Drug Enforcement Administration

Office of Diversion Control

YEAR 2004 ANNUAL REPORT

NFLIS
N AT I O N A L F O R E N S I C L A B O R ATO R Y I N F O R M AT I O N S YS T E M
 CONTENTS
Special NFLIS Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Announcement Section 1
National and Regional Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.1 Drug Items Analyzed . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2 Drug Cases Analyzed . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3 National and Regional Drug
Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
The Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA)
Office of Diversion Control is pleased Section 2
to announce a new Web site Major Drug Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.1 Narcotic Analgesics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
https://www.nflis.deadiversion.usdoj.gov 2.2 Benzodiazepines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3 Club Drugs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
supporting the National Forensic Laboratory 2.4 Anabolic Steroids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Information System (NFLIS). 2.5 Stimulants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Section 3
The new Web site will provide access to the Interactive Data Site (IDS) Drug Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
by June 2005. New usernames and passwords will be provided to access 3.1 Cocaine Combinations . . . . . . . . . . .17
restricted areas of the IDS. Participating NFLIS laboratories will soon 3.2 Heroin Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
receive additional information on how to access the Web site. The
3.3 Methamphetamine
current direct dial-up connection will remain available for use.
Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
As part of the enhanced IDS, different access levels will be assigned
to satisfy the specific NFLIS data needs of various users. Information Section 4
about NFLIS, published reports, links to agencies, information relevant Drugs Identified by Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
to drug control efforts, and NFLIS contact information will be available
to the general public. Participating NFLIS laboratories will have access
Section 5
to their own case- and item-level data, as well as aggregated state- GIS Analysis: Cocaine Cases by County
and metropolitan-level data. Approved government agency staff and of Origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
researchers will be able to access the aggregated and summarized data.
Section 6
Depending upon the level of access, users will have the ability to
conduct analyses using preset queries.
Drug Purity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6.1 Heroin Purity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
The enhanced IDS will also include an electronic bulletin board that 6.2 Cocaine Purity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
can be used to post reports, technical notes, and other materials
relevant to the drug forensic community. The electronic bulletin board DEA Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
will be available by August 1, 2005, and will serve as a communication
and information exchange medium among NFLIS members, DEA, and Appendix A: NFLIS Benefits
other federal and state agencies. & Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
DEA and NFLIS project staff would like to thank participating Appendix B: NFLIS Interactive
laboratories for making this new Web site possible. We look forward Data Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
to providing this service.
Appendix C: National Estimates
   

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Appendix D: Participating
and Reporting Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

2
 For e w or d

The Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA’s) Office of Diversion Control

is pleased to present the 2004 Annual Report on the National Forensic Laboratory
Information System (NFLIS). NFLIS, implemented in 1997, is a DEA program
that systematically collects drug analysis results and associated information from the
nations’ forensic laboratories. Currently 244 state and local forensic laboratories are
participating in the NFLIS program. Over the past year DEA has added a number
William J. Walker of key laboratories to the system, and efforts continue toward the recruitment of
all laboratories that regularly perform drug chemistry analyses.

NFLIS has proven to be an important drug intelligence data resource used to

support DEA’s mission of enforcing the controlled substances laws and regulations
of the United States. By collaborating with federal, state, and local laboratories,
DEA is able to collect, analyze, and disseminate timely and detailed drug
intelligence. This information is also essential to the Office of Diversion Control
in supporting drug scheduling efforts and related activities.

This 2004 NFLIS Annual Report presents findings on the trafficking and
abuse of a wide range of controlled substances, including marijuana, cocaine,
heroin, methamphetamine, prescription drugs, club drugs, and anabolic steroids.
The report also highlights several NFLIS data analysis initiatives that seek to
improve the value of the system in tracking the trend and pattern of drug trafficking
and drug abuse. NFLIS is now able to analyze the drug seizure location at the county
level for changing and emerging drug problems. The county of origin for cocaine
seizures from selected states is presented in Geographic Information System (GIS)
format. The report also unveils a new NFLIS Web site, which is accessible to the
general public, participating laboratories, and approved individuals in the drug
control community. The NFLIS Web site provides links to the open access contents
and to the restricted Interactive Data Site (IDS), which has improved data
analysis capabilities.

The DEA would like to express special thanks to the laboratories that have
joined the NFLIS partnership. The contributions and support of these laboratories
are vital to the program’s ongoing success. Finally, those federal, state, and local
forensic laboratories that are not currently participating in NFLIS are encouraged
to contact DEA about joining this important program. Thank you again for your
ongoing support.

William J. Walker
Deputy Assistant Administrator
   

Office of Diversion Control

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration

3
 INTRODUCTION
The National Forensic Laboratory Information
System (NFLIS) is a program sponsored by the Drug
Enforcement Administration’s (DEA’s) Office of
Diversion Control that systematically collects drug
analysis results and associated information from drug
cases analyzed by federal, state, and local forensic
laboratories. These laboratories analyze drug evidence
secured in law enforcement operations across the country
and represent an important resource in monitoring illicit
drug abuse and trafficking, including the diversion of
legally manufactured pharmaceuticals into illegal markets.
NFLIS data are used to support drug scheduling decisions
as well as to inform drug policy and drug enforcement
initiatives both nationally and in local communities.
NFLIS is a comprehensive information system that
includes data from the forensic laboratories that handle
over 71% of the nation’s estimated 1.2 million annual
state and local analyzed drug cases. As of March 2005,
NFLIS included 41 state systems and 81 local or system
laboratories, representing a total of 244 individual labs.
Federal data from the DEA’s System To Retrieve
Information from Drug Evidence II (STRIDE), which
includes the results of drug evidence analyzed at the eight
DEA laboratories across the country, is also a part of the
NFLIS database. Efforts continue toward recruiting all
state and local laboratories, while also integrating the
remainder of federal laboratories into the system.
This 2004 Annual Report presents the results of drug
cases analyzed by forensic laboratories between January 1,
2004, and December 31, 2004. Section 1 presents national
and regional estimates for the 25 most frequently geographical information on the drug seizure location.
identified drugs, as well as national and regional quarterly Section 5 presents the county-level seizure location for
trends from 2001 through 2004. National and regional cocaine reported by selected states. Efforts are also under
estimates are based on drug analysis data reported among way to continually improve the utility of NFLIS data, as
the NFLIS national sample of laboratories. The remainder shown by recent enhancements to the NFLIS Interactive
of the report presents drug analysis results for all state and Data Site (IDS). Appendix B summarizes these IDS
local laboratories that reported at least 6 months of data enhancements, including Web accessibility of the IDS
to NFLIS during 2004, as well as federal laboratory data to participating labs and the general public, new database
reported in STRIDE. The benefits and limitations of query options, and an electronic bulletin board that can be
   

NFLIS are presented in Appendix A. used by the forensic community to exchange up-to-date
A major objective of NFLIS is to continue enhancing information on drug-related issues. Enhancements to
the usefulness and comprehensiveness of the NFLIS data. NFLIS are ongoing and will continue over the next
One key enhancement is to provide more detailed several years.

4
   

5
 Section 1 N AT IO N A L A N D R
Since 2001, NFLIS has produced The following section describes national and regional
estimates of the number of drug estimates for drug evidence analyzed by state and local
laboratories in 2004. Trends are also presented for selected drugs
items and drug cases analyzed
from 2001 through 2004. The methods used in preparing these
by state and local laboratories from
estimates are described in Appendix C. Appendix D provides a
a nationally representative sample list of NFLIS laboratories, including those included in the
of laboratories. national sample.

1.1 DRUG ITEMS ANALYZED

In 2004, an estimated 1,734,658 drug items were analyzed
by state and local forensic laboratories in the United States.
This is an increase from the 1,715,598 drug items analyzed
during 2003.
Table 1.1 presents the 25 most frequently identified drugs
for the nation and for census regions. The top 25 drugs
accounted for 93% of all drugs analyzed in 2004, an estimated
1,609,755 items. As in previous years, the vast majority of all
drugs reported in NFLIS were identified as the top 4 drugs,
with cannabis/THC, cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin
representing 84% of all drug items identified. Nationally,
592,273 items were identified as cannabis/THC (34%), 546,109
as cocaine (31%), 227,720 as methamphetamine (13%), and
94,199 as heroin (5%).
Among other drugs, 16 of the top 25 were available in
pharmaceutical products, 13 of which were controlled drugs.
Included in this group of controlled pharmaceuticals were six
narcotic analgesics: oxycodone (18,962 items), hydrocodone
(18,608 items), methadone (6,397 items), codeine (4,205 items),
Methamphetamine
morphine (2,827 items), and propoxyphene (2,121 items) and
four benzodiazepines: alprazolam (20,821 items), diazepam
(6,937 items), clonazepam (5,797 items), and lorazepam
(1,487 items). Other controlled pharmaceutical drugs were
phencyclidine (PCP) (3,635), amphetamine (3,930), and
methylphenidate (1,676). Three non-controlled pharmaceuticals
were included in the top 25: pseudoephedrine (10,250 items),
acetaminophen (5,300), and carisoprodol (2,757).
www.Erowid.org
   

6
E G IO N A L E S T I M AT E S
Table 1.1 NATIONAL AND REGIONAL ESTIMATES FOR THE 25 MOST FREQUENTLY IDENTIFIED DRUGS*
Estimated number and percentage of total analyzed drug items, 2004.

