This week’s readings included the 2014 Drug Threat Assessment report by the Drug Enforcement Administration, it provides detailed looks at these significant issues in criminal justice, which include those organizations predictions (“Outlook” section) about the future of drug and gang prevalence in the United States.
Answer the following questions based on the totality of the report:
1. What controlled substance appears to now pose the most significant threat to the U.S. and why?
2. Are these newly emerging drug threats or have they continued steadily over the past decade? Provide evidence to support your answer.
3. What has the law enforcement strategy been to contain these activities? Do you think it has been successful or not? Why or why not (provide evidence).
4. What would the components of a successful Law Enforcement program against these activities would be? Examples of enforcement programs include: border interdiction, following the money, anti-crime education in middle and grammar schools (e.g., “DARE”), community job and sports programs, curtailing incarceration of first-time offenders, etc. 

Explain why they would be successful and in what time frame? If there are examples of how your chosen program has been successful in some area, provide that information as support.
Your response will be judged on your ability to provide evidence in support of your statements and choices. You must use sources other than the two documents for your evidence. Must be 4 pages of content to address the questions properly. 

Unclassified

Unclassified

Unclassified

National
Drug Threat
Assessment

Summary

DEA-DCT-DIR-002-15

2014

Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary

Unclassified

Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary

Drug Enforcement Administration

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

This product was prepared by the DEA’s Strategic Intelligence Section. Comments and
questions may be addressed to the Chief, Analysis and Production Section,
at DEAIntelPublications@usdoj.gov.

November

2014

DEA-DCT-DIR-002-15

Unclassified
Unclassified

This page intentionally left blank.

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary

i

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

UnclassifiedUnclassified

From the Administrator…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

iii

Scope and Methodology

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1

Overview…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..1

Controlled Prescription Drugs……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….3

Heroin……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….9

Methamphetamine………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………19

Cocaine…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..23

Marijuana……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….25

Synthetic Designer Drugs…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….31

Outlook

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..37

Appendix A: Maps………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..39

Appendix B: Tables………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………45

Appendix C: Glossary of Acronyms…………………………………………………………………………………………………..51

Table of Content

s

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary

ii Unclassified

Unclassified
Unclassified

This page intentionally left blank.
2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary

iii
2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

Unclassified
Unclassified

Respectfully,

Michele M. Leonhart
Administrator
Drug Enforcement Administration

From the Administrator

I am pleased to present the 2014 National Drug Threat
Assessment Summary, a strategic assessment of the threats
posed to our communities by transnational criminal
organizations and the illicit drugs they distribute throughout the
United States. This annual assessment provides policymakers, law
enforcement personnel, and prevention and treatment specialists
with relevant strategic drug intelligence to assist in formulating
counterdrug policies, establishing law enforcement priorities, and
allocating resources.

The Drug Enforcement Administration produces the National
Drug Threat Assessment in partnership with local, state, tribal,
and federal agencies. To accurately depict a national-level
perspective of the drug issues facing the United States, the
report integrates the most recently available reporting from law
enforcement and intelligence agencies with the most current
data from public health agencies regarding national substance
abuse indicators. This report also draws on information from
more than 1,200 local, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement
partners who provided input for the assessment.

During the past year, the counterdrug community celebrated
a number of achievements, including the arrest of Joaquin “El
Chapo” Guzman, one of the leaders of the Sinaloa Cartel. These
successes signify major progress in our shared fight against
transnational organized crime, violence, and drug trafficking.
Despite these accomplishments, we still have significant
areas of concern within our country, including the threats
from prescription drug abuse, increased heroin overdoses,
marijuana legalization, and the continued dominance of Mexican
transnational criminal organizations in the US illicit drug market.

My thanks to all participating agencies and organizations for
your contributions to this vital report. Your views and opinions
continue to be important and help us to best meet the needs
of the law enforcement, intelligence, prevention, and treatment
provider communities, as well as shape drug policies. I look
forward to collaborating on future initiatives that will protect our
national security interests abroad and at home.

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary

iv Unclassified

Unclassified
2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified
This page intentionally left blank.

1Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

Scope and Methodology

The 2014 National Drug Threat Assessment
(NDTA) Summary addresses emerging
developments related to the trafficking and
use of primary illicit substances of abuse and
the nonmedical use of controlled prescription
drugs (CPDs). In the preparation of this
report, DEA considered quantitative data
from various sources (seizures, investigations,
arrests, drug purity or potency, and drug
prices; law enforcement surveys; laboratory
analyses; and interagency production
and cultivation estimates) and qualitative
information (subjective views of individual
agencies on drug availability, information on
the involvement of organized criminal groups,
information on smuggling and transportation
trends, and indicators of changes in smuggling
and transportation methods).

The 2014 NDTA Summary uses information
provided by 1,226 state and local law
enforcement agencies through the 2014
National Drug Threat Survey (NDTS). At a
95 percent confidence level, the 2014 NDTS
results are within 2.59 percentage points of
the estimates reported. NDTS data used in this
report do not imply that there is only one drug
threat per state or region or that only one drug
is available per state or region. A percentage
given for a state or region represents the
proportion of state and local law enforcement
agencies in that state or region that identified
a particular drug as their greatest threat or as
available at low, moderate, or high levels.

Overview

The threat from CPD abuse is persistent and
deaths involving CPDs outnumber those
involving heroin and cocaine combined.
The economic cost of nonmedical use of
prescription opioids alone in the United
States totals more than $53 billion annually.
Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs),
street gangs, and other criminal groups,
seeing the enormous profit potential in CPD

diversion, have become increasingly involved
in transporting and distributing CPDs. The
number of drug overdose deaths, particularly
from CPDs, has grown exponentially in the
past decade and has surpassed motor vehicle
crashes as the leading cause of injury death in
the United States. Rogue pain management
clinics (commonly referred to as pill mills)
also contribute to the extensive availability of
illicit pharmaceuticals in the United States. To
combat pill mills and stem the flow of illicit
substances, many states are establishing new
pill mill legislation and prescription drug
monitoring programs (PDMPs).

Heroin abuse and availability are increasing,
particularly in the eastern United States. There
was a 37 percent increase in heroin initiates
between 2008 and 2012. Increased demand
for heroin is largely being driven by a subset
of CPD abusers switching to heroin because
heroin is more available and less expensive.
Further, some OxyContin® abusers switched
to heroin after the reformulation of that drug
made it more difficult to abuse.

Many cities and counties across the United
States, particularly in the Northeast and
Midwest, are reporting increasing heroin
overdose deaths. Some areas are also
reporting overdoses due to heroin tainted
with fentanyl or fentanyl being sold as heroin.
Fentanyl is much stronger than heroin and can
cause even experienced abusers to overdose.

Several drug data sources indicate that
methamphetamine availability is increasing
in the United States; however, drug
demand indicators are less certain. High
methamphetamine availability is directly
related to high levels of methamphetamine
production in Mexico; domestic production
remains low in comparison. The number
of methamphetamine laboratories seized
in Mexico has increased significantly since
2008, and methamphetamine seizures at the

Overview
Scope and Methodology

2 Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

Southwest Border increased more than three-
fold over the past five years. Mexico-produced
methamphetamine has extremely high purity
and potency levels. In 2012, purity levels1
averaged close to 90 percent, while prices
remained low and stable.

Cocaine availability rebounded slightly in
2013 compared to 2012. However, it remains
stable at historically low levels throughout
most domestic markets along the East Coast.
These lower levels constitute a new normal
in comparison to pre-2007 levels when US
markets had high levels of cocaine availability
with low prices and high purity. Since 2007
cocaine availability levels in the United States
have fluctuated slightly but continued at
consistently lower levels than prior to 2007.

Marijuana is the most commonly abused drug
in the United States. High availability levels are
due to large-scale marijuana importation from
Mexico, as well as increasing domestic indoor
grows and an increase of marijuana cultivated
in states that have legalized marijuana or
passed state-approved “medical marijuana”2
initiatives. More people use marijuana than
all other illicit drugs combined, and there has
been an increase in the medical consequences
associated with marijuana abuse nationwide.
There was a 62 percent increase in marijuana-
related emergency department visits between
2004 and 2011. Marijuana-related visits were
second only to cocaine in 2011, and nearly
matched the number of cocaine-related
emergency department visits.

The abuse of marijuana concentrates
(“wax,” “butane honey oil,” etc.) is increasing
throughout the United States. These
concentrates can be abused using e-cigarettes
or consumed in edibles, and have significantly
higher tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) levels than
leaf marijuana. In 2013, the THC content of
leaf marijuana averaged 12.55 percent, while
the THC content of marijuana concentrates
averaged 52 percent, with some samples
testing over 80 percent. Highly flammable

butane gas is used to extract the THC from the
marijuana leaf, and has resulted in explosions,
injuries, and deaths.

The abuse of synthetic cannabinoids (“K2,”
“Spice,” “Herbal Incense”) and synthetic
cathinones (“bath salts”) remain a concern, as
these drugs are still available in convenience
stores, head shops, gas stations, and online.
Additionally, synthetic designer drugs being
sold as “Molly” have become increasingly
available and are sold as a substitute for
methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA).

1 Purity refers to the ratio of a drug to the additives,
adulterants, and/or contaminates it contains. Potency is the
ability for the drug to produce euphoria or a “high”.

2 When the term “medical marijuana” is used in this publication
it is exclusively in reference to state-approved “medical
marijuana”. Marijuana is a Schedule I substance under the
Controlled Substance Act with no accepted medical use in
the United States.

3Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

Controlled Prescription Drugs (CPDs)

The threat from CPD abuse is persistent. The
annual economic cost of nonmedical use
of prescription opioids in the United States
was estimated at more than $53 billion in
2011, the most recent data available; lost
productivity and crime account for most (94%)
of these costs. Nationally, 21.5 percent of law
enforcement agencies responding to the 2014
NDTS reported CPDs as the greatest drug
threat, up from 9.8 percent in 2009. (See Table
B1 in Appendix B.) Additionally, 90.6 percent of
law enforcement agencies surveyed indicated
that CPD availability ranges from moderate to
high.

Opioid analgesics, or pain relievers, are the
most common type of CPD abused. The
most common opioid CPDs are oxycodone
(OxyContin®, Roxicodone®, Percocet®),
hydrocodone (Vicodin®, Lorcet®, Lortab®),
oxymorphone (Opana®), and hydromorphone
(Dilaudid®). According to the National Seizure
System (NSS), nearly 1.2 million dosage units
of oxycodone were seized by law enforcement
in 2013, up 535 percent from 2012. (See Table
B2 in Appendix B.) Further, there was a 100
percent increase in hydrocodone seizures from
2012 (41,668 dosage units) to 2013 (83,448
dosage units). Law enforcement officers seized
1,363 dosage units of hydromorphone in 2013,
down from 1,570 in 2012.

Demand and treatment data indicate the
abuse of CPDs is a continuing and significant
problem. According to the National Survey
on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), while the
number of people reporting current non-
medical use has increased, the statistical rate
of current users has remained relatively steady
over the past several years.

• NSDUH data indicate that in 2012,
6.8 million people aged 12 or older
were current nonmedical users of
psychotherapeutic drugs, 11.5 percent

higher than the number of users (6.1
million) reported for 2011 (See Chart
1.) These 6.8 million users included 4.9
million users of pain relievers, 2.1 million
users of tranquilizers, 1.2 million users of
stimulants, and 270,000 users of
sedatives.3 The number of persons 12
and older who were current nonmedical
users of pain relievers in 2012 (4.9 million)
was statistically similar to the numbers
over the last 10 years.

• CPDs are increasingly the first drug
abused by initiates of illicit drug abuse.
In 2012, an estimated 2.9 million persons
aged 12 or older used an illicit drug for the
first time within the past 12 months. More
than 1 in 4 initiated with nonmedical use
of prescription drugs (26.0 %, including
17.0 % with pain relievers, 4.1 % with
tranquilizers, 3.6 % with stimulants, and
1.3 % with sedatives). (See Chart 2.) This
is second only to marijuana as the first
drug used by most abusers.

• According to the Drug Abuse Warning
Network (DAWN), the estimated number
of emergency department (ED) visits
for nonmedical use of pharmaceuticals
involving prescription opiates/opioids
increased 81 percent—94,448 to
170,939—between 2007 and 2011. The
number of ED visits in Minneapolis/St.
Paul/Bloomington and Phoenix showed
the greatest increase during that same
time period with 115.9 percent and 108.4
percent increases, respectively. (See Table
B3 in Appendix B.)

Controlled Prescription
Drugs (CPDs)

3 Numbers do not add up to 6.8 million because some survey
respondents likely admitted to using more than one type of
psychotherapeutic drug.

4 Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

Chart 1. Past Month Nonmedical Use of Types of Psychotherapeutic Drugs
Among Persons Aged 12 or Older

2007 –

2012

(in Percent)

* Difference between this estimate and the 2012 estimate is statistically significant at the 0.05 level.

Source: National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2012

5Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

• Treatment data further reflect the
magnitude of the opioid abuse problem
in the United States. Treatment Episode
Data Set (TEDS) reporting indicates the
number of other (non-heroin) opiate-
related treatment admissions to publicly-
funded facilities increased 89 percent
from 2007 (98,909) to 2011 (186,986),
the latest year for which national-
level data is available. (See Table B4 in
Appendix B.) Further, the number of
treatment admissions for other opiates
in 2011 was greater than the number
of admissions for cocaine (143,827) and
for amphetamines (110,471). According
to TEDS, of the total number of abusers
admitted to publicly-funded facilities for
opiate-related treatment, over 60 percent
reported their frequency of use as daily.
Additionally, the number of admissions
for benzodiazepines has continually risen
since 2006 from 9,265 to 17,460 in 2011.

The number of drug overdose deaths,
particularly from CPDs, has grown
exponentially in the past decade and has
surpassed motor vehicle (MV) crashes as the
leading cause of injury death in the United
States. The number of drug poisoning deaths
now exceeds the number of deaths caused by
MV crashes in 29 states and Washington, DC.

• The National Center for Health Statistics
(NCHS) indicated that mortality data from
2009 suggested a large decline in MV
crash deaths and a continued increase in
prescription drug overdoses, leading to
the conclusion that drug poisoning alone
now causes more deaths than MV crashes
in the United States.

• The NCHS further reported that nearly 90
percent of poisoning deaths were due to
drugs and that drug poisoning mortality
was due primarily to prescription drugs,
especially opioid painkillers.

Chart 2. First Specific Drug Associated with Initiation of Illicit Drug Use
Among Past Year Illicit Drug Initiates Aged 12 or Older

2012

Source: National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2012

6 Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

• In 2010, West Virginia, a state with a
significant CPD abuse problem, had the
highest rate of drug overdose deaths (28.9
per 100,000 people). This is significantly
higher than the rate in 1999 when it was
4.1 per 100,000 people in the state.

• In 1999, no state had a drug overdose
death rate above 15.0 per every 100,000
residents. In 2010, four states had rates
over 20 per 100,000 residents, and 15
states had rates of 15 or higher per
100,000.

CPD abuse also contributes to increased
thoughts of suicide in the United States.

• A recent National Institute on Drug Abuse
(NIDA)-supported study indicated that
individuals who use prescription opiates
other than as ordered by a doctor are
more likely to consider suicide than those
who use these medications appropriately
or not at all. Both persistent users (those
who initiated use more than two years
ago with continued use in the past year)
and former users (those who initiated
use more than two years ago, with no
use in the past year) reported suicidal

thoughts at significantly higher rates than
individuals who had never used a non-
prescribed opioid medication.4 (See Chart
3.)

State Legislation Aimed at
Combatting Pill Mills

Rogue pain management clinics (commonly
referred to as “pill mills”) contribute to the
extensive availability of illicit pharmaceuticals
in the United States. Pill mill operations are
primarily cash-based businesses and are run
by operators who often don’t see patients or
perform any type of physical exam. It is not
uncommon to see lines of people waiting to
get into these pill mills.

Many states are establishing new legislation in
an effort to combat pill mills and stem the flow
of prescription drugs to abusers. Currently,
44 states and Washington, DC require that a

4 Individuals who reported past-year symptoms consistent
with a diagnosis of opioid dependence were more than
twice as likely as never-users to say that they had considered
self-destruction. The number of individuals who converted
suicidal thoughts into suicide attempts ranged from 7 to 19
percent, with no significant differences between groups.

Source: National Institute on Drug Abuse, the Science of Drug Abuse & Addiction

Chart 3. Percentage of Respondents Who Had Suicidal Thoughts
During the Past 12 Months

* p<0.05 ** p<0.01

2

5%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
Never Users Former Users** Persistent

Users*
Recent-Onset

Users
Past-Year Users

with
Prescription

Opioid
Disorders*

3%

7%

11%
9%

23%

7Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

patient receive a physical exam by a healthcare
provider, be screened for signs of substance
abuse and addiction, or have a bona fide
patient-physician relationship that includes a
physical exam prior to prescribing. The state
laws differ in their definition of the conditions
in which an exam is required and the
consequences for the physician for prescribing
without a required exam (in some states it
constitutes a criminal liability). Currently,
Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, South
Dakota, and Wyoming are the only states that
do not require a healthcare provider to conduct
the exam, the screening, or have a patient-
physician relationship.

• Thirty-two states have a law requiring
or permitting a pharmacist to require
identification (ID) prior to dispensing
a controlled substance. Some of these
states require customers to present an
ID at all times when obtaining controlled
substances, but some state laws limit
the presentation of an ID to only people
unknown to the pharmacists.

• Forty-six states and Washington, DC have
a pharmacy lock-in program under the
state Medicaid plan in which individuals
suspected of misusing controlled
substances must use a single prescriber
and pharmacy.

Prescription Drug Monitoring
Programs

Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs
(PDMPs) are another tool used to reduce the
amount of illicit CPDs available for abuse.
PDMPs are state-run databases used to track
the amount of CPDs prescribed and dispensed
to patients. PDMPs can be used to quickly
identify rogue subscribers, inadvertent
prescribing, and “doctor shopping.” Currently,
49 states have an active PDMP. Missouri and
Washington, DC do not have active PDMPs,
although there is pending legislation for a
PDMP in Washington, DC.

State Prescription Drug Monitoring
Programs

PDMPs vary in each state as to the type of
information collected, who is allowed access
to the data and under what circumstances, the
requirements for use and reporting, including
timeliness of data collection, the triggers
that generate reports, and the enforcement
mechanisms in place for noncompliance.

Drug Quality and Security Act

In November 2013, the Federal Drug Quality
and Security Act (HR 3204) was signed
into law. The Act establishes a system to
track prescription drugs from the time
they are manufactured until they are sold
to the consumer. The Act calls for drug
manufacturers, repackagers, wholesale
distributors, and dispensers to maintain and
to issue key information about each drug’s
distribution history. Within four years of the
law’s establishment, prescription drugs are
to be serialized in a consistent way industry-
wide. This will allow for efficient tracking in
order to respond to recalls and notices of theft
and counterfeiting.

• Only 16 states have some form of
mandatory use of PDMPs for providers.

• Of these 16 states, eight have laws that
require the PDMP to be accessed before
the initial prescribing or dispensing of a
controlled substance.

• Of these 16 states, six require accessing
the PDMP in limited situations, such as for
certain prescribers or specific drugs.

8 Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified
This page intentionally left blank.

9Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

Heroin

The threat posed by heroin in the United
States is increasing in areas across the country,
especially in the Northeast and North Central
regions. According to the 2014 NDTS, 29.1
percent of respondents reported heroin
was the greatest drug threat in their area.
This was more than any other drug except
methamphetamine (31.8 percent.) (See Table
B1 in Appendix B.) The Organized Crime and
Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) regions
with the largest number of respondents
ranking heroin as the greatest drug threat
were New England, Mid-Atlantic, Great Lakes,
and New York/New Jersey. (See Map A4 in
Appendix A.)

Heroin Source Areas

Four geographic source areas (South America,
Mexico, Southwest Asia, and Southeast Asia)
produce the world’s heroin supply. Since
1977, different regions have dominated the

US market. For the past 20 years, the US retail
heroin market has been roughly divided by the
Mississippi River, with Mexican black tar and
brown powder heroin dominating west of the
Mississippi and South American white powder
heroin more common in the East. Southwest
Asia, while the dominant supplier of most of
the world’s heroin markets, represents a small
portion of the US heroin market. Southeast
Asian heroin has rarely been encountered in
US markets in recent years. In 2012, heroin
from South America accounted for 51 percent
(by weight) of the heroin analyzed through
the DEA Heroin Signature Program. Heroin
from Mexico accounted for 45 percent and
Southwest Asia accounted for four percent.
(See Chart 4.)

South American, Southeast Asian, and
Southwest Asian heroin are white, off-white, or
tan powders, and are usually found in Eastern
US markets where white powder heroin is

Heroin

Chart 4. Source of Origin for US Wholesale-level Heroin Seizures
1977 – 2012

Source: Heroin Signature Program

10 Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

preferred. Mexican heroin traditionally is sold
in brown powder and black tar forms, and is
usually found in Western US markets.

Increasing Availability

Reporting from federal, state, and local law
enforcement agencies indicates heroin
availability is increasing throughout the nation.
According to the 2014 NDTS, 61.7 percent of
respondents said heroin availability was high
or moderate in their areas. In addition, 54.7
percent of respondents reported that heroin
availability was increasing and 53.8 percent
said that heroin demand was increasing.

Seizure data also indicate a substantial increase
in heroin availability in the United States.
According to NSS data, heroin seizures in the
United States increased 87 percent over five
years, from 2,540 kilograms in 2009 to 4,761
kilograms in 2013. (See Chart 5.) Traffickers
are also transporting heroin in larger amounts.
The average size of a heroin seizure in 2009
was 0.86 kilograms; in 2013, the average heroin
seizure was 1.56 kilograms.

Seizures at the Southwest Border are also rising
as Mexican TCOs increase heroin production
and transportation. Heroin seizures at the

border more than doubled over five years, from
2009 (846 kilograms) to 2013 (2,196 kilograms).
(See Chart 6.) During that time, the average
seizure size increased from 2.9 kilograms to 3.8
kilograms and the number of seizure incidents
increased from 295 incidents to 580 incidents.

Abusers Switching from CPDs to
Heroin

Increased demand for and abuse of heroin
is largely being driven by a subset of CPD
abusers switching to heroin. Treatment and
law enforcement officials across the nation
report increases in heroin abuse due to people
switching from CPDs. A recent NSDUH study
found that heroin abuse was 19 times higher
among those who had previously abused
pain reliever CPDs. The study also found that
four out of five recent heroin initiates had
previously abused pain reliever CPDs. While
the number of CPD abusers switching to
heroin abuse is a relatively small percentage
(an estimated 3.6%) of the total number of
CPD abusers, it represents a large percentage
of heroin initiates (79.5%). Those who switch
from abusing CPDs to abusing heroin do so
because of availability, price differences, and
the reformulation of OxyContin®, a commonly
abused prescription opioid.

Chart 5. US Heroin Seizures
2009 – 2013

Source: National Seizure System

11Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

Reasons for CPD abusers to switch to abusing
heroin

• Decreasing availability of CPDs vs.
increasing availability of heroin

CPD availability in many areas has been curbed
by enforcement and legislative efforts against
illicit pill mills and unscrupulous physicians.
Implementation of PDMP databases and
increased awareness among physicians and
the public about the dangers of CPD abuse
have helped to reduce CPD availability in some
communities. Heroin availability, conversely,
has increased in many areas, and because the
physiological effects of heroin are similar to
those of prescription opioids, heroin is a viable
alternative for CPD abusers who cannot obtain
CPDs.

• The relatively low cost of heroin in
comparison with CPDs

As CPD abusers progress in their addiction,
they require larger and larger amounts of
opioid medications to achieve a high or
simply stave off withdrawal symptoms. The
expense of CPD abuse quickly mounts, causing

some abusers to turn to heroin as a cheaper
alternative.

• The reformulation of OxyContin®, making
it more difficult to abuse

In 2010, OxyContin® was reformulated to
include a tamper-resistant ingredient that
made it much more difficult to abuse and made
it less potent to those who did.5

Abuse and Demand

National-level treatment, survey, and
epidemiological data indicate heroin abuse is
increasing, particularly among young adults;
abuse is also increasing among adolescents.
Indicators of increased abuse were reported in
cities across the United States in 2013.

Chart 6. Heroin Seizures at the Southwest Border
2000 – 2013

Source: National Seizure System

5 When crushed, the reformulated OxyContin® tablet does not
disintegrate into a fine powder for snorting or dissolving/
injecting. Instead, it crumbles into medium-sized pieces,
which cannot be snorted. When mixed with water for
dissolving, the pill turns into a gummy substance that cannot
be injected. Reformulated OxyContin® can still be abused
by being crushed and taken orally, but it does not provide as
potent a high, because the pieces retain some of their time-
release ingredient, delaying absorption.

12 Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

• According to TEDS information, heroin-
related treatment admissions to publicly-
funded facilities increased slightly over
five years, rising 6.3 percent from 2007
(261,951) to 2011 (278,481). (See Table
B4 in Appendix B.) Of the total number
of abusers admitted for heroin-related
treatment in 2011, 67.4 percent reported
their frequency of use as daily and 69.8
percent reported their preferred route of
administration as injection.

o Young adults (aged 20-34) comprise
the largest group admitted for heroin
treatment. In 2011, young adults
made up 53.2 percent of all heroin-
related treatment admissions. This
was a 23 percent increase over 2007,
when they comprised 43.2 percent.

o Treatment admissions among
adolescents (aged 12-17), while
comprising a small percentage of the
total treatment admissions, increased
32 percent between 2007 (1,142) and
2011 (1,503). (See Chart 7.)

• Epidemiology data indicates increasing
abuse of heroin in cities across the
country. According to the NIDA
Community Epidemiology Working
Group (CEWG), increasing indicators
of heroin abuse in 2013 were noted as
the key finding in 176 of the 20 CEWG
metropolitan areas.

• According to DAWN data, medical
consequences related to heroin abuse are
increasing. The number of heroin-related
ED visits increased 37 percent over five
years, from 188,162 in 2007 to 258,482 in
2011. (See Chart 8.)

• According to the NSDUH, the number of
heroin abusers reporting current (past
month) abuse increased nearly three-

6 The following areas reported increasing or predominant
heroin indicators under the CEWG program: Albuquerque
and New Mexico; Atlanta; Baltimore and Washington, DC;
the Greater Boston area; Chicago; Cincinnati; Denver and
Colorado; Detroit, Wayne County, and Michigan; Maine;
Miami-Dade and Broward Counties; Minneapolis and St. Paul;
New York City; Philadelphia; San Diego County; Seattle, St.
Louis; and Texas.

Source: Treatment Episode Data Set

Chart 7. Heroin-related Treatment Admissions
1992 – 2011

13Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

fold between 2004 and 2012. (See Chart
9.) There was a 113 percent increase in
abusers who reported past year heroin
abuse during that time, and a 22 percent
increase in abusers who reported heroin
abuse during their lifetime.

• NSDUH data also indicate an increase
in the number of people who initiated

Source: Drug Abuse Warning Network

Source: National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2012

Chart 8. Heroin-related Emergency Department Visits
2007 – 2011

Chart 9. Current Heroin Abusers
2003 – 2012

heroin abuse in the past year. The
number of new heroin initiates
fluctuated, but increased 32 percent
overall between 2004 (118,000) and
2012 (156,000). Male initiates make up
the majority of initiates each year; the
increase in male initiates between 2004
and 2012 was 61 percent. (See Chart 10.)

14 Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

• Monitoring the Future (MTF) Survey
data indicate the perception among
adolescents of high heroin availability has
recently increased, after a long period of
decreases. The percentage of students
who said heroin would be either “very
easy” or “fairly easy” to get had been
decreasing for all grade levels from 2004

through 2012. However, between 2012
and 2013, that percentage either stayed
static (10th graders) or increased (8th and
12th graders). (See Chart 11.)

Chart 10. Number of Individuals Initiating Heroin Abuse in the Past Year
2004 – 2012

Source: National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2012

Chart 11. Percentage of Students Reporting that Heroin
Would be “fairly easy” or “very easy” to get

2004 – 2013

Source: 2013 Monitoring the Future Survey

15Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

Fentanyl

In 2013 and 2014, areas throughout the
Northeast and Midwest reported a spike in
overdose deaths due to fentanyl being sold
as heroin, or to heroin tainted with fentanyl
or fentanyl analogs such as acetylfentanyl.
Fentanyl, a synthetic opioid, is 30 to 50 times
stronger than heroin and can cause even
experienced abusers to overdose. The potency
of fentanyl analogs varies.

The abusers who have overdosed on fentanyl
represent a diverse population ranging across
a wide geographic area, covering a wide range
of ages and races, both sexes, and include both
new and experienced abusers. Users have
overdosed from heroin mixed with fentanyl or
fentanyl analogs, fentanyl that is sold as heroin
(usually to abusers who think they are buying
only heroin), and, in a few cases, fentanyl mixed
with cocaine. Fentanyl-related overdoses have
been reported in Buffalo, the Cleveland area,
Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and its surrounding
counties, Dutchess and Nassau Counties in New
York, as well as in areas in Maryland, Rhode
Island, and other parts of New England.

The most recent prior fentanyl outbreak
occurred between 2005 and 2007, and resulted
in over 1,000 deaths, the majority of which
occurred in Chicago, Detroit, and Philadelphia.
Fentanyl was mixed with heroin and was found
in counterfeit pharmaceutical opioid tablets.
The fentanyl from that outbreak was traced to
a single clandestine laboratory in Mexico. After
that laboratory was seized and dismantled, the
fentanyl-related deaths subsided. The current
outbreak, while not as deadly as the 2005-2007
outbreak, covers a wider geographic area and
involves both fentanyl and fentanyl analogs,
also believed to be clandestinely manufactured
or illicitly imported.

Krokodil

In 2013, several reports surfaced in the
United States regarding suspected abuse
of “Krokodil,” or desomorphine, a drug
derived from codeine that is primarily
abused in Russia. Abuse of the drug
gives a high similar to that of heroin and
is a cheap, highly addictive alternative
to heroin for Russia’s opiate-abuser
population. Krokodil abuse causes tissue
decay at the injection site. Massive tissue
damage in the limbs from dead and dying
flesh, internal bleeding, and necrosis can
occur, often resulting in death.

Currently, there are no confirmed cases of
Krokodil abuse in the United States. The
tissue decay in suspected cases was likely
the result of injection of tainted heroin
or injection using tainted needles, both
of which can lead to infections and cause
open wounds at the injection site.

It is unlikely that desomorphine will
become widely available in the United
States. Codeine, the precursor drug
for desomorphine, is regulated by
prescription in the United States, unlike
in Russia, where codeine is available as an
over-the-counter drug. Further, the ready
availability of high-purity, low-cost heroin
in the United States makes it unnecessary
for abusers to seek a cheaper alternative,
particularly one with such serious side
effects.

16 Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

Increasing Heroin Overdoses

Heroin overdose deaths are increasing in many
cities and counties across the United States,
particularly in the Northeast and Midwest.
Cities such as Cleveland, Minneapolis/St. Paul,
and Philadelphia have reported increased
overdoses and overdose deaths due to heroin.
Many cities are reporting that the increase
in heroin overdose deaths is more common
in the suburban areas and outlying counties
surrounding the cities. In Chicago, the largest
increase in heroin overdoses has occurred
in the suburban areas surrounding the city,
and, in New York City, the greatest increase in
overdoses has been reported in the suburban
areas of Staten Island.

In the Cleveland area (Cuyahoga County),
heroin overdose deaths quadrupled between
2007 (40) and 2012 (161). Heroin overdose
deaths across Ohio increased nearly six-fold
between 2006 (117) and 2012 (680). (See Chart
12.) In response, the Ohio Attorney General’s
Office announced the creation of a heroin
unit to provide law enforcement and legal
assistance to fight the heroin threat in Ohio
communities.

Reasons for these increases in overdose deaths
include high purity heroin in certain markets
causing abusers to accidentally overdose;
an increase in new heroin initiates, many of
whom are young and inexperienced; and
abusers switching from prescription opioids
(which have a set dosage amount and no other
adulterants) to heroin, an illicitly manufactured
drug with varying purities, dosage amounts,
and adulterants.

Naloxone

In response to increasing overdoses caused by
the abuse of heroin and other opioids, some
communities are training law enforcement
officers and first responders to administer
naloxone, a drug that can reverse the effects
of opioid overdose. Law enforcement officers
are often the first responders in overdose
cases, sometimes arriving before emergency
medical personnel. Naloxone can be nasally-
administered and is not harmful if administered

Chart 12. Heroin Overdose Deaths in Ohio
2001 – 2012

Source: Ohio Department of Health

17Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

to a person who is not suffering from opioid
overdose.

• The Quincy, MA Police Department (PD)
was the first in the nation to require
every officer on patrol to carry naloxone.
Quincy PD officers began carrying
naloxone in October 2010. Since that
time they have administered the drug
more than 200 times and have reversed
more than 95 percent of those overdoses.

• Police departments in other areas,
including Buffalo, NY; DuPage County,
IL (Chicago area); Lorain County, OH
(Cleveland area); and Ocean County, NJ
are training officers to carry naloxone in
response to increased opioid overdoses
in those areas. All Vermont State Troopers
will also be issued naloxone.

• In March 2014, the US Attorney General
publicly urged law enforcement agencies
to train and equip their personnel to
administer naloxone, noting that 17 states
and Washington, DC have amended
their laws to increase access to naloxone,
resulting in over 10,000 overdose reversals
since 2001.

• In March, 2014, Massachusetts Governor
Deval Patrick declared the growing opioid
addiction in Massachusetts was a public
health emergency. Governor Patrick
used his emergency powers to permit
first responders to carry and administer
naloxone, and to make naloxone widely
available through a standing order
prescription in pharmacies to provide
greater access to family and friends of
opioid abusers.

18 Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified
This page intentionally left blank.

19Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

Methamphetamine

Seizure data, law enforcement reporting,
and localized treatment information all
indicate methamphetamine trafficking and
abuse continues to increase throughout the
nation. According to the 2014 NDTS, 31.8
percent of responding agencies indicated
methamphetamine was the greatest drug
threat in their areas. Also, 40.6 percent
of responding agencies indicated that
methamphetamine is highly available, meaning
the drug is easily obtained at any time. As in
previous years, abuse and availability are much
higher in the Western United States.

Mexico-Produced
Methamphetamine

The majority of methamphetamine available
in the United States is Mexico-produced. It
is highly pure and potent and is increasingly
available. Thousands of kilograms of Mexican
methamphetamine are seized along the
Southwest Border annually. In 2013, as in
2012, methamphetamine seizures at the
border continued to rise. Large shipments (50
pounds or more) are regularly seized at the
Southwest Border. However, as availability has
increased, areas beyond the Southwest Border
experienced large seizures during 2013.

• Between calendar year (CY) 2012 and
CY 2013, the amount of powder and
crystal methamphetamine seized at the
Southwest Border increased 18.5 percent.
From CY 2009 to CY 2013, seizures at the
border increased over 200 percent. (See
Chart 13.)

• Methamphetamine reports to the
National Forensic Laboratory Information
System (NFLIS) increased 11.9 percent
between 2011 (160,960 reports) and 2012
(180,187), a significant change.

Liquid Methamphetamine

Liquid methamphetamine trafficking continues
to be challenging for law enforcement
because of its ease of concealment. While
most methamphetamine is smuggled into
the United States in powder or crystal form,
methamphetamine is increasingly smuggled
into the United States in liquid form for
conversion into crystal methamphetamine.
The term “liquid methamphetamine”
refers to finished methamphetamine that
has been dissolved in a liquid solvent, or
methamphetamine-in-suspension. A process

Methamphetamine

Source: National Seizure System

Chart 13. Methamphetamine Seizures at the Southwest Border
2009 – 2013

20 Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

that evaporates the solvent results in powder
methamphetamine, which is then crystallized.

• Seizures of methamphetamine-in-
suspension have been reported in
multiple regions, including the West,
Midwest, and Southeast. The product was
concealed in gasoline tanks, windshield
wiper reservoirs, liquor bottles, laundry
and antifreeze containers, and flavored
water bottles. Often, commercial product
containers (e.g., beverage, antifreeze, and
laundry containers) appear to be factory
sealed.

Methamphetamine Hydrochloride
(“ice”) Conversion Laboratories

Methamphetamine hydrochloride (“ice”)
conversion laboratories are more difficult
to identify than typical methamphetamine
laboratories because they do not produce the
same characteristic odors. Also, conversion
laboratories use acetone, a common solvent
easily available for purchase at most home
improvement stores, as part of the extraction
process.

Acetone’s high flammability poses dangers
when used in conversion laboratories.
Most conversion laboratories are located in
residential areas.

Small Capacity Production
Laboratories: “One-pot,” “Shake-
and-Bake Laboratories”

The vast majority of methamphetamine
laboratories seized in the United States are
the small capacity production laboratories
(SCPL), also known as “one-pot” or “shake-
and-bake” laboratories. These laboratories
produce small amounts of methamphetamine,
generally for personal use or use among a
small group of people. Though they produce
small amounts of methamphetamine, the
associated environmental harms caused by
these laboratories are immense.

• SCPLs produce small amounts, generally
one to three grams per laboratory, of
high quality methamphetamine using
pseudoephedrine or ephedrine.

• SCPL operators use simple methods
to manufacture methamphetamine.
Producers mix pseudoephedrine and
other household items in a plastic
soda-type bottle. The mixture creates
a chemical reaction, which produces
methamphetamine.

• Due to its exothermic reaction, this
method of production is highly volatile
and dangerous, and is susceptible to
error resulting in fires or explosions. It
also exposes bystanders to dangerous,
sometimes lethal, chemicals.

• Although these laboratories produce very
small amounts of methamphetamine,
they produce large amounts of toxic
waste. DEA’s Office of Diversion
Control estimates that one pound of
methamphetamine produced by a SCPL
can produce five to six pounds of toxic
waste.

Methamphetamine Abuse

National Level Data and Abuse Trends

Although availability indicators show an
increase of methamphetamine availability,
survey data on illicit drug use does not
currently reflect a corresponding increase in
abuse. Data from the NSDUH indicate the
use of methamphetamine remained stable
from 2008 through 2012, but at levels much
lower than 2002 through 2006. (See Chart
14.) However, information and reporting from
localized public health officials indicate that
methamphetamine abuse may be increasing.

• Minneapolis/St. Paul public
health reporting indicates that
methamphetamine abuse may be
increasing in that area. Although not the

21Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

dominant drug in the area, the previous
downward trend of methamphetamine
abuse seems to be reversing. Between
2009 and 2011, methamphetamine-
related hospital visits increased almost 60
percent. Further, treatment admissions
increased almost 19 percent between
2011 and 2012.

• King County, WA (Seattle area) public
health information indicates that after
years of stability, methamphetamine-
related deaths increased substantially7 in
2012.

• As law enforcement officials in Ohio
report an increase in methamphetamine
availability throughout the state, the Ohio
Substance Abuse Monitoring Network
reported the number of people entering
treatment for methamphetamine is
trending upward, from 776 in 2009 to
1,040 in 2012.

• According to the San Diego Medical
Examiner’s Office, deaths from
methamphetamine use increased from 83
in 2008 to 142 in 2012.

7 Since 2003, methamphetamine deaths have numbered
around 20 per year. In 2012, that number rose to 42.

Source: National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2012

Chart 14. Current Trends in Methamphetamine Abuse
2002 – 2012

Th
o

u
sa

n
d

s

683
726

706

628

731

530

314

502

439

353

440

22 Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified
This page intentionally left blank.

23Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

Cocaine

Most cocaine available in the United States
continues to be produced in Colombia and
smuggled across the Southwest Border and, to
a lesser extent, through the Caribbean. Cocaine
remains available in many US markets despite
the overall decrease in cocaine availability
since 2007, when the trend of lower cocaine
availability first began. Availability and
consumption indicators all continue to remain
at lower levels than in 2006. (See Chart 15.)
These lower levels constitute a new normal
in comparison to pre-2007 levels where US
markets had high levels of cocaine availability
with low prices and high purity. Since 2007
cocaine availability levels in the United States
have fluctuated slightly but continued at
consistently lower levels than prior to 2007.

Cocaine
Cocaine availability rebounded slightly in
2013 compared to 2012. However, it remains
relatively stable at historically low levels
throughout most domestic markets along the
East Coast. In 2012, some regions reported a
decrease in availability and an increase in price.
While cocaine prices continued to remain high
in 2013, six DEA domestic Field Divisions (FDs)
reported high availability or an increase in
availability for the first half of 2013.

Treatment data and ED visits also indicate that
an overall decrease in cocaine abuse continues
to occur. ED visits for cocaine decreased nine
percent from 553,535 in 2007 to 505,224 in
2011, while admissions to publicly-licensed
treatment facilities dropped over 40 percent

Chart 15. Cocaine Indicators, based on 2006 Value
2002 – 2012

Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy

24 Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

between 2007 (250,761) and 2011 (143,827).
(See Tables B3 and B4 in Appendix B.) This
decline may be the result of lower cocaine
availability or lower purity levels of the cocaine
available in US markets.

National-level survey data also indicates a
decrease in adolescent cocaine abuse. MTF
data shows an overall decrease in reported
lifetime and annual cocaine abuse among 8th,
10th, and 12th graders since 2004.
(See Charts 16 and 17.)

Chart 16. Trends in Lifetime Prevalence of Cocaine Use
in Grades 8, 10, and 12

Chart 17. Trends in Annual Prevalence of Cocaine Use
in Grades 8, 10, and 12

Source: 2013 Monitoring the Future Survey

Source: 2013 Monitoring the Future Survey

25Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

Marijuana

Marijuana is the most widely available and
commonly abused illicit drug in the United
States. According to the 2014 NDTS, 80
percent of responding agencies reported
that marijuana availability was high in their
jurisdictions. High availability levels are due to
large-scale marijuana importation from Mexico,
as well as increasing domestic indoor grows
and an increase of marijuana cultivated in
states that have legalized marijuana or passed
“medical marijuana” initiatives. As a result,
abuse among adolescents is increasing and
the medical consequences of marijuana abuse
are rising. Further, marijuana concentrates,
produced with new and dangerous extraction
methods that elevate their THC content, are
an increasing concern to law enforcement and
public health officials.

Domestic Cultivation

Domestic cannabis cultivation appears to
be increasing, particularly indoor grows
and cultivation on private lands. Under

DEA’s Domestic Cannabis Eradication and
Suppression Program (DCE/SP), a program
in coordination with state and local law
enforcement agencies that addresses domestic
marijuana cultivation, a total of 4,395,240
plants were seized from indoor and outdoor
grows in CY 2013. This was an increase of 10
percent from CY 2012. However, domestic
marijuana plant seizures, both indoor and
outdoor, declined from 2010 through 2012,
before increasing slightly in 2013. According
to DCE/SP statistics, nearly 10 million cannabis
plants were seized from outdoor sites in
2009. The number seized in 2012, just over
3.6 million, marked a 64 percent decline. (See
Chart 18.) This sharp decline could be a result
of several factors including lingering law
enforcement budgetary constraints from the
2008 financial crisis and a shift in prioritizing
marijuana-related investigations in light of new
state and local laws decriminalizing the drug.
This decline also can be attributed in part to
successful eradication operations on public
lands, which are driving cultivators to change

Marijuana

Source: DEA Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program

Chart 18. Cultivated Plants Seized from Outdoor Operations
2008 – 2013

26 Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

their modus operandi. Marijuana growers
are moving their cultivation operations to
private lands and indoor grows. (See Chart
19.) This shift makes it more difficult for law
enforcement to detect grows and conduct
eradication efforts. Indoor grows and outdoor
grows on private land require prosecutors and
judges to approve search warrants; this is a
difficult task in areas where state marijuana
laws have changed.

Booby traps and weapons are often found at
marijuana grow site locations. DCE/SP seized
4,652 weapons from marijuana grow sites in
2013. Booby traps found at grow sites include
hidden nails, bear traps, and explosives.

Mexico-produced Marijuana

Mexico-produced marijuana continues to
be transported into the United States across
the Southwest Border. Between 2010 and
2013, marijuana seizures by U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) remained stable at
1.3 to 1.4 million kilograms per year along
the Southwest Border. Seizures of Mexico-

produced marijuana are typically larger than
domestic seizures. Mexico-produced marijuana
is smuggled into the United States by various
means: subterranean tunnels, shipment
containers, and hidden compartments in
personal vehicles. Tunnels along the US-
Mexico border are often used to transport
large quantities of drugs, particularly bulk
quantities of marijuana. Tunnels often include
sophisticated rail and lighting systems. In
October 2013, more than eight tons of
marijuana were seized linked to an elaborate
cross border tunnel. Since 2006, federal
authorities have detected at least 80 cross-
border smuggling tunnels, most of them in
California and Arizona.

Increasing THC potency

The average THC content of marijuana
and hash oil available in the United States
continues to increase, according to data from
the University of Mississippi National Center for
Natural Projects Research’s (NCNRP) Potency
Monitoring Program. In 1995, the average THC
potency of leaf marijuana was 3.96 percent;

Source: DEA Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program

Chart 19. Cultivated Plants Seized from Indoor Operations
2008 – 2013

27Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

in 2013, the average THC potency was 12.55
percent. (See Chart 20.) In the 1990s, the
average THC content of hash oil, a type of
marijuana concentrate, ranged from 13 to 16
percent; today the average THC content of hash
oil is 52 percent; one recent sample tested at 82
percent.8 (See Chart 21.)

Chart 20. Potency Monitoring Program
Average THC Percent of DEA Submitted Samples

1995 – 2013

Source: Potency Monitoring Program

1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Source: Potency Monitoring Program, Quarterly Report 124

Chart 21. Potency Monitoring Program
Average THC Percent of all Submitted Hash Oil Samples

1995 – 2013
1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

*Percentage likely to change as more samples are tested

8 The NCNRP performs analysis of illicit marijuana samples
submitted by DEA and state and local law enforcement
agencies. Since 2010, the NCNRP has not had funding to
do analysis of samples submitted from state and local law
enforcement agencies. The percentages referenced in the
above paragraph are based on marijuana samples reported
in the NCNRP’s Quarterly Report Number 124 for reporting
period 12/15/2013 – 03/15/2014. Chart 20 references DEA
submitted traditional leafy marijuana samples; it should be
noted that at this time only 550 samples have been tested
for 2013; the percentage for 2013 is likely to change as more
samples are tested. Chart 21 references DEA and state and
local law enforcement submitted hash oil seizures; only 17
samples have been tested for 2013 and the percentage is
likely to change as more samples are tested.

28 Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

Marijuana Concentrates

DEA, state and local law enforcement, and
open source reporting indicate that abuse
of marijuana concentrates is increasing
throughout the United States. Hash oil
has been available for centuries; however,
advanced methods to obtain high-THC
concentrates from marijuana plant material
are now being used across the United States.
The marijuana concentrates obtained by these
methods have significantly higher levels of
THC than previously observed, with potency
reportedly exceeding 80 percent.

Methods of Extraction

Marijuana concentrates are extracted from
the leafy material in many ways, but the most
common, and potentially most dangerous,
method is butane extraction, which uses highly
flammable butane gas to extract the THC from
marijuana plant material. Butane extraction
has resulted in numerous explosions and
injuries, particularly on the West Coast, where
production is most common. The San Diego
Narcotics Task Force seized approximately 30
hash oil extraction laboratories in San Diego
County in 2013; 12-15 of those laboratories
were identified after an explosion or fire.

Edibles

Ingestion of marijuana edibles by children is
an increasing concern, particularly in states
with “medical marijuana” availability. Examples
of edibles include brownies, cookies, peanut
butter, candy, and soda drinks. The nature
of these edibles makes them attractive to
children; however, they are dangerously high in
THC content. According to the Rocky Mountain
Poison Control Center, since 2009, the
Children’s Hospital in Colorado has seen a spike
in children under the age of five being treated
in the emergency room due to ingestion of
marijuana edibles.

Treatment and Demand Data

Treatment, survey, and demand data indicate
marijuana abuse is increasing, particularly
among young people. National survey data
show an increasing number of adolescents
do not perceive marijuana abuse as harmful.
Further, a significant number of young people
living in states with “medical marijuana” laws
obtain marijuana from the “medical marijuana”
recommendations9 of other people. At the
same time, medical consequences from the
abuse of marijuana continue to rise. Marijuana-
related ED visits and treatment admissions are
increasing.

• National level survey data show an
increase in marijuana abuse among
adolescents. The 2013 MTF reported
more than one-third (36.4%) of 12th
graders used marijuana in the past year,
an 11 percent increase over the past
five years. MTF survey data also showed
an increase in annual marijuana use for
10th and 8th graders. (See Table B5 in
Appendix B.) More than one-quarter
(29.8%) of 10th graders reported using
marijuana in the past year, an increase of
12 percent from 2009; and 12.7 percent
of 8th graders reported using marijuana
in the past year, an increase of 8 percent
over the past five years. (See Chart 22.)

• The 2013 MTF also showed an increase
in lifetime use of marijuana for all three
grades surveyed: 45 percent of 12th
graders have used marijuana in their
lifetime, up 8 percent over five years;
35.8 percent of 10th graders have used
marijuana in their lifetime, an increase of
11 percent over five years; 16.5 percent of
8th graders have used marijuana in their

9 Medical professionals cannot write prescriptions for
marijuana as there is currently no accepted medical use
in the United States. Unlike a prescription written by a
medical professional with a DEA registration number, then
dispensed by a pharmacy with a DEA registration number,
state-approved “medical marijuana” recommendations and
marijuana dispensaries are not monitored by the federal
government.

29Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

lifetime, an increase of 5 percent over five
years. (See Chart 23.)

• MTF data on the impact of “medical
marijuana” laws indicate that a significant
number of teens living in states with
“medical marijuana” laws obtain
marijuana from other people’s physician
recommendations.10 The survey showed
that 34 percent of 12th graders who
used marijuana in the past 12 months
and lived in states that have passed
“medical marijuana” legislation stated

that one of their sources of marijuana
is another person’s “medical marijuana”
recommendation; six percent said they
got it from their own recommendation.
MTF data on the perception of marijuana
showed that 60 percent of 12th graders
do not view regular marijuana use as
harmful.

Source: 2013 Monitoring the Future Survey

Chart 22. Prevalence of Annual Marijuana Use
Among 8th, 10th, and 12th Grade Students

1991 – 2013

Chart 23. Prevalence of Lifetime Marijuana Use
Among 8th, 10th, and 12th Grade Students

1991 – 2013
Source: 2013 Monitoring the Future Survey

10 The MTF survey used the word “prescription,” but marijuana
is classified as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled
Substances Act (CSA), which prevents physicians from
legally prescribing marijuana. Physicians in states that have
approved “medical marijuana” provide their patients with
“recommendations.”

30 Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

• DAWN data shows an increase in medical
consequences resulting from marijuana
abuse. According to DAWN, there was a
62 percent increase in marijuana-related
ED visits from 2004 to 2011. In 2011, only
cocaine-related ED visits outnumbered
those for marijuana. (See Chart 24.)

Source: Drug Abuse Warning Network, January 10, 2014

Chart 24. Marijuana-Related Emergency Department Visits
CY 2004 – CY 2011

• According to TEDS data, marijuana-related
primary treatment admissions averaged
approximately 300,000 from 2002 to
2007. Between 2008 and 2011 admissions
averaged approximately 350,000, a 17
percent increase.

31Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

Synthetic Drugs

Synthetic designer drugs, also referred
to as “new psychoactive substances,” are
substances of abuse that are frequently not
under international control, but constitute a
significant public health threat in the United
States. Since 2009, US law enforcement
officials have encountered more than 240 new
synthetic compounds, including 99 synthetic
cannabinoids, 52 synthetic cathinones, and 89
other compounds. Most wholesale quantities
of synthetic drugs are purchased over the
Internet and are shipped from distributors in
China.

• Synthetic cannabinoids, often marketed
as synthetic marijuana under names
such as “K2” and “Spice,” are a mixture
of plant matter in addition to chemical
grade synthetic cannabinoids. Synthetic
cannabinoid users experience severe
agitation and anxiety, racing heartbeat
and high blood pressure, intense
hallucinations, and psychotic episodes.

Overdose deaths have occurred as a result
of smoking synthetic cannabinoids.

• Synthetic cathinones, commonly sold as
“bath salts,” are drugs that cause powerful
reactions and often violent behavior.
Some users have experienced nausea,
vomiting, paranoia, hallucinations,
delusions, suicidal thoughts, seizures,
chest pains, and increased blood pressure
and heart rate. Synthetic cathinones have
resulted in a number of overdose deaths.

While the number of calls to US poison control
centers has declined, this is not a true indicator
that abuse levels have likewise declined. When
these drugs first emerged on the illicit market
in 2009 their popularity soared. From 2010
to 2011, the number of calls to the American
Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC)
skyrocketed for both synthetic cannabinoid
and cathinone exposures. (See Chart 25.)
Those numbers have since declined sharply.

Synthetic Designer Drugs

Source: American Association of Poison Control Centers

Chart 25. Number of Exposure Calls to the
American Association of Poison Control Centers

2010 – 2013

32 Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

However, experts agree that the number
of calls to poison control centers initially
skyrocketed because of the unfamiliarity with
the drugs and how to counter their effects. As
ED doctors have become aware of how to treat
victims of synthetic cannabinoid and cathinone
abuse, the number of calls to poison control
centers has naturally declined.

Nationally, 33.4 percent of respondents
to the 2014 NDTS reported an increase in
synthetic cannabinoid availability, while 24.5
percent reported an increase in synthetic
cathinone availability. Conversely, however,
most respondents reported that availability
was low for both cannabinoids (34.9%) and
cathinones (43.7%). (See Maps 1 and 2.)
Contributing to this decline is likely several
coordinated interagency operations, which
resulted in hundreds of arrests and the seizure
of significant amounts of synthetic drugs and
millions of dollars. (See Text Box.)

The Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act
of 2012 was signed into law on July 9, 2012.
This law amended the Federal Controlled
Substances Act (CSA) and placed 26 synthetic
drugs in Schedule I. (See Table B6 in Appendix
B.) In April 2013, methylone (typically sold
as “Molly”) was added to Schedule I. Also,
DEA has exercised its emergency scheduling
authority to temporarily control 20 other
synthetic compounds. (See Table 1.)

As synthetic drugs, such as cannabinoids
and cathinones, are scheduled under the
CSA or placed under emergency scheduling
by DEA, producers quickly change the one
or two elements in the banned substance
thereby creating a new compound that has
similar psychoactive effects. This was evident
recently in Colorado. During the first half of
2013, law enforcement officials in Colorado
encountered 25i (also known as 25-NBOMe,
Smiles, 25I-NBOMe, NBOMe), a new, highly
potent hallucinogen. The drug has been
encountered as a white powder, as a liquid
in dropper bottles, and soaked onto blotter
paper. 25i is related to, but much more potent

than, the hallucinogens 2C-I, and 2C-B, and
can be made from 2C-I or from other available
commercial chemicals. This drug is one of
several potent new hallucinogens, which are
simply modifications, or analogs, of older
controlled hallucinogenic drugs (e.g., 2C-B, 2C-
C, and 2C-I).

As synthetic cannabinoids and cathinones
become more abused, the potential for
overdoses and overdose deaths increases.

• In August 2013, Colorado EDs saw a
significant increase in the number of
patients who reported use of a synthetic

Project Synergy

In June 2013, DEA and its law enforcement
partners announced enforcement operations
in 35 states targeting the upper echelon of
dangerous designer synthetic drug trafficking
organizations. This series of enforcement
actions included retailers, wholesalers,
and manufacturers. In addition, these
investigations uncovered the massive flow of
drug-related proceeds back to countries in the
Middle East and elsewhere.

Since Project Synergy began in December
2012, more than 227 arrests have been made
and 416 search warrants served in 35 states,
49 cities, and five countries, along with more
than $51 million in cash and assets seized.
Altogether, 9,445 kilograms of individually
packaged, ready-to-sell synthetic drugs, 299
kilograms of cathinone drugs (labeled “bath
salts”), 1,252 kilograms of cannabinoid drugs,
and 783 kilograms of treated plant material
have been seized.

Project Synergy was coordinated by DEA’s
Special Operations Division, working with the
DEA Office of Diversion Control, and included
cases led by DEA, CBP, ICE, FBI, and the IRS.
In addition, law enforcement counterparts
in Australia, Barbados, Panama, and Canada
participated in the operation, as well as many
U.S. state and local law enforcement agencies.

33Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

Map 1. Percentage of NDTS Respondents Reporting Cannabinoid Availability
2014

Map 2. Percentage of NDTS Respondents Reporting Cathinone Availability
2014

Source: Drug Enforcement Administration, National Drug Threat Survey, 2014

Source: Drug Enforcement Administration, National Drug Threat Survey, 2014

34 Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

cannabinoid. These patients exhibited
symptoms of excited delirium, an altered
mental status, tachycardia followed by
bradycardia, and seizures. During a
one-month time frame (August 21 to
September 19, 2013), EDs in Denver had
approximately 100 patients admitted for
synthetic cannabinoid use. During that
same time period, there were 221 patients
admitted to Colorado EDs with similar
symptoms. Multiple product brands
were recovered from patients and the
Denver PD Crime Laboratory identified
a consistent synthetic cannabinoid
compound —ADB PINACA11—in the
samples.

• Also in August 2013, 22 patients reported
to the ED in Brunswick, GA after becoming
ill from inhaling synthetic cannabinoids,
sold under the name of “Crazy Clown.”
Eight of the patients were hospitalized,
five of them in intensive care.

Retail-level quantities of synthetic
cannabinoids and cathinones are sold primarily
over the Internet and in head shops, tobacco
and smoke shops, adult stores, convenience
stores, and gas stations. These drugs are often
packaged in shiny plastic bags with bright

11 ADB-PINACA (N-[1-amino-3,3-dimethy-1-oxobutan-2-yl]-1-
pentyl-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide)

Table 1: Synthetic Drugs Listed Under DEA Emergency Scheduling

CurrenTly ConTrolled under Temporary SChedule 1 STaTuS

(1-pentyl-1H-indol-3-yl)(2,2,3,3-tetramethylcyclopropyl)methanone (UR-144)
[1-(5-fluoro-pentyl)-1H- indol-3-yl](2,2,3,3-tetramethylcyclopropyl)methanone (5-fluoro-UR-144, XLR11)
N-(1-adamantyl)-1-pentyl-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (APINACA, AKB48)
2-(4-iodo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)ethanamine (25I-NBOMe)
2-(4-bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)ethanamine (25B–NBOMe)
2-(4-chloro-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)ethanamine (25C-NBOMe)
quinolin-8-yl 1-pentyl-1H-indole-3-carboxylate (PB–22;QUPIC)
quinolin-8-yl 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indole-3-carboxylate (5-fluoro-PB–22; 5F–PB–22)
N-(1-amino-3-methyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-(4-fluorobenzyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (AB–FUBINACA)
N-(1-amino-3,3-dimethyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-pentyl-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide (ADB–PINACA).
4-methyl-N-ethylcathinone (“4-MEC”)
4-methyl-alpha-pyrrolidinopropiophenone (“4-MePPP”)
alpha-pyrrolidinopentiophenone (“α-PVP”)
1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2-(methylamino)butan-1-one (“butylone”)
2-(methylamino)-1-phenylpentan-1-one (“pentedrone”)
1-(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yl)-2-(methylamino)pentan-1-one (“pentylone”)
4-fluoro-N-methylcathinone (“4-FMC”)
3-fluoro-N-methylcathinone (“3-FMC”)
1-(naphthalen-2-yl)-2-(pyrrolidin-1-yl)pentan-1-one (“naphyrone”)
alpha-pyrrolidinobutiophenone (“α-PBP”)

Source: Federal Register

35Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

logos, marketed as incense or potpourri.
Many states are now introducing legislation
aimed at penalizing owners/operators of local
businesses that sell synthetic cannabinoids and
cathinones.

• According to Indiana state law, stores
selling these drugs face penalties
including the loss of their retail business
certificates for one year. They must also
bear the cost of court and laboratory
testing of the substances by the state.

• In Tennessee, a law was passed in 2012
making the sale of synthetic cannabinoids
a felony and businesses accused of
selling the product can be padlocked as
public nuisances. In July 2012, the Metro
Nashville PD, DEA, and the Tennessee
Bureau of Investigation shut down 11
Nashville convenience markets for their
alleged sale of synthetic cannabinoids
and similar substances. A state criminal
court order provided that the markets be
searched, any contraband and monies
related to illegal activity be seized, and
that the stores be padlocked pending a
court appearance.

• Georgia has a law that allows categories
of synthetic drugs to be banned even
before the specific compound is added to
the Georgia code.

36 Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified
This page intentionally left blank.

37Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

Outlook

Legislation and the implementation of PDMPs
in the states that have these tools will continue
to help curb the diversion and abuse of CPDs.
However, states with little or no legislation, or
PDMPs that are not fully funded or operational,
will likely see an increase in the CPD threat as
more distributors and abusers will travel to
these states to obtain their illicit supplies.

Heroin abuse and availability are likely to
increase in the near term, particularly as
more CPD abusers switch to heroin as a more
available and cheaper alternative.

Methamphetamine availability shows little
sign of diminishing. As cocaine availability
remains lower than in previous years,
methamphetamine has become a viable
alternative for traffickers and users alike.
Increased availability of a lower-priced, high-
potency, high-purity product is likely attractive
to potential users. Additionally, information
indicates that methamphetamine traffickers
are moving further east and have established
distribution hubs throughout the Midwest and
South.

Domestic cocaine markets will remain steady
in the near term and Colombian cocaine will
continue to dominate domestic markets;
however, it is unlikely that cocaine availability
will return to pre-2007 levels in the near term.

The availability of marijuana will increase and
abuse of marijuana will escalate, especially
in states that legalize or reduce the criminal
penalties associated with the sale and
possession of small quantities of marijuana.
Marijuana possession and distribution still
violate federal law, and although some
states have legalized the sale of marijuana,
there will continue to be a “black market”
in these states due to high taxes and state-
imposed restrictions. Domestic production

of marijuana is likely to increase, especially in
states that allow unregulated personal grows;
marijuana from these unregulated grows
will likely be trafficked to other states. In
addition to domestically-produced marijuana,
Mexico-produced marijuana will continue
to be trafficked to the United States in large
quantities.

The availability of marijuana concentrates, such
as hash oil, and marijuana edibles will likely
increase. The elevated THC levels of marijuana
concentrates will pose serious medical
consequences to abusers, and the dangerous
methods used to extract concentrates will pose
serious risks to producers, law enforcement
personnel, and innocent civilians.

Synthetic cannabinoids and synthetic
cathinones will continue to pose a significant
drug threat. While some indicators show slight
declines, targeted law enforcement operations
across the country show that the availability of
these drugs has not significantly diminished.
Most law enforcement officials believe that the
abuse of these drugs will continue to increase.

Outlook

38 Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified
This page intentionally left blank.

39Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

Appendix A: Maps

Map A1. Nine OCDETF Regions

40 Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

Map A2. Locations of Respondents to 2014 NDTS

Source: National Drug Threat Survey, 2014

41Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

Map A3. Greatest Drug Threat Represented Nationally
As Reported by State and Local Agencies

2013 – 2014

Source: National Drug Threat Survey, 2013 and 2014

42 Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

Map A4. Greatest Drug Threat Represented Regionally
As Reported by State and Local Agencies

2014

Source: National Drug Threat Survey, 2014

43Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

Map A5. 2014 Drug Availability by Region
Percentage of State and Local Agencies Reporting High Availablity

Source: National Drug Threat Survey, 2014

44 Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

Source: DEA Drug Theft and Loss Database

Map A6. Armed Robberies Reported by Pharmacies
2009 – 2013

45Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

Appendix B: Tables

Source: National Drug Threat Survey, 2014

Florida/Caribbean 12.0 14.7 6.1 0.7 13.9 52.5

Great lakes 2.3 4.2 21.3 50.7 7.7 13.8

Mid-atlantiC 3.5 4.0 5.4 56.1 7.5 23.5

new enGland 0.0 2.0 0.0 58.7 6.7 32.6

new York/new JerseY 0.2 3.8 11.4 39.1 5.9 37.9

PaCiFiC 0.8 0.0 63.1 18.2 9.1 7.2

southeast 2.4 18.1 38.3 8.6 2.3 27.6

southwest 9.1 9.5 58.5 3.1 10.6 8.6

west Central 1.6 1.3 61.0 13.7 4.4 17.9

NatioNwide 3.0 7.0 31.8 29.1 6.7 21.5

table b1. PerceNtage of 2014 NdtS reSPoNdeNtS rePortiNg greateSt drug threat,
by drug, by regioN

Powder
cocaiNe

crack
cocaiNe

ocdetf regioN MethaMPhetaMiNe heroiN MarijuaNa cPdS

* exCePt where noted
du = dosaGe unit

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

table b2. total uS SeizureS, by drug, iN kilograMS*, cy2009 – cy2013

CoCaine

Heroin

MetHaMpHetaMine

pHarMaCeutiCals (du)

oxyCodone

HydroCodone

HydroMorpHone

50,296.1 51,830.9 61,435.6 34,742.4 36,315.3

2,540.0 3,044.0 3,924.0 4,607.0 4,761.0

6,915.9 10,538.9 12,620.9 19,531.3 21,558.9

102,361.8 362,556.6 255,865.5 188,122.5 1,194,747.8

290,356.0 388,285.5 179,610.3 41,668.0 83,448.5

4,661.0 437.5 44.5 1,570.5 1,363.0
Source: National Seizure System

46 Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

Source: Treatment Episode Data Set

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

table b4. adMiSSioNS to Publicly liceNSed treatMeNt facilitieS,
by PriMary SubStaNce, cy2007 – cy2011

CoCaine 250,761 230,568 186,994 152,404 143,827

heroin 261,951 280,692 285,983 264,277 278,481

MariJuana 307,053 347,755 362,335 346,268 333,578

MethaMPhetaMine 145,936 127,137 116,793 115,022 110,471

non-heroin

oPiates/sYnthetiC* 98,909 122,633 143,404 163,444 186,986

* These drugs include codeine, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, meperidine,
morphine, opium, oxycodone, pentazocine, propoxyphene, tramadol, and any
other drug with morphine-like effects. Non presecription use of methadone is not
included.

Note: Tennessee included heroin admissions in the “other opiates” category through
June 2009. In this report, Tennessee’s 2009 heroin admissions are still included in the
other opiates category since there is less than a full year of disaggregated heroin data.

Source: Drug Abuse Warning Network

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

table b3. eStiMated NuMber of eMergeNcy dePartMeNt ViSitS iNVolViNg
illicit drugS, cy2007 – cy2011

CoCaine 553,535 482,188 422,902 488,101 505,224

heroin 188,162 200,666 213,118 224,706 258,482

MariJuana 308,407 374,177 376,468 460,943 455,636

MethaMPhetaMine 67,954 66,308 64,117 94,929 102,961

MdMa 12,751 17,888 22,847 21,836 22,498

CPd Painkillers 94,448 124,020 146,377 179,787 170,939

47Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified
Source: 2013 Monitoring the Future Survey
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

table b5. adoleSceNt treNdS iN PerceNtage of PaSt year drug uSe
cy2009–cy2013

CoCaine (anY ForM)

8th Grade 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0

10th Grade 2.7 2.2 1.9 2.0 1.9

12th Grade 3.4 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.6

CraCk

8th Grade 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.6

10th Grade 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8

12th Grade 1.3 1.4 1.0 1.2 1.1

heroin

8th Grade 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.5

10th Grade 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.5

12th Grade 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.5

MariJuana

8th Grade 11.8 13.7 12.5 11.4 12.7

10th Grade 26.7 27.5 28.8 28.0 29.8

12th Grade 32.8 34.8 36.4 36.4 36.4

MethaMPhetaMine

8th Grade 1.0 1.2 0.8 1.0 1.0

10th Grade 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.0 1.0

12th Grade 1.2 1.0 1.4 1.1 0.9

MdMa

8th Grade 1.3 2.4 1.7 1.1 1.1

10th Grade 3.7 4.7 4.5 3.0 3.6

12th Grade 4.3 4.5 5.3 3.8 4.0

PresCriPtion narCotiCs

8th Grade na na na na na

10th Grade na na na na na

12th Grade 9.2 8.7 8.7 7.9 7.1

sYnthetiC MariJuana (sYnthetiC Cannabinoids)

8th Grade na na na 4.4 4.0

10th Grade na na na 8.8 7.4

12th Grade na na na 11.3 7.9bath

salts (sYnthetiC Cathinenes)

8th Grade na na na 6.8 1.0

10th Grade na na na 0.6 0.9

12th Grade na na na 1.3 0.9

48 Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

Source: S. 3190 (112th): Synthetic Drug Abuse Prevention Act of 2012

5-(1,1-diMethYlhePtYl)-2-[(1r,3s)-3-hYdroxYCYClohexYl]-Phenol (CP-47,497)
5-(1,1-diMethYloCtYl)-2-[(1r,3s)-3-hYdroxYCYClohexYl]-Phenol (CannabiCYClohexanol or CP-47,497 C8-
hoMoloG)
1-PentYl-3-(1-naPhthoYl)indole (Jwh-018 and aM678)
1-butYl-3-(1-naPhthoYl)indole (Jwh-073)
1-hexYl-3-(1-naPhthoYl)indole (Jwh-019)
1-[2-(4-MorPholinYl)ethYl]-3-(1-naPhthoYl)indole (Jwh-200)
1-PentYl-3-(2-MethoxYPhenYlaCetYl)indole (Jwh-250)
1-PentYl-3-[1-(4-MethoxYnaPhthoYl)]indole (Jwh-081)
1-PentYl-3-(4-MethYl-1-naPhthoYl)indole (Jwh-122)
1-PentYl-3-(4-Chloro-1-naPhthoYl)indole (Jwh-398)
1-(5-FluoroPentYl)-3-(1-naPhthoYl)indole (aM2201)
1-(5-FluoroPentYl)-3-(2-iodobenzoYl)indole (aM694)
1-PentYl-3-[(4-MethoxY)-benzoYl]indole (sr-19 and rCs-4)
1-CYClohexYlethYl-3-(2-MethoxYPhenYlaCetYl)indole (sr-18 and rCs-8)
1-PentYl-3-(2-ChloroPhenYlaCetYl)indole (Jwh-203)
4-MethYlMethCathinone (MePhedrone)
3,4-MethYlenedioxYPYrovalerone (MdPv)
2-(2,5-diMethoxY-4-ethYlPhenYl)ethanaMine (2C-e)
2-(2,5-diMethoxY-4-MethYlPhenYl)ethanaMine (2C-d)
2-(4-Chloro-2,5-diMethoxYPhenYl)ethanaMine (2C-C)
2-(4-iodo-2,5-diMethoxYPhenYl)ethanaMine (2C-i)
2-[4-(ethYlthio)-2,5-diMethoxYPhenYl]ethanaMine (2C-t-2)
2-[4-(isoProPYlthio)-2,5-diMethoxYPhenYl]ethanaMine (2C-t-4)
2-(2,5-diMethoxYPhenYl)ethanaMine (2C-h)
2-(2,5-diMethoxY-4-nitro-PhenYl)ethanaMine (2C-n)
2-(2,5-diMethoxY-4-(n)-ProPYlPhenYl)ethanaMine (2C-P)
3,4-MethYlenedioxYMethCathinone (MethYlone)

table b6: SyNthetic drugS Scheduled uNder the
SyNthetic drug abuSe PreVeNtioN act of 2012

49Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

Source: 2012 National Survey on Drug Use and Health

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

table b7. treNdS iN PerceNtage of PaSt-year drug uSe, cy2007–cy2012

cocaiNe (aNy forM)

iNdiVidualS (12 aNd older) 2.3 2.1 1.9 1.8 1.5 1.8

adoleSceNtS (12-17) 1.5 1.2 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.7

youNg adultS (18-25) 6.4 5.5 5.3 4.7 4.6 4.6

adultS (26 aNd older) 1.7 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.4

crack

iNdiVidualS (12 aNd older) 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4

adoleSceNtS (12-17) 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

youNg adultS (18-25) 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4

adultS (26 aNd older) 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4

heroiN

iNdiVidualS (12 aNd older) 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3

adoleSceNtS (12-17) 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1

youNg adultS (18-25) 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

adultS (26 aNd older) 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

MarijuaNa

iNdiVidualS (12 aNd older) 10.1 10.3 11.3 11.6 11.5 12.1

adoleSceNtS (12-17) 12.5 13.0 13.6 14.0 14.2 13.5

youNg adultS (18-25) 27.5 27.6 30.6 30.0 30.8 31.5

adultS (26 aNd older) 6.8 7.0 7.7 8.0 7.9 8.6

MethaMPhetaMiNe

iNdiVidualS (12 aNd older) 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4

adoleSceNtS (12-17) 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3

youNg adultS (18-25) 1.2 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.7 1.0

adultS (26 aNd older) 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4

MdMa

iNdiVidualS (12 aNd older) 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.0

adoleSceNtS (12-17) 1.3 1.4 1.7 1.9 1.7 1.2

youNg adultS (18-25) 3.5 3.9 4.3 4.4 4.1 4.1

adultS (26 aNd older) 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.5

PreScriPtioN
PSychotheraPeuticS

iNdiVidualS (12 aNd older) 5.0 4.8 4.9 4.8 4.3 4.8

adoleSceNtS (12-17) 6.7 6.5 6.6 6.3 5.9 5.3

youNg adultS (18-25) 12.1 12.0 11.9 11.1 9.8 10.1

adultS (26 aNd older) 3.6 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.2 3.8

50 Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified
Source: National Drug Threat Survey, 2014

Powder CoCaine 22.9 18.1
CraCk CoCaine 24.1 23.6
MethaMPhetaMine 39.5 40.6
heroin 30.3 34.0
MariJuana 88.2 80.0
Controlled PresCriPtion druGs (CPds) 75.4 63.2
sYnthetiC Cathinones * 11.9
sYnthetiC Cannabinoids * 18.1

table b8. PerceNtage of NdtS reSPoNdeNtS rePortiNg NatioNwide
high aVailability, by drug, by caleNdar yearS 2013 – 2014

2013 2014

* inForMation not available

Source: National Drug Threat Survey, 2014

Florida/Caribbean 29.3 33.7 22.7 3.3 78.9 70.5

Great lakes 11.9 20.9 30.4 40.1 90.2 70.6

Mid-atlantiC 25.9 34.1 11.8 51.5 94.8 81.8

new enGland 32.1 21.6 6.0 55.4 93.1 76.7

new York/new JerseY 27.4 21.8 0.1 45.1 91.3 70.6

PaCiFiC 11.8 8.7 76.5 40.2 97.2 64.1

southeast 30.5 40.8 47.7 3.9 82.4 87.2

southwest 33.9 15.9 87.5 22.3 87.3 82.8

west Central 13.1 13.2 50.7 20.6 82.3 64.2

NatioNwide 22.9 24.1 39.5 30.3 88.2 75.4

table b9. PerceNtage of NdtS reSPoNdeNtS rePortiNg high aVailability,
by drug, by regioN

Powder
cocaiNe
crack
cocaiNe
ocdetf regioN MethaMPhetaMiNe heroiN MarijuaNa cPdS

51Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified

Appendix C: Acronym Glossary

AAPCC American Association of Poison Control Centers

CBP US Customs and Border Protection

CEWG Community Epidemiology Working Group

CPD Controlled Prescription Drugs

CSA Controlled Substances Act

CY Calendar Year

DAWN Drug Abuse Warning Network

DCE/SP Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program

DEA US Drug Enforcement Administration

ED Emergency Department

FBI US Federal Bureau of Investigation

FD Field Division (DEA)

FDA Food and Drug Administration

ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement

ID Identification

IRS US Internal Revenue Service

MDMA Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (frequently referred to as ecstasy)

MTF Monitoring the Future

MV Motor Vehicle

NCHS National Center for Health Statistics

NCNRP National Center for Natural Projects Research

NDTA National Drug Threat Assessment

NDTS National Drug Threat Survey

NFLIS National Forensic Laboratory Information System

NIDA National Institute on Drug Abuse

NSDUH National Survey on Drug Use and Health

NSS National Seizure System

OCDETF Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force

PD Police Department

PDMP Prescription Drug Monitoring Program

SCPL Small Capacity Production Laboratories

TCO Transnational Criminal Organization

TEDS Treatment Episode Data Set

THC Tetrahydrocannibinol

52 Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified
This page intentionally left blank.

53Unclassified

2014 National Drug Threat Assessment Summary
Unclassified
This page intentionally left blank.

Unclassified

Unclassified//Law Enforcement Sensitive