLE ALL THAT

APPLY) (IF FRIEND SUPPLIES, ASK HOW THE

FRIEND IS CONTACTED) (IF ONLY ONE ANSWER

CIRCLED, GO TO Q. 10)

1. Street

2. House

3. Phone

4. Beeper

5. Mobile vehicle

6. Face to face at your workplace

7. Fax/e-mail

8. Other ______________________ __ __

(IF MORE THAN ONE METHOD, ASK)

(9a) Which method do you use most often?

(CODE NUMBER FROM ABOVE) __ __

(10) How many different people have you gotten meth from in

the past 7 days? _________ (NO RANGES!)

(11) Do you get meth within the county? IF YES, WHAT

PART?

1. North county region

2. South county region

3. East county region

4. West county region

(12) Do you have a main source—one dealer you usually hook

up with?

1. Yes

2. No (SKIP TO Q. 13)

(12a) How long have you used that person?

______ days

______ months

______ years

(12b) Does that person live in your neighborhood?

1. Yes

2. No

3. Don’t know

(12c) Do you get other drugs from that main source?

(CROSS CHECK WITH DUF GRID)

1. Yes

2. No (SKIP TO Q. 12e)

(12d) If Yes, what other drugs? (CIRCLE ALL THAT

APPLY)

1. Marijuana

2. Prescription drugs (Valium, Soma, Darvon,

Percodan, etc.)

3. Cocaine/crack

4. Heroin

5. LSD

6. Mushrooms

7. PCP

8. Other _________________ __ __

(12e) What do you usually do if your main source isn’t

around? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

1. Buy from someone else

2. Get it through a friend

3. Use another drug

4. Don’t buy, do without

5. Other _________________ __ __

(12f) Is your main source male or female?

1. Male

2. Female

(12g) Is your main source a: (READ)

1. Dealer and cooker

2. Dealer/Middleman

3. Don’t know

(12h) What is the ethnicity of your main source?

1. White

2. Black

3. Hispanic

4. Asian/Pacific Islander

5. American Indian/Alaskan native

6. Other _________________ __ __

(13) Have you ever bought from someone you didn’t know?

1. Yes

2. No

(14) In the past 30 days was there a time when you had money to

get meth, but couldn’t buy any?

1. Yes

2. No (SKIP TO Q. 16)

(15) Why do you think it was hard to get? (CIRCLE ONE)

1. Dealer not available

2. Dealer out of meth (due to supply, lack of chemicals)

3. Dealer charging too much

4. Police activity hot

5. Holiday/Sunday

6. In jail

7. Lab shut down/blew up

8. No reason/don’t know

9. Other ______________________ __ __

(16) During the last month, what was the most days in a row

(longest run) you used meth? (# DAYS, NO RANGES) __ __

(17) During the last month, what was the most days in a row

(longest run) you went without using meth? (# DAYS, NO

RANGES) (IF ZERO, SKIP TO Q. 19) __ __

(18) Why did you go that long without using it? (DON’T

READ—CIRCLE ONE, MOST SPECIFIC)

1. Tired of life associated with meth (passive answer)

2. Wanted to change/improve life (active answer)

3. Couldn’t afford it

4. In treatment

5. In jail

6. Because of family and friends

7. Switched to another drug

8. Subjected to drug testing

9. Meth hard to find

10. Health reasons

11. Not a daily or dependent user

12. Needed to sleep

13. Other ______________________ __ __

(19) In the past 30 days did you get meth without paying cash

for it?

1. Yes

2. No (SKIP TO Q. 21)

2
(20) Why or how did you get meth without paying cash for it?

(READ AND CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

1. Traded something for it (including sex)

2. Given to you (got it for free)

3. Dealer owed you

4. Dealer fronted you the meth

5. Stole it

6. Cooked it yourself

7. You deal, and took some off the top

8. Other ______________________ __ __

If Q. 20 indicates got drugs for free, ASK

(20a) Who gave it to you for free? (CIRCLE ALL THAT

APPLY)

1. Friend

2. Parents

3. Spouse/boyfriend/girlfriend

4. Other family member

5. Co-worker

6. Dealer

7. Other _________________ __ __

(21) In the past 30 days did you participate in any drug-related

activities?

1. Yes (ASK THE FOLLOWING:)

(21a) Did you do it:

1. For money

2. For drugs

3. For drugs and money

2. No (SKIP TO Q. 22)

(21b) If yes, did you: (READ AND CIRCLE ALL THAT

APPLY)

1. Sell drugs

2. Act as a middleman

3. Hold drugs or money

4. Provide street security or protection

5. Make meth

6. Get the chemicals for someone else to cook it

7. Find a cooking location

8. Get equipment to cook meth

9. Cut/package meth

10. Act as an enforcer/“taxman”

11. Anything else? ___________ __ __

(22) Have you ever been in the military?

1. Yes

2. No (SKIP TO Q. 23)

(22a) Are you a veteran?

1. Yes

2. No

(23) In the past 30 days did you own or possess a gun?

1. Yes

2. No

(24) In the past 30 days have you carried a gun or other weapon

while you were getting meth?

1. Yes, gun

2. Yes, other weapon (i.e., knife)

3. Yes, both

4. No

(25) Have you ever tried to get treatment for your meth use?

1. Yes (ASK 25b-e)

2. No (ASK 25a)

(25a) If no, why not? (CIRCLE ONE. PROBE FOR MAIN

REASON) (SKIP TO Q. 26)

1. Don’t need treatment

2. Can’t afford it

3. Don’t think it’s available/don’t know how to get

4. Other _________________ __ __

(25b) Did you get into a program?

1. Yes (IF YES, SKIP TO 25d)

2. No

(25c) If no, why not? (CIRCLE ONE. PROBE FOR MAIN

REASON) (THEN SKIP TO Q. 26)

1. Waiting list too long

2. Changed my mind

3. Got arrested

4. Too expensive

5. No transportation, too far away

6. Other _________________ __ __

(25d) What type of program was it? (IF MORE THAN

ONE, REFER TO MOST RECENT)

1. In-patient (residential)

2. Out-patient

3. Detox

4. Jail/prison program

1. NA/AA

2. Other _________________ __ __

(25e) Did you complete the program? (REFER TO THE

SAME PROGRAM AS ABOVE)

1. Yes

2. No

(25f) If no, why not? (CIRCLE ONE. PROBE FOR MAIN

REASON)

1. Program too long

2. Didn’t get along with staff

3. Wasn’t doing any good

4. Wanted to start using again

5. Program too strict

6. Couldn’t afford it

7. Other _________________ __ __

(26) How is meth usually packaged? (CIRCLE ONE)

1. In a baggie/plastic

2. In paper

3. In foil

4. Other packaging ______________ __ __

(27) How much meth do you use each time you get high? __ __

Specify fractions of grams ___________

 or

Specify other measure ______________

(28) How often do you use meth in a typical

day? __ __ (# OF TIMES, NO RANGES)

3
(29) Compared to a year ago, what if any changes have you

noticed about the quality of the meth you’re using?

(CIRCLE ONE)

1. Quality is worse

2. Quality is the same

3. Quality is better

4. Don’t know/NA

(30) Compared to a year ago, what if any changes have you

noticed about the price you’re paying for meth? (CIRCLE

ONE)

1. Price is lower

2. Price is the same

3. Price is higher

4. Don’t know/NA

(31) The last time you got meth, how much did you get?

(MEASURED QUANTITY, NOT COST HERE) __ __

Specify grams __________________

 or

Specify other measurement ________

(32) How much did you pay for that amount? ______

(33) Have you bought meth in the last 7 days? (CROSS

CHECK)

1. Yes

2. No (SKIP TO Q. 34)

(33a) How many times did you buy in the last 7 days?

____________________

[PHOENIX: OMIT QUESTION 34]

(34) Do you know any police, corrections, or customs officers

who are involved in dealing meth or protection activities?

1. Yes

2. No

(35) Are you a legal resident of the United States?

1. Yes

2. No

(36) Have you, yourself, sold or made meth in the last year?

1. Yes, sold only (GO TO Q. 37)

2. Yes, made only (SKIP TO Q. 54)

3. Yes, both sold and made (GO TO Q. 37)

4. No (END INTERVIEW - THANK YOU FOR YOUR

TIME... REQUEST SAMPLE)

(37) How soon after you started using, did you start selling it?

______ # days

______ # months

______ # years (IF SOLD BEFORE THEY USED CODE

9999 IN YEARS)

(38) How long have you sold meth?

_____ # days

_____ # months

_____ # years

(39) Why did you start to deal meth? (CIRCLE ONE. PROBE

FOR MAIN REASON)

1. To support your habit

2. To make money

3. Already selling another drug

4. Exciting

5. Other ________________

(40) In what year did you start dealing meth? __ __ __ __

(41) Now do you deal for: (READ ALL, CIRCLE ONE)

1. Profit

2. To support your habit

3. Both for profit and habit

4. Other ____________

(42) In the past 30 days how much money have you made selling

meth? ______________ (NO RANGES! CROSS CHECK

WITH DUF QUESTION 9)

(43) In the past 7 days about how many different people have

you sold to? __________ (NO RANGES)

(44) Do you sell outside the county?

1. Yes

2. No

(45) Do you sell outside the state? (SPECIFY STATE)

1. Yes ________________________ __ __

2. No

(46) Do you sell outside the country? (SPECIFY COUNTRY)

1. Yes _______________________ __ __

2. No

(47) Do you sell to people outside your race or ethnic group?

1. Yes

2. No

(48) What do you worry about when you deal meth? (CIRCLE

ALL THAT APPLY) (CROSS CHECK WITH Q. 23, 24)

1. Getting busted

2. Not selling enough to pay the bills

3. Getting robbed? If yes, by whom?

______________ __ __

4. Getting hurt? If yes, by whom?

______________ __ __

5. No worries

6. Other ___________________________

(49) What kinds of safety/security precautions do you take when

dealing meth? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

1. Carry a weapon (CROSS CHECK WITH Q. 23, 24)

2. Hire street security/protection

3. Don’t carry a lot of drugs

4. Don’t carry a lot of money

5. Secure home

6. Use pay phone

7. Use clone cell phone

8. Use beeper

9. Don’t let customer come to house

10. Deliver to customer

11. I only sell to friends

12. Other ___________________________

4
(50) What’s the smallest amount you sell?

_________________ __ __

(specify grams)

(51) When you’re selling meth for someone else, how do you get

paid? (CIRCLE ONE. PROBE FOR MAIN REASON)

1. Cash by the hour

2. Cash cut out of profits

3. Meth directly

4. Sell for myself, not for anyone else

5. Get other drugs ______________ __ __

6. Other ______________________ __ __

(52) Are you currently selling meth?

1. Yes (SKIP TO Q. 54 IF HE MAKES METH,

OTHERWISE END AFTER Q. 53)

2. No

(53) Why did you stop selling meth? (CIRCLE ONE. PROBE

FOR MOST IMPORTANT REASON)

1. Tired of getting busted

2. Tired of the lifestyle

3. Started selling another drug

4. For my family

5. Police activity hot

6. Feared for my life

7. In jail

8. Other ___________________________

IF ARRESTEE ONLY DEALS, AND DOESN’T MAKE

METH, STOP HERE

READ: YOU SAID EARLIER THAT YOU COOK/MAKE

METH...

(54) Who taught you how to cook it?

1. Friend

2. Parents

3. Cell mate

4. Internet

5. Dealer/cooker

6. Another user

(55) Where do you cook it? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

1. Your house/apartment

2. Someone else’s house/apt.

3. Motel/hotel

4. Mobile vehicle

5. Storage unit

6. Outdoors (field, desert)

7. Other __________________________

(56) Is it hard to get the chemicals you need?

1. Yes

2. No

3. Sometimes (EXPLAIN) ____________

(57) What do you use to make meth? (CIRCLE ALL THAT

APPLY)

1. Ephedrine

2. Pseudoephedrine

3. Freon

4. Red phosphorus

5. Tablets (over the counter, specify

type _______________ )

6. Caffeine

7. Vitaflex

8. Lactose

9. MSM

10. Iodine

11. Hydrochloric gas/acid

12. Other __________________________

(58) Where do you get the ephedrine or other chemicals needed

to make meth? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

1. From someone else dealing

meth/chemicals __ __

______________________

(SPECIFY STATE/COUNTRY)

2. I buy it myself from __ __

__________________________

(SPECIFY STATE/COUNTRY)

3. From a mail order catalog

4. From a retail store outlet

5. Other ___________________________

(59) What cooking methods do you use to cook it? (CIRCLE

ALL THAT APPLY)

1. Flash

2. Pressure cooker

3. Tablets

4. Dry cook

5. Other ___________________________

(60) What do you do with the toxic waste?

1. Abandon it in containers

2. Dump it on the ground

3. Bury it

4. Pour it down the drain

END OF INTERVIEW - THANKS FOR YOUR

COOPERATION (REQUEST SAMPLE, ETC.)

5
About the National Institute of Justice

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ), a component of the Office of Justice Programs, is the research agency of

the U.S. Department of Justice. Created by the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended,

NIJ is authorized to support research, evaluation, and demonstration programs, development of technology, and

both national and international information dissemination. Specific mandates of the Act direct NIJ to:

● Sponsor special projects, and research and development programs, that will improve and strengthen the

criminal justice system and reduce or prevent crime.

● Conduct national demonstration projects that employ innovative or promising approaches for improving

criminal justice.

● Develop new technologies to fight crime and improve criminal justice.

● Evaluate the effectiveness of criminal justice programs and identify programs that promise to be successful if

continued or repeated.

● Recommend actions that can be taken by Federal, State, and local governments as well as by private organizations

to improve criminal justice.

● Carry out research on criminal behavior.

● Develop new methods of crime prevention and reduction of crime and delinquency.

In recent years, NIJ has greatly expanded its initiatives, the result of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement

Act of 1994 (the Crime Act), partnerships with other Federal agencies and private foundations, advances in

technology, and a new international focus. Some examples of these new initiatives:

● New research and evaluation are exploring key issues in community policing, violence against women, sentencing

reforms, and specialized courts such as drug courts.

● Dual-use technologies are being developed to support national defense and local law enforcement needs.

● The causes, treatment, and prevention of violence against women and violence within the family are being

investigated in cooperation with several agencies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

● NIJ’s links with the international community are being strengthened through membership in the United Nations

network of criminological institutes; participation in developing the U.N. Criminal Justice Information Network;

initiation of UNOJUST (U.N. Online Justice Clearinghouse), which electronically links the institutes to the

U.N. network; and establishment of an NIJ International Center.

● The NIJ-administered criminal justice information clearinghouse, the world’s largest, has improved its

online capability.

● The Institute’s Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) program has been expanded and enhanced. Renamed ADAM

(Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring), the program will increase the number of drug-testing sites, and its role

as a “platform” for studying drug-related crime will grow.

● NIJ’s new Crime Mapping Research Center will provide training in computer mapping technology, collect and

archive geocoded crime data, and develop analytic software.

● The Institute’s program of intramural research has been expanded and enhanced.

The Institute Director, who is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, establishes the Institute’s

objectives, guided by the priorities of the Office of Justice Programs, the Department of Justice, and the needs of

the criminal justice field. The Institute actively solicits the views of criminal justice professionals and researchers

in the continuing search for answers that inform public policymaking in crime and justice.