Drug National West Midwest Northeast South

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Cannabis/THC 592,273 34.14% 79,312 22.03% 199,828 48.44% 88,727 31.69% 224,405 32.89%
Cocaine 546,109 31.48% 72,466 20.13% 107,185 25.98% 105,856 37.81% 260,601 38.20%
Methamphetamine 227,720 13.13% 138,181 38.39% 35,791 8.68% 1,285 0.46% 52,463 7.69%
Heroin 94,199 5.43% 12,464 3.46% 20,137 4.88% 33,215 11.86% 28,383 4.16%
Alprazolam 20,821 1.20% *** *** 4,130 1.00% 2,969 1.06% 12,447 1.82%
Oxycodone 18,962 1.09% 1,939 0.54% 3,495 0.85% 6,544 2.34% 6,984 1.02%
Hydrocodone 18,608 1.07% 2,228 0.62% 3,140 0.76% 2,265 0.81% 10,976 1.61%
Non-controlled, non-narcotic drug 17,722 1.02% 6,296 1.75% 4,009 0.97% 3,841 1.37% 3,575 0.52%
Pseudoephedrine** 10,250 0.59% 1,834 0.51% 4,008 0.97% *** *** 4,398 0.64%
MDMA 9,540 0.55% 1,974 0.55% 1,204 0.29% 1,410 0.50% 4,952 0.73%
Diazepam 6,937 0.40% 992 0.28% 1,576 0.38% 1,007 0.36% 3,361 0.49%
Methadone 6,397 0.37% 802 0.22% 1,038 0.25% 1,988 0.71% 2,569 0.38%
Clonazepam 5,797 0.33% 529 0.15% 1,223 0.30% 1,940 0.69% 2,105 0.31%
Acetaminophen 5,300 0.31% *** *** 1,644 0.40% *** *** 1,295 0.19%
Codeine 4,205 0.24% 300 0.08% 709 0.17% 477 0.17% 2,719 0.40%
Amphetamine 3,930 0.23% 844 0.23% 951 0.23% 601 0.21% 1,534 0.22%
Phencyclidine (PCP) 3,635 0.21% 705 0.20% 456 0.11% 1,737 0.62% 736 0.11%
Psilocin 3,283 0.19% 1,170 0.32% 1,035 0.25% 259 0.09% 820 0.12%
Morphine 2,827 0.16% 665 0.18% 650 0.16% 508 0.18% 1,003 0.15%
Carisoprodol 2,757 0.16% *** *** 235 0.06% 152 0.05% 1,637 0.24%
Propoxyphene 2,121 0.12% 164 0.05% 905 0.22% 136 0.05% 916 0.13%
MDA 1,973 0.11% 377 0.10% 236 0.06% 566 0.20% 794 0.12%
Methylphenidate 1,676 0.10% 215 0.06% 578 0.14% 348 0.12% 536 0.08%
Lorazepam 1,487 0.09% 258 0.07% 391 0.09% 328 0.12% 511 0.07%
Iodine 1,227 0.07% 848 0.24% *** *** *** *** 179 0.03%

Top 25 Total 1,609,755 92.80% 324,561 90.16% 394,555 95.64% 256,161 91.50% 629,899 92.33%
All Other Analyzed Items 124,903 7.20% 35,414 9.84% 17,984 4.36% 23,782 8.50% 52,302 7.67%
   

Total Analyzed Items 1,734,658 100.00% 359,975 100.00% 412,539 100.00% 279,943 100.00% 682,200 100.00%

Numbers may not sum to totals due to suppression and rounding.

* Sample n’s and 95% confidence intervals for all estimates are available upon request.
** Includes items from a small number of laboratories that do not specify between pseudoephedrine and ephedrine.
*** These data do not meet standards of precision and reliability due to their small sample sizes.

7
 1.2 DRUG CASES ANALYZED Cannabis/THC was the most common drug reported in a
Drug analysis results are also reported to NFLIS at the case laboratory drug case during 2004. Nationally, an estimated 39%
level. These case-level data typically describe all drugs identified of analyzed drug cases contained one or more cannabis/THC
within a drug-related incident, although a small proportion of items, followed by cocaine, which was identified in 37% of all
labs may assign a single case number to all drug submissions drug cases. Nearly 14% of drug cases were estimated to have
related to an entire investigation. Table 1.2 presents national contained one or more methamphetamine items, and 6% of
estimates for cases containing the 25 most commonly identified cases contained one or more heroin items. About 2% of cases
drugs. This table illustrates the number of cases that contained contained one or more alprazolam items, while hydrocodone
at least one item of the specified drug. and oxycodone were each reported in about 1% of drug cases.

Table 1.2 NATIONAL CASE ESTIMATES System To Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence II
Number and percentage of cases containing the (STRIDE)
25 most frequently identified drugs, 2004.
The DEA’s System To Retrieve Information from Drug
Drug Number Percent Evidence II (STRIDE) collects the results of drug evidence
Cannabis/THC 433,548 38.64% analyzed at the eight DEA laboratories across the country.
Cocaine 415,287 37.01% This reflects evidence submitted by the DEA, other federal
Methamphetamine 160,955 14.35% law enforcement agencies, and some local police agencies that
Heroin 72,714 6.48% was obtained during drug seizures, undercover drug buys, and
Alprazolam 17,062 1.52% other activities. STRIDE captures data on both domestic and
Hydrocodone 14,810 1.32% international drug cases; however, the following results describe
Oxycodone 14,478 1.29% only those drugs obtained in the U.S.
Non-controlled, non-narcotic drug 13,381 1.19% During 2004, a total of 51,830 drug exhibits (or items) were
MDMA 7,260 0.65% reported in STRIDE, compared to an estimated 1.7 million
Pseudoephedrine* 6,521 0.58% drug exhibits reported by state and local laboratories during this
Diazepam 5,977 0.53% period. More than 8 in 10 drugs identified in STRIDE were
Methadone 5,225 0.47% cocaine (30%), cannabis/THC (26%), methamphetamine (16%),
Clonazepam 5,092 0.45% or heroin (9%). Among other drugs, 3% were reported as
Acetaminophen 4,747 0.42% MDMA and 3% as pseudoephedrine.
Codeine 3,288 0.29% In comparison to state and local laboratories, DEA federal
Amphetamine 3,215 0.29% laboratories reported lower percentages of cannabis/THC
Phencyclidine (PCP) 3,104 0.28% (26% in STRIDE vs. 34% in NFLIS) and similar percentages
Psilocin 2,670 0.24% of cocaine (30% in STRIDE vs. 31% in NFLIS). DEA
Carisoprodol 2,519 0.22% laboratories reported higher percentages of methamphetamine
Morphine 2,322 0.21% (16% in STRIDE vs. 13% in NFLIS), heroin (9% vs. 5%),
Propoxyphene 1,916 0.17% MDMA (3% vs. <1%), and pseudoephedrine (3% vs. <1%).
MDA 1,701 0.15%
MOST FREQUENTLY IDENTIFIED DRUGS IN STRIDE, 2004
Lorazepam 1,354 0.12%
Methylphenidate 1,230 0.11% Drug Number Percent
Iodine 1,009 0.09% Cocaine 15,802 30.49%
Cannabis/THC 13,220 25.51%
Top 25 Total 1,201,387 107.08% Methamphetamine 8,458 16.32%
All Other Substances 95,594 8.48% Heroin 4,622 8.92%
Total All Substances 1,296,981 115.56%** MDMA 1,444 2.79%
Pseudoephedrine 1,440 2.78%
   

* Includes cases from a small number of laboratories that do not Non-controlled, non-narcotic drug 660 1.27%
specify between pseudoephedrine and ephedrine.
Hydrocodone 496 0.96%
** Multiple drugs can be reported within a single case, so the
Alprazolam 381 0.74%
cumulative percentage exceeds 100%. The estimated national total
of distinct cases that drug case percentages are based on is 1,105,793. Oxycodone 341 0.66%
All Other Drugs 4,966 9.58%
Total All Drugs 51,830 100.00%
8
1.3 NATIONAL AND REGIONAL DRUG TRENDS Figure 1.2 National estimates for other selected drugs
by quarter, 2001–2004.
National drug trends
Figure 1.1 presents national trends for the number of drug
items analyzed by state and local laboratories in 3-month
increments for 2001 through 2004 for the top four drugs
reported in NFLIS. While these data may describe trafficking
and abuse patterns, they may also reflect differing drug
enforcement priorities and laboratory policies.
Overall, there was a decrease in total analyzed items between
2001 and 2004, from 457,967 items during the 1st quarter of
2001 to 415,049 items during the 4th quarter of 2004. Among
the top four reported drugs, reports of cannabis/THC and
heroin items declined significantly from the 1st quarter of 2001
to the 4th quarter of 2004 (α = .05). Reports of cannabis/THC Regional drug trends
declined from 161,343 items to 135,599 items, while heroin Figure 1.3 presents regional trends per 100,000 persons aged
decreased from 26,750 items to 21,282 items (Figure 1.1). 15 or older for the top four reported drugs. This illustrates
Although not significant, reports of cocaine also declined changes in drugs reported over time, taking into account the
slightly during this same 4-year period, from 151,294 items population of each region.
to 137,725 items. Cannabis/THC reporting declines across each of the
regions, although the only significant declines occurred in the
Figure 1.1 National estimates for the top four drugs by Northeast and South (α = .05). Overall, the highest rate of
quarter, 2001–2004. cannabis/THC reporting continues to be reported in the
Midwest. While there were no significant changes for reports
of cocaine over the 4-year period, the highest rate of cocaine
reporting is by laboratories in the South, followed by the
Northeast and the Midwest. Methamphetamine reporting
significantly increased in the Northeast and the South. The
rate of methamphetamine items analyzed in the South
more than doubled, from 8 to 17 per 100,000 (6,534 items
to 13,156 items). However, the West continues to report the
most methamphetamine, with 69 items per 100,000 in the 4th
quarter of 2004. The rate of reporting of heroin items declined
across all four regions, with significant decreases in the West,
Northeast, and South. Heroin continues to be reported by
Figure 1.2 describes national reporting trends for selected forensic laboratories in the Northeast at about twice the rate
drugs: MDMA, alprazolam, oxycodone, and hydrocodone. as in the South and the Midwest.
Among these drugs, reports of MDMA experienced a Figure 1.4 shows regional trends per 100,000 persons aged
significant decrease (from 5,427 items to 2,506 items). 15 or older for other reported drugs including hydrocodone,
Reports of oxycodone and hydrocodone experienced significant oxycodone, MDMA, and alprazolam from January 2001
increases. Oxycodone reporting increased from 2,771 items through December 2004. Reports of MDMA declined
in the 1st quarter of 2001 to 4,249 items in the 4th quarter significantly across all census regions, and reports of oxycodone
of 2004. Hydrocodone reporting increased from 2,742 items increased significantly in the West and the Northeast (α = .05).
   

to 4,829. In the Northeast, the reporting rate of oxycodone items

analyzed more than doubled, from 1.5 to 3.1 per 100,000 (636
items to 1,332 items). Reports of hydrocodone increased across
all four regions, with significant increases in the Northeast
(from 0.3 to 1.4 per 100,000) and South (from 2.3 to 3.6 items
per 100,000). Reports of alprazolam also increased significantly
in the Northeast, from 1.3 to 1.8 items per 100,000.

9
 Figure 1.3 Trends in the top four drugs reported per 100,000 population 15 and older, January 2001–December 2004.*

Cannabis/THC Cocaine

Methamphetamine Heroin

*A dashed line implies unstable estimates due to small sample sizes.

Figure 1.4 Trends in other selected drugs reported per 100,000 population 15 and older, January 2001–December 2004.*

Hydrocodone Oxycodone

MDMA Alprazolam
   

*A dashed line or the absence of a trend line implies unstable estimates due to small sample sizes.

10
 Section 2 Major drug
c at e g o r i e s
Section 2 presents analysis results 2.1 NARCOTIC ANALGESICS
for major drug categories reported Narcotic analgesics are a category of pain medications derived
by NFLIS laboratories during 2004. from natural and synthetic opiates. Findings from the 2003
National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) show
It is important to note differences
there was a significant increase between 2002 and 2003 in the
between the results presented in number of persons aged 12 or older who used pain relievers in
this section and the national and their lifetime for non-medical reasons, from 29.6 million to
regional estimates presented in 31.2 million.1
Section 1. The estimates presented A total of 36,951 narcotic analgesics were identified by
in Section 1 are based on data NFLIS labs in 2004, representing nearly 3% of all items
reported by the NFLIS national analyzed (Table 2.1). Hydrocodone (35%) and oxycodone (31%)
accounted for the majority of all narcotic analgesics reported.
sample of laboratories. Section 2
Nearly one-third of narcotic analgesics were identified as
and subsequent sections present methadone (11%), codeine (7%), morphine (5%), propoxyphene
data reported by all NFLIS labs that (4%), or dihydrocodeine (4%).
reported 6 or more months of data
during 2004. During 2004, NFLIS
labs analyzed a total of 1,160,017 Table 2.1 NARCOTIC ANALGESICS
Number and percentage of identified narcotic
drug items. analgesics, 2004.

Analgesics Number Percent

4-methylaminorex Crystals Hydrocodone 13,113 35.49%
Oxycodone 11,342 30.69%
Methadone 3,904 10.57%
Codeine 2,454 6.64%
Morphine 1,902 5.15%
Propoxyphene 1,348 3.65%
Dihydrocodeine 1,315 3.56%
Hydromorphone 616 1.67%
Tramadol* 303 0.82%
Meperidine 231 0.63%
www.Erowid.org

Fentanyl 198 0.54%

Buprenorphine 148 0.40%
Pentazocine 63 0.17%
Nalbuphine* 6 0.02%
   

1 Butorphanol 5 0.01%
Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (2004). Results Oxymorphone 3 0.01%
from the 2003 National Survey on Drug Use Total Narcotic Analgesics 36,951 100.00%
and Health: National Findings (Office of
Applied Studies, NSDUH Series H-25, *Non-controlled substance.
DHHS Publication No. SMA 04-3964).
Rockville, MD.

11
 Figure 2.1 Distribution of narcotic analgesics within region, 2004. More than half of benzodiazepines reported in the Midwest
(51%), Northeast (55%), and South (67%) were identified as
alprazolam (Figure 2.2). Diazepam accounted for nearly a
third of benzodiazepines identified in the West and a quarter
of those identified in the Midwest. The Northeast and the
West accounted for the highest relative percentages of
clonazepam (26%).

Table 2.2 BENZODIAZEPINES

Number and percentage of identified
benzodiazepines, 2004.

Benzodiazepines Number Percent

Alprazolam 14,402 58.81%
Diazepam 4,635 18.93%
Clonazepam 4,050 16.54%
Lorazepam 1,015 4.14%
Temazepam 218 0.89%
Chlordiazepoxide 79 0.32%
Triazolam 47 0.19%
Flunitrazepam 34 0.14%
Midazolam 9 0.04%
Total Benzodiazepines 24,489 100.00%

During 2004, differences were found in the types of Figure 2.2 Distribution of benzodiazepines within region, 2004.
analgesics reported by region (Figure 2.1). The highest
percentages of hydrocodone were reported in the South (43%)
and West (43%). Oxycodone represented 47% of analgesics
reported in the Northeast, compared to 33% in the Midwest,
25% in the South, and 24% in the West. The Northeast also
reported the highest relative percentage of methadone (18%),
while the South reported the highest percentage of
codeine (7%).

2.2 BENZODIAZEPINES
Benzodiazepines belong to the group of substances called
central nervous system (CNS) depressants (substances that slow
down the nervous system) and are used therapeutically to
produce sedation, induce sleep, relieve anxiety and muscle
spasms, and prevent seizures. Of the drugs marketed in the
United States that affect central nervous system function,
benzodiazepines are among the most widely prescribed
medications and, unfortunately, the most frequently abused.2
   

During 2004, a total of 2% of all analyzed drugs, or 24,489

items, were identified as benzodiazepines in NFLIS (Table 2.2).
Alprazolam (e.g., Xanax) accounted for 59% of reported
benzodiazepines. Nearly 19% of benzodiazepines were identified
as diazepam (e.g., Valium), while 17% were identified as
clonazepam (e.g., Klonopin or Rivotril). 2
Drug Enforcement Administration. DEA
Briefs and Background: Benzodiazepines.
12
2.3 CLUB DRUGS Figure 2.3 Distribution of club drugs within region, 2004.
Club drugs are primarily used by teens and young adults. In
recent years, there has been an increase in reports of club drugs
used to commit sexual assaults. Although the 2003 Monitoring
the Future study showed declines in use of MDMA, the rate of
use of methamphetamine, Rohypnol, ketamine, and GHB
remained unchanged.3
In NFLIS, MDMA continues to be the most commonly
reported club drug. Of the 8,344 club drugs identified in NFLIS
during 2004, 74% were identified as MDMA (Table 2.3).
Among the other club drugs reported, 15% were identified as
MDA, 6% as ketamine, and 4% as gamma-hydroxybutyrate or
gamma-butyrolactone (GHB/GBL).
As shown in Figure 2.3, MDMA constitutes the highest
percentages for each region, representing 81% of club drugs in
the West, 78% in the South, 77% in the Midwest, and 54% in
the Northeast. The Northeast reported the highest percentages
of MDA (28%) and ketamine (14%).

Table 2.3 CLUB DRUGS

Number and percentage of identified club drugs,
2004.

Club Drug Number Percent

MDMA 6,197 74.27%
MDA 1261 15.11%
Ketamine 471 5.64%
GHB/GBL 348 4.17%
MDEA 42 0.50%
5-Me0-DIPT
BZP* 9 0.11%
TFMPP 7 0.08%
5-MeO-DIPT 6 0.07%
PMA 2 0.02%
AMT 1 0.01%
Total Club Drugs 8,344 100.00%
*Non-controlled substance.
AMT = alpha-methyltryptamine
BZP = benzylpiperazine
GHB/GBL = gamma-hydroxybutyrate or gamma-butyrolactone
MDEA = methylenedioxyethylamphetamine
PMA = p-methoxyamphetamine
TFMPP = trifluoromethylphenylpiperazine
   

5-MeO-DIPT = 5-methoxy-diisopropyltryptamine
www.Erowid.org

3
National Institute on Drug Abuse (May
2004). NIDA Community Drug Alert
Bulletin – Club Drugs.

13
 2.4 ANABOLIC STEROIDS Figure 2.4 Distribution of anabolic steroids within region, 2004.
There are more than 100 different types of anabolic steroids,
and each requires a prescription to be used legally in the United
States. According to the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance
System, 6.1% of all high school students surveyed in 2003
reported lifetime use of steroid pills or shots without a doctor’s
prescription.4
During 2004, a total of 1,417 items were identified as
anabolic steroids (Table 2.4). Of the 14 different anabolic
steroids reported in NFLIS, the most commonly identified
was testosterone (36%), followed by methandrostenolone (18%),
nandrolone (12%), and stenozolol (12%). Across census regions,
the highest relative percentages of testosterone were reported
in the Midwest (42%) and the South (41%) (Figure 2.4).
Approximately 30% of steroids in the Midwest were identified
as methandrostenolone.

Table 2.4 ANABOLIC STEROIDS

Number and percentage of identified anabolic steroids,
2004.

Steroids Number Percent

Testosterone 515 36.32%
Methandrostenolone 255 17.98%
Nandrolone 174 12.27%
Stenozolol 167 11.78%
Anabolic steroids, not specified 104 7.40%
Boldenone 61 4.30% Steroids
Oxymetholone 59 4.16%
Oxandrolone 37 2.61%
Methyltestosterone 15 1.06%
Mesterolone 12 0.85%
Fluoxymesterone 9 0.63%
Methenolone 6 0.42%
Methandriol 2 0.14%
Androstene dione* 1 0.07%
www.Erowid.org

Total Anabolic Steroids 1,417 100.00%

*Non-controlled substance.
   

4
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(May 2004). Youth Risk Behavior
Surveillance System – United States, 2003.

14
2.5 STIMULANTS Table 2.5 STIMULANTS
Stimulants is a name given to several groups of drugs that Number and percentage of identified stimulants,
tend to increase alertness and physical activity. According to the 2004.
2003 NSDUH, more than 20 million people aged 12 or older
reported having used stimulants at least once in their lifetime. Stimulants Number Percent
Methamphetamine was the most frequently used stimulant in Methamphetamine 168,067 96.98%
2003, with over 12 million people aged 12 or older reporting Amphetamine 2,883 1.66%
lifetime use.5 Methylphenidate 943 0.54%
During 2004, a total of 173,305 stimulants were identified
Ephedrine* 539 0.31%
in NFLIS, accounting for about 15% of all items reported
(Table 2.5). More than 9 in 10 stimulants, or 168,067 items,
Caffeine** 401 0.23%
were identified as methamphetamine. An additional 2,883 Phentermine 263 0.15%
items were amphetamine. N,N-dimethylamphetamine 37 0.02%
Methamphetamine accounted for the vast majority of Benzphetamine 34 0.02%
stimulants reported in every region, with the exception of the Cathinone 34 0.02%
Northeast (Figure 2.5). Methamphetamine represented 99%
Phendimetrazine 33 0.02%
of the stimulants reported in the West, 94% in the South, and
95% in the Midwest. In the Northeast, 50% of stimulants were Diethylpropion 15 0.01%
reported as methamphetamine, 30% as amphetamine, and 14% Fenfluramine 15 0.01%
as methylphenidate. Modafinil 11 0.01%
Pemoline 9 0.01%
Figure 2.5 Distribution of stimulants within region, 2003. Cathine 5 0.00%
Propylhexedrine 4 0.00%
Sibutramine 4 0.00%
Clobenzorex 3 0.00%
Phenylpropanolamine* 2 0.00%
Mazindol 1 0.00%
Methcathinone 1 0.00%
Phenmetrazine 1 0.00%
Total Stimulants 173,305 100.00%
* Listed chemical.
** Non-controlled stimulant.
Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding.

   

5
Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (2004). Results
from the 2003 National Survey on Drug Use
www.Erowid.org

and Health: National Findings (Office of

Applied Studies, NSDUH Series H-25,
DHHS Publication No. SMA 04-3964).
Rockville, MD.
15
 Section 3 Drug
C o m b i n at i o n s
In addition to tracking the types of While mixing substances or taking multiple drugs
substances identified by state and simultaneously can elicit complementary effects for the user,
it can exacerbate already serious health problems. Medical
local forensic laboratories, another
examiner data from the Drug Abuse Warning Network
important function of NFLIS is (DAWN) show that 75% of drug-related deaths during 2002
the system’s ability to capture involved two or more substances. The most common multiple
information on drug combinations drug deaths involved two or three drug combinations of cocaine,
or multiple substances reported heroin/morphine, and other narcotic analgesics.6
within a single drug item. During 2004, 15,034 items identified in NFLIS, about 1%
Combinations reported in NFLIS of all reported items, contained two or more substances. The
most common combinations in 2004—cocaine/heroin (11%),
include mixtures of substances
cannabis/cocaine (8%), methamphetamine/ephedrine-
as well as separately packaged pseudoephedrine (6%), methamphetamine/MDMA (5%),
substances within the same item methamphetamine/dimethylsulfone (5%), and amphetamine/
or exhibit. methamphetamine (5%)—accounted for 40% of all
combinations reported (Figure 3.1).

Figure 3.1 Distribution of drug combinations, 2004.

6
Substance Abuse Mental Health Services
Administration (2004). Mortality Data from
the Drug Abuse Warning Network, 2002
(Office of Applied Studies, DAWN Series
D-25, DHHS Publication No. SMA 04-
3875). Rockville, MD.

Drug combinations reported in STRIDE, 2004

A total of 22,096 drug combinations were reported in STRIDE during 2004, which represented 43%
of all drugs reported. STRIDE collects results of drug evidence analyzed at the eight DEA laboratories across
the county. The most common combination identified was methamphetamine/dimethysulfone, which
   

accounted for 23% of all combinations reported. Many of the other most frequently reported combinations
were excipients used to dilute or adulterate either cocaine or heroin. These included cocaine/procaine (5%),
heroin/procaine (4%), heroin/quinine (4%), cocaine/caffeine (3%), heroin/caffeine (3%), heroin/lidocaine
(3%), and cocaine/sodium bicarbonate (2%). The most common substances identified in methamphetamine-
related combinations were MDMA (3%), pseudoephedrine (2%), and caffeine (1%).

16
3.1 COCAINE COMBINATIONS Table 3.1 COCAINE COMBINATIONS
Cocaine, including powder and crack cocaine, was present in Items identified as cocaine combinations, 2004.
30% of drug combinations reported during 2004 (Table 3.1). Substance One Substance Two Number Percent
The most common combination contained heroin and cocaine Cocaine Heroin 1,613 10.73%
(11%), which is often referred to as a “speedball.” Cocaine/ Cocaine Cannabis/THC 1,194 7.94%
cannabis represented 8% of all combinations, and cocaine/ Cocaine Methamphetamine 412 2.74%
methamphetamine (e.g., “Zoom”) about 3%. Many of the other Cocaine Inositol 304 2.02%
cocaine-related combinations included excipients used to dilute Cocaine Procaine 295 1.96%
cocaine. These included non-controlled substances such as
Cocaine Boric Acid 134 0.89%
Cocaine Lactose 92 0.61%
inositol, procaine, boric acid, lactose, benzocaine, and caffeine. Cocaine Benzocaine 53 0.35%
Cocaine Caffeine 47 0.31%
Cocaine Tetracaine 38 0.25%
3.2 HEROIN COMBINATIONS Other cocaine combinations 313 2.08%
Heroin was present in 22% of drug combinations reported in Total Cocaine Combinations 4,495 29.90%
2004, a total of 3,322 items (Table 3.2). Nearly one half of the
All Combinations 15,034 100.00%
heroin combinations were reported as heroin/cocaine. Among
Table 3.2 HEROIN COMBINATIONS
the other substances combined with heroin, many were
Items identified as heroin combinations, 2004.
excipients designed to dilute or adulterate heroin. The most
commonly reported excipients were procaine (a local anesthetic), Substance One Substance Two Number Percent
mannitol, lidocaine, and caffeine. Heroin Cocaine 1,613 10.73%
Heroin Procaine 608 4.04%
Heroin Cannabis/THC 259 1.72%
3.3 METHAMPHETAMINE COMBINATIONS Heroin Mannitol 205 1.36%
Heroin Monoacetylmorphine 119 0.79%
Methamphetamine was present in about 35% of Heroin Lidocaine 105 0.70%
drug combinations, a total of 5,190 items (Table 3.3). Heroin Caffeine 89 0.59%
Methamphetamine/ephedrine-pseudoephedrine, methamphe- Heroin Methamphetamine 79 0.53%
tamine/MDMA, methamphetamine/dimethylsulfone, and Heroin Lactose 44 0.29%
Heroin Acetaminophen 32 0.21%
methamphetamine/amphetamine were the most commonly
Other heroin combinations 169 1.12%
reported combinations. Ephedrine/pseudoephedrine (827 items)
Total Heroin Combinations 3,322 22.10%
was reported in combination with methamphetamine in
All Combinations 15,034 100.00%
nearly 6% of drug combinations. MDMA (758 items) and
dimethylsulfone (738 items) were reported in 5% of Table 3.3 METHAMPHETAMINE COMBINATIONS
combinations, up from 3% and 2% of methamphetamine Total items identified as methamphetamine
combinations reported in 2003. combinations, 2004.

Substance One Substance Two Number Percent

Methamphetamine Ephedrine/Pseudoephedrine 827 5.50%
Heroin
Methamphetamine MDMA 758 5.04%
Methamphetamine Dimethylsulfone 738 4.91%
Methamphetamine Amphetamine 696 4.63%
Methamphetamine Cannabis/THC 668 4.44%
Methamphetamine Cocaine 412 2.74%
Methamphetamine MDA 155 1.03%
Methamphetamine Lithium 121 0.81%
   

Methamphetamine Light petroleum distillate 92 0.61%

www.Erowid.org

Methamphetamine Ether 82 0.55%

Other methamphetamine combinations 641 4.26%
Total Methamphetamine Combinations 5,190 34.52%
All Combinations 15,034 100.00%

Numbers may not sum to total due to rounding.

17
 Section 4 DRUGS IDENTIFIED
NFLIS can be used to monitor and analyze
drugs reported by forensic laboratories
across the country, including large U.S.
cities. The drug analysis results presented in
this section were reported during 2004 by
NFLIS laboratories in selected large cities.

The types of drugs reported vary across regions of the

country. The following results highlight geographic differences
in the types of drugs abused and trafficked, such as the higher
levels of cocaine on the East coast or methamphetamine on
the West coast. This analysis presents 2004 data for the four
   

most common drugs reported by NFLIS laboratories in

selected locations.
Among cities in this analysis, the highest relative percentages
of cocaine were reported along the East coast in locations such
as Miami (59%), New York City (49%), Baltimore (43%), and
Philadelphia (42%), although Denver also reported a high

18
B Y L O C AT I O N Lab locations include:

Atlanta (Georgia Bureau of

Investigation – Decatur Laboratory)

Baltimore (Baltimore City Police

Department)

Boston (Massachusetts Department

of Public Health – Boston
Laboratory)

Chicago (Illinois State Police –

Chicago Laboratory)

Dallas (Texas Department of Public

Safety – Garland Laboratory)

Denver (Denver Police Department

Crime Laboratory)

Las Vegas (Las Vegas Police

Department)

Los Angeles (Los Angeles Police

Department Scientific Investigation
Division, and the Los Angeles County
Sheriff’s Department Scientific
Services Bureau)

Miami (Miami-Dade Police

Department Crime Laboratory)

Minneapolis (Minnesota Bureau of

Criminal Apprehension –
Minneapolis Laboratory)

New Orleans (New Orleans Police

Department Crime Laboratory)

New York City (New York Police

Department Crime Laboratory)

Philadelphia (Philadelphia Police

Department Forensic Science
Laboratory)

Portland (Washington State Patrol –

percentage (49%). Nationally, 31% of all drugs were identified as Portland Laboratory)
cocaine. The highest percentages of methamphetamine were St. Louis (St. Louis Police Department
reported in Midwestern and Western cities such as Minneapolis Crime Laboratory)
(44%), Los Angeles (32%), and Portland (30%), followed by
San Diego (San Diego Police
Dallas (28%) and Atlanta (28%). Nationally, 13% of drugs were
Department Crime Laboratory)
   

identified as methamphetamine. High percentages of heroin

were reported in Northeastern cities such as Baltimore (32%), Santa Fe (New Mexico Department
Boston (14%), New York City (12%), and Philadelphia (10%), of Public Safety)
although Chicago (17%), St. Louis (9%), Santa Fe (7%), and Seattle (Washington State Patrol
Denver (6%) also reported heroin at a rate higher than the Crime Laboratory – Seattle
national average of 5%. Laboratory)

19
 Section 5 GIS ANALYSIS: C
BY COUNTY OF O
One of the new features of NFLIS is This section presents the drug seizure location at the county-
the ability to analyze and monitor level for cocaine cases reported by NFLIS laboratories in Florida,
Illinois, Arkansas, Washington, and Georgia. The analysis is
variation in drugs reported by
based on information provided to the forensic laboratories by
laboratories by the county of origin.
the submitting law enforcement agencies. This information may
This is part of the larger initiative to include the zip code or county of origin associated with the drug
use geographic information system seizure incident or the name of the submitting law enforcement
(GIS) analyses to provide more agency. Several factors should be considered when reviewing this
detailed geographical information data. For one, for a small proportion of cases, there was insufficient
on drug seizure location for those information to determine the county associated with the incident
(see figure footnotes). In addition, several laboratories within these
cases that are analyzed by forensic
states are not currently reporting data to NFLIS (e.g., West Palm
laboratories.
Beach, FL). Finally, we would like to stress that this data may not
be representative of all cocaine seizures across the state, only those
cases that were submitted and analyzed by forensic laboratories.
That being said, this data can serve as an important resource for
drug control agencies attempting to better understand trafficking
and abuse patterns within and across particular states.

Figure 5.1 Cocaine cases reported in Florida, 2004.*

   

* NFLIS laboratories in Florida reported 30,629

cocaine cases during 2004. County of origin
could not be determined for 6% of these cases.

20
ocaine CASES
RIGIN
Figure 5.2 Cocaine cases reported in Illinois, 2004.* Figure 5.3 Cocaine cases reported in Arkansas, 2004.*

* NFLIS laboratories in Arkansas reported

30,990 cocaine cases during 2004. County
of origin could not be determined for 6%
of these cases.

Figure 5.5 Cocaine cases reported in Georgia, 2004.*

* NFLIS laboratories in Illinois reported 30,699 cocaine cases
during 2004. County of origin could not be determined for
4% of these cases.

Figure 5.4 Cocaine cases reported in Washington, 2004.*

   

* NFLIS laboratories in Washington reported

2,864 cocaine cases during 2004. County
of origin could not be determined for 2% * NFLIS laboratories in Georgia reported 15,438 cocaine cases
of these cases. during 2004. County of origin could not be determined for
4% of these cases.

21
 Section 6 DRUG PURIT Y
One of the unique functions of A number of state and local forensic laboratories perform
NFLIS is the system’s ability to quantitative (or purity) analyses, but the majority do so only
under special circumstances, such as a special request from law
monitor and analyze drug purity
enforcement or from the prosecutor. A smaller number of labs
data. NFLIS drug purity data reflect perform quantitative analysis on a more routine basis due to
results verified by chemical analysis state laws that require the amount of “pure” heroin or cocaine
and therefore have a high degree in an item to be determined. During 2004, a total of 12 state
of validity. In addition, the NFLIS or local labs or lab systems reported purity data to NFLIS.
purity data are timely, allowing for It is important to consider the laboratory policies for
recent fluctuations in purity to be conducting quantitative analysis when comparing purity data
across labs, as these factors can impact the results presented.
monitored and assessed.
For example, the Illinois State Police and the Texas Department
of Public Safety typically limit quantitative analysis to larger
seizures (e.g., powders over 200 grams or 1 kilogram). Other
laboratories such as the Baltimore City Police Department
Crime Laboratory perform quantitative analyses on a more
routine basis, including smaller cocaine and heroin seizures.

6.1 HEROIN PURITY

This section describes heroin purity analyses reported by the
Baltimore City Police Department and the Massachusetts State
Police laboratories. The Baltimore City laboratory performs
quantitative analysis on all white powders greater than 1/4 ounce
or if more than 30 dosage units are present in a case, especially
Heroin for heroin seizures. The Massachusetts State Police laboratory
expresses purity in terms of free base and has a policy of
routinely performing quantitative analyses for heroin and
cocaine submissions. The average purity of heroin, as reported by
both of these labs as well as by DEA labs in STRIDE, has
declined since 2001. According to STRIDE, the average purity
of heroin exhibits was 40% in 2004, compared to 42% in 2003,
49% in 2002, and 48% in 2001.
www.Erowid.org
   

22
 The Baltimore City Police Department reported heroin 6.2 COCAINE PURITY
purity results for 958 drug items in 2004 (Figure 6.1). The
Cocaine purity is presented for four NFLIS laboratories—
average purity of heroin was 38%, down considerably from 45%
the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), the Arkansas
in 2003 and 49% in 2002. Overall, move than a third of heroin
State Crime Laboratory, the Baltimore City Police Department
items reported by Baltimore City were less than 20% pure.
Laboratory, and the Massachusetts State Police Crime
Laboratory. In contrast to the decline in heroin purity, NFLIS
Figure 6.1 Heroin purity, 2004: Baltimore City Police Department labs reported cocaine purity averages in 2004 at levels either
Crime Laboratory.
equal to or increased from 2001–2003 levels. Cocaine purity
reported by federal labs in STRIDE increased slightly during
this period, from an average of 58% in 2001 to 60% in 2004.
The Texas DPS laboratory system, which typically conducts
quantitative analyses for powders of 200 grams or more, reported
purity data for 218 cocaine items during 2004 (Figure 6.3). The
average cocaine purity for 2004 was 66%, up from 63% in 2003,
60% in 2002, and 56% in 2001.

Figure 6.3 Cocaine purity, 2004: Texas Department of Public

Safety Crime Laboratory.

The Massachusetts State Police reported heroin purity results

for 721 items in 2004 (Figure 6.2). The average purity of heroin
was 31%, a steady decline from an average of 40% in 2003 and
47% in 2002. Nearly half of heroin items reported by the
Massachusetts lab were less than 25% pure.

Figure 6.2 Heroin purity, 2004: Massachusetts State Police

Crime Laboratory.

Crack cocaine

   

www.Erowid.org

23
 The Arkansas State Crime Laboratory reported cocaine The Massachusetts State Police Crime Laboratory reported
purity for 1,010 items in 2004 (Figure 6.4). The Arkansas cocaine purity for 1,678 items in 2004 (Figure 6.6). Massa-
laboratory typically conducts quantitative analysis if the drug chusetts routinely performs quantitative analysis on cocaine
exhibit contains an amount in which possession with intent to submissions, expressing purity in terms of free base. The average
deliver is charged. The average cocaine purity reported in cocaine purity reported by the Massachusetts Police Department
Arkansas was 70% in 2004, compared to 69% in 2003 and 59% for 2004 was 55%, compared to 53% in 2003, 48% in 2002, and
in 2002. 53% in 2001.

Figure 6.4 Cocaine purity, 2004: Arkansas State Crime

Figure 6.6 Cocaine purity, 2004: Massachusetts State Police
Laboratory.
Crime Laboratory.

The Baltimore City Police Department Crime Laboratory

reported cocaine purity for 351 items in 2004 (Figure 6.5).
Powder Cocaine
The average cocaine purity reported during 2004 was 79%,
an increase from 75% in 2003, 67% in 2002, and 61% in 2001.

Figure 6.5 Cocaine purity, 2004: Baltimore City Police

Department Crime Laboratory.
www.Erowid.org
   

24
DEA Update
Zopiclone
Added to Schedule IV of the Controlled Substances Act
hypnotics zaleplon and zolpidem, all of which are currently
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) published listed in Schedule IV of the CSA. Zopiclone has anxiolytic,
a final rule in the Federal Register (70FRI6935) on April 4, sedative, and hypnotic properties. Zopiclone is positively
2005, placing zopiclone—including its salts, isomers,
reinforcing and mimics discriminative stimulus effects of
and salts of isomers—into Schedule IV of the Controlled
benzodiazepines in animals. In clinical abuse liability
Substances Act (CSA). This rule imposed Schedule IV regula-
tory controls and criminal sanctions on the manufacture, studies, eszopiclone produced psychoactive and euphoric
distribution, dispensing, importation, and exportation of effects similar to those produced by diazepam.
zopiclone and products containing zopiclone. Following consideration of the current scientific
On December 15, 2004, the Food and Drug knowledge and findings related to the substance’s abuse
Administration (FDA) approved (S)-zopiclone (eszopiclone) potential, legitimate medical use, and dependence liability,
for the treatment of insomnia. It is marketed under the the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
trade name Lunesta™ by Sepracor, Inc. in 1, 2, and 3 mg found that zopiclone and its optical isomers meet the
tablets. Eszopiclone has not been marketed in other necessary criteria to be controlled in Schedule IV of the
countries; however, the racemic mixture of zopiclone is CSA, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 812(b). On January 18, 2005,
sold in many countries, although not in the United States. DHHS sent DEA its scientific and medical evaluation in
support of its Schedule IV recommendation for zopiclone.
Zopiclone is a central nervous system depressant drug. Following consideration of this and other available
The pharmacology, adverse event profile, and abuse information, DEA concluded that zopiclone and its isomers
potential of zopiclone and its optical isomers are similar to satisfied the criteria for placement in Schedule IV of the
those of the benzodiazepines and the nonbenzodiazepine CSA, under 21 U.S.C. 812(b).

Carisoprodol (Soma®)
Request for Information
Carisoprodol is the recommended international The DEA has reviewed the relevant data and requested
nonproprietary name of a drug prescribed for the relief of a scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling
pain, muscle spasm, and limited mobility associated with recommendation for carisoprodol from the DHHS. The Drug
painful musculoskeletal conditions. It is used as an adjunct and Chemical Evaluation Section (ODE) within the DEA’s
to rest, physical therapy, and other measures. Currently it Office of Diversion Control continues to gather information
is not controlled under the CSA, and it is available for on the abuse, diversion, and trafficking of carisoprodol.
therapeutic use by prescription. Carisoprodol is both Reports of actual abuse are extremely important factors in
structurally and pharmacologically related to Schedule IV establishing the abuse potential of a substance for control
substances, namely meprobamate and mebutamate. under the Controlled Substances Act. ODE would appreciate
Carisoprodol shares some similarities with barbiturates receiving any information related to the law enforcement
and alcohol in its pharmacological effects. encounters, drug identification, diversion, and abuse of
carisoprodol. Please contact Dr. Srihari R. Tella, Pharmacol-
Reports from medical professionals, state authorities, ogist in ODE, at 202-307-7183 with any information
and law enforcement personnel indicate the significant pertaining to carisoprodol.
diversion, trafficking, and abuse of carisoprodol. According
to NFLIS, federal, state, and local forensic laboratories Contact Us
analyzed 1,992 carisoprodol drug samples in 2004. Dr. Srihari R. Tella
   

According to the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section
there were 10,094 emergency department mentions for Office of Diversion Control
carisoprodol in 2002. Carisoprodol abuse has resulted in Drug Enforcement Administration
injury (seizures, coma) and death. Carisoprodol has often Washington, DC 20537
been abused in combination with products containing Phone: 202-307-7183
narcotic analgesics and/or benzodiazepines. Because of Fax: 202-353-1263
these concerns, some states have controlled carisoprodol. E-mail: [email protected]
25
 Appendix A
NFLIS Benefits & limitations
BENEFITS LIMITATIONS
The systematic collection and analysis of drug analysis data NFLIS has limitations that must be considered when
can improve our understanding of the nation’s illegal drug interpreting findings generated from the database.
problem. NFLIS serves as a critical resource for supporting
■ Currently, NFLIS only includes data from state and local
drug scheduling policy and drug enforcement initiatives both
forensic laboratories. Drug analyses conducted by federal
nationally and in specific communities around the country.
laboratories are not included, although data from STRIDE,
Specifically, NFLIS helps the drug control community which includes data from DEA’s laboratories across the
achieve its mission by country, have recently been added to the NFLIS database.
The STRIDE data are shown separately in this report.
■ providing detailed information on the prevalence
Efforts are under way to enroll additional federal
and types of controlled substances secured in law
laboratories during 2005.
enforcement operations
■ NFLIS includes drug chemistry results from completed
■ identifying variations in controlled and non-controlled
analyses only. Drug evidence secured by law enforcement
substances at the national, state, and local levels
but not analyzed by laboratories is not included in
■ identifying emerging drug problems and changes in drug the database.
availability in a timely fashion
■ National and regional estimates may be subject to
■ monitoring the diversion of legitimately marketed drugs into variation associated with sample estimates, including
illicit channels nonresponse bias.
■ providing information on the characteristics of drugs ■ For results presented in Sections 2–6, the absolute
including quantity, purity, and drug combinations and relative frequency of analyzed results for individual
■ supplementing information from other drug sources drugs can in part be a function of laboratories participating
including the DEA’s STRIDE, the Drug Abuse Warning in NFLIS.
Network (DAWN), the National Survey on Drug Use ■ State and local policies related to the enforcement and
and Health (NSDUH), and the Monitoring the Future prosecution of specific drugs can affect the types of drugs
(MTF) Survey. submitted to laboratories for analysis.
NFLIS provides an opportunity for state and local labs to ■ Laboratory policies and procedures for handling drug
participate in a useful and high-visibility initiative. Participating evidence vary. Some laboratories analyze all evidence
laboratories regularly receive reports that summarize national submitted to them, while others analyze only selected items.
and regional data. In addition, the Interactive Data Site (IDS) Many laboratories do not analyze drug evidence if the
is a secure website that allows NFLIS participants—including criminal case was dismissed from court or if no defendant
state and local laboratories, the DEA, other federal drug control could be linked to the case.
agencies, and researchers—to run customized queries on the
■ Laboratories vary with respect to the records they maintain.
NFLIS data. Enhancements to the IDS will also provide a new
For example, some laboratories’ automated records include
inter-agency exchange forum that will allow the DEA, forensic
the weight of the sample selected for analysis (e.g., the
laboratories, and other members of the drug control community
weight of one of five bags of powder), while others record
to post and respond to current information.
total weight.
   

26
 Appendix B
NFLIS Interactive Data Site
Available since September 2001, the NFLIS Interactive Data IDS ENHANCEMENTS
Site (IDS) allows NFLIS laboratories to run queries on their
A number of enhancements to the IDS are currently under
own case-level data as well as on aggregated regional and
way, including providing World Wide Web access to the IDS.
national data.
This will improve the system’s performance for laboratories with
Currently, the IDS operates as a secure website located on
high-speed/broadband web access. Because the Web site will be
a restricted server that is accessible through a direct dial-in
available to participating labs and the general public, different
connection using a toll-free telephone number. To access the
access levels will be assigned to satisfy the needs of different
IDS, each NFLIS laboratory is assigned a lab-specific user
users. Another enhancement for 2004 is the addition of an
name and password. The IDS provides the capacity to query
electronic bulletin board that can be used to post reports,
the data using standardized queries that generate customized
technical notices, and other materials relevant to the forensic
reports. Laboratory staff can specify the time period, region,
laboratory community. This is intended to promote communi-
type of lab, and drug type in order to customize these queries.
cation between NFLIS laboratories, DEA, other federal drug
The DEA’s STRIDE data have also been added to the IDS, a
control agencies, and NFLIS project staff. Upon implementation
critical step toward integrating federal laboratories into NFLIS.
of the electronic bulletin board, participating laboratories are
encouraged to submit suggestions for improvement by using
the feedback page in the IDS, by sending an e-mail to
[email protected], or by calling Al Bethke at (919) 485-7737.

   

27
 Appendix C
NATIONAL ESTIMATES METHODOLOGY
Since 2001, NFLIS reports have included national and The method for evaluating the cutoff point was established
regional estimates for the number of drug items and drug cases using the coefficient of variation, or CV, which is the ratio
analyzed by state and local forensic laboratories in the United between the standard error of an estimate and the estimate itself.
States. This section discusses the methods used for producing As a rule, drug estimates with a CV greater than 0.5 were
these estimates, including sample selection, weighting, and suppressed and not shown in the tables.
imputation and adjustment procedures. RTI International, under
contract to the DEA, began implementing NFLIS in September IMPUTATIONS AND ADJUSTMENTS
1997. Results from a 1998 survey provided laboratory-specific Due to technical and other reporting issues, several labs did
information, including annual caseload figures, used to establish not report data for every month during 2004. This resulted in
a national sampling frame of all state and local forensic labs that missing monthly data, which is a concern in calculating national
routinely perform drug analyses. A representative probability estimates of drug prevalence. Imputations were performed
proportional to size (PPS) sample was drawn on the basis of separately by drug for laboratories missing monthly data, using
annual cases analyzed per laboratory, resulting in a NFLIS drug-specific proportions generated from labs reporting a full
national sample of 29 state laboratory systems and 31 local or year of data.
municipal laboratories, a total of 165 individual laboratories (see While most forensic laboratories report case-level analyses
Appendix D for a list of sampled and nonsampled NFLIS labs). in a consistent manner, a small number of labs do not produce
Only the data for those laboratories that reported drug analysis item-level counts that are comparable to those submitted by the
data for 7 or more months during 2004 were included in the vast majority of labs. Most laboratories report items in terms of
national estimates. the number of vials of the particular pill, yet a few laboratories
report the count of the individual pills themselves as “items.”
WEIGHTING PROCEDURES Since the case-level counts across labs are comparable, they were
Data were weighted with respect to both the original used to develop item-level counts for the few labs that count
sampling design and nonresponse in order to compute design- items differently. For those labs, it was assumed that drug-
consistent, nonresponse-adjusted estimates. Weighted prevalence specific ratios of cases to items should be similar to labs serving
estimates were produced for drug cases and drug items analyzed similarly sized areas. Item-to-case ratios for each drug were
by state and local forensic labs from January 2004 through produced for the similarly sized laboratories, and these drug-
December 2004. specific ratios were then used to adjust the drug item counts for
A separate item-level and case-level weight was computed the relevant laboratories.
for each sample laboratory or laboratory system using caseload
information obtained from an updated lab survey administered STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES FOR TREND ANALYSIS
in 2004. These survey results allowed for the case- and item- A trend analysis was performed on the January 2001 through
level weights to be post-stratified to reflect current levels of December 2004 National and Regional Estimates. Typically
laboratory activity. Item-level prevalence estimates were models test for mean differences; however, the National and
computed using the item-level weights, and case-level estimates Regional Estimates are totals. To work around this challenge,
were computed using the case-level weights. a bootstrapping technique was employed. (Bootstrapping is an
iterative technique used to estimate variances when standard
DRUG REPORT CUTOFF variance estimation procedures cannot be used.*) All statistical
Not all drugs are reported by laboratories with sufficient tests were performed at the 95% confidence level (a=.05), so the
frequency to allow reliable estimates to be computed. For some probability of declaring a significant result when the result was
drugs, such as cannabis/THC and cocaine, thousands of items not significant was 5%. In other words, if a linear trend was
   

are reported annually, allowing for reliable national prevalence found to be statistically different, then the probability of
estimates to be computed. Many other substances have 100 or observing a linear trend (under the assumption that no linear
fewer annual observations for the entire sample. A prevalence trend existed) was less than 5%.
estimate based upon such few observations is not likely to be
reliable and thus was not included in the national estimates.
* For more information on this technique, please refer to Chemick, M.R. (1999). Bootstrap Methods: A Practioner’s Guide. John Wiley and Sons.

28
Appendix D
participating and reporting laboratories
Lab Lab
State Type Lab Name Reporting State Type Lab Name Reporting
AK State Alaska Department of Public Safety (Anchorage) MO State Missouri State Highway Patrol (6 sites)* X
Local Independence Police Department (Independence) X
AL State Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences (9 sites)* X
Local MSSU Regional Crime Lab (Joplin) X
AR State Arkansas State Crime Laboratory (Little Rock)* X Local St. Charles County Criminalistics Lab (St. Charles) X
AZ Local Mesa PD X Local St. Louis County Crime Laboratory (Clayton) X
Local Phoenix PD X Local St. Louis Police Department (St. Louis)* X
Local Scottsdale PD X Local South East Missouri Regional Crime Lab (Cape Girardeau)*

CA State California Department of Justice (10 sites)* X MS State Mississippi Department of Public Safety (4 sites)* X
Local Fresno County Sheriff’s Forensic Lab (Fresno) X MT State Montana Forensic Science Division (Missoula) X
Local Kern County District Attorney’s Office (Bakersfield) X
NC State North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation (2 sites)* X
Local Long Beach* X
Local Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (Charlotte) X
Local Los Angeles Police Department (2 sites)* X
Local Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (4 sites)* X NE State Nebraska State Patrol Criminalistics Lab (2 sites)* X
Local Sacramento County District Attorney’s Office (Sacramento)* X NJ State New Jersey State Police (4 sites)* X
Local San Bernardino Sheriff’s Office (2 sites)* X
Local Burlington County Forensic Lab (Mt. Holly) X
Local San Diego Police Department (San Diego)* X
Local Cape May County Prosecutor’s Office (Cape May) X
Local San Francisco Police Department (San Francisco)*
Local Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office (Jersey City) X
Local San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office (San Mateo) X
Local Newark Police Department (Newark) X
Local Santa Clara District Attorney’s Office (San Jose) X
Local Ocean County Sheriff’s Department (Toms River) X
Local Ventura County Sheriff’s Department (Ventura) X Local Union County Prosecutor’s Office (Westfield)* X
CO Local Aurora Police Department (Aurora) X NM State New Mexico Department of Public Safety (Sante Fe)* X
Local Colorado Springs Police Department (Colorado Springs) X
Local Denver Police Department (Denver)* X NV Local Las Vegas Police Department (Las Vegas)* X
Local Grand Junction Police Department (Grand Junction) X NY State New York State Police (4 sites)* X
Local Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office (Golden) X Local Erie County Central Police Services Lab (Buffalo) X
CT State Connecticut Department of Public Safety (Hartford)* X Local Monroe County Department of Public Safety (Rochester)
Local Nassau County Police Department (Mineola)* X
DE State Chief Medical Examiner’s Office (Wilmington) X Local New York Police Department Crime Laboratory** X
FL State Florida Department of Law Enforcement (8 sites)* X Local Niagara County Police Department (Lockport) X
Local Broward County Sheriff’s Office (Ft. Lauderdale)* X Local Onondaga County Center for Forensic Sciences (Syracuse)* X
Local Miami-Dade Police Department (Miami)* X Local Suffolk County Crime Laboratory (Hauppauge) X
Local Indian River Crime Laboratory at Indian River Local Westchester County Forensic Sciences Laboratory (Valhalla)
Community College X Local Yonkers Police Department Forensic Science Lab (Yonkers)
Local Pinellas County Forensic Laboratory (Largo) X OH State Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification & Investigation (3 sites)* X
Local Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office (Sarasota) X
State Ohio State Highway Patrol (Columbus)* X
GA State Georgia State Bureau of Investigation (7 sites)* X Local Canton-Stark County Crime Lab (Canton) X
HI Local Honolulu Police Department (Honolulu) X Local Columbus Police Department (Columbus)
Local Hamilton County Coroner’s Office (Cincinnati)* X
IA State Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation (Des Moines)* X Local Lake County Regional Forensic Lab (Painesville)* X
ID State Idaho State Police (3 sites) X Local Mansfield Police Department (Mansfield) X
Local Miami Valley Regional Crime Lab (Dayton) X
IL State Illinois State Police (8 sites)* X Local Newark Police Department Forensic Services (Newark) X
Local DuPage County Sheriff’s Office (Wheaton) X
Local Northern Illinois Police Crime Lab (Chicago)* X OK State Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (5 sites)*

IN State Indiana State Police Laboratory (4 sites)* X OR State Oregon State Police Forensic Services Division (8 sites)* X
Local Indianapolis-Marion County Forensic Lab (Indianapolis) X PA Local Allegheny County Coroner’s Office (Pittsburgh)* X
KS State Kansas Bureau of Investigation (3 sites) X Local Philadelphia Police Department (Philadelphia)* X
Local Johnson County Sheriff’s Office (Mission) X SC State South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (Columbia)* X
Local Sedgwick County Regional Forensic Science Center (Wichita) X Local Charleston Police Department (Charleston) X
KY State Kentucky State Police (6 sites)* X SD Local Rapid City Police Department (Rapid City) X
LA State Louisiana State Police (Baton Rouge)* X TN State Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (3 sites)*
Local Acadiana Criminalistics Laboratory (New Iberia)* X
Local Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office (Metairie) X TX State Texas Dept. of Public Safety (13 sites)* X
Local New Orleans Police Department Crime Lab (New Orleans)* X Local Austin Police Department (Austin)* X
Local North Louisiana Criminalistics Lab System (3 sites) X Local Bexar County Criminal Investigations Lab (San Antonio)*
Local Southwest Louisiana Lab Local Brazoria County
Local Harris County Medical Examiner’s Office (Houston) X
MA State Massachusetts Department of Public Health (2 sites)* X Local Pasadena Police Department (Pasadena) X
   

State Massachusetts State Police (Sudbury)* X

UT State Utah State Crime Lab (4 sites) X
Local University of Massachusetts Medical Center (Worcester) X
VA State Virginia Division Forensic Science (4 sites)* X
MD Local Anne Arundel County Police Department (Millersville)* X
Local Baltimore City Police Department (Baltimore)* X WA State Washington State Patrol (6 sites)* X
Local Baltimore County Police Department (Towson) X WI State Wisconsin Department of Justice (3 sites) X
ME State Maine Department of Human Services (Augusta) X
WV State West Virginia State Police (South Charleston)* X
MI State Michigan State Police (7 sites)* X
WY State Wyoming State Crime Laboratory (Cheyenne) X
Local Detroit Police Department (Detroit)* X
MN State Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (2 sites) X * Laboratory is part of our national sample.
Local St. Paul Police Department (St. Paul) ** The New York City Crime lab is part of the national sample
This list identifies participating and reporting labs as of March 14, 2005. and currently reports summary data. 29
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared under contract DEA-03-C-
0013, Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Department
of Justice. Points of view or opinions expressed in this
document do not necessarily represent the official position
of the DEA or the U.S. Department of Justice.
At DEA, Liqun Wong contributed to the report and
provided oversight across all preparation stages. At RTI,
BeLinda Weimer was the major contributor and led its
production; Kevin Strom and Allison Forti were key
contributors; Valley Rachal provided oversight and
guidance; Albert Bethke and Jeffrey Ancheta oversaw the
database preparation; Celia Eicheldinger and Allison Burns
provided statistical analysis and review; Shari Lambert
oversaw the graphic design; and Joanne Studders edited
the report.

PUBLIC DOMAIN NOTICE

All material appearing in this report is in the public
domain and may be reproduced or copied without
permission from the DEA. However, this publication
may not be reproduced or distributed without the specific,
written authorization of the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration, U.S. Department of Justice. Citation of
the source is appreciated. Suggested citation:
Weimer, B.J., Wong, L., Strom, K., Forti, A., Eichel-
dinger, C., Bethke, A., Ancheta, J., and Rachal, V. (2004).
The National Forensic Laboratory Information System: Year
2004 Annual Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Drug
Enforcement Administration.

OBTAINING ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS

PUBLICATION
Copies may be obtained, free of charge, from RTI or
the DEA. To submit comments or suggestions on this
report, for more information on NFLIS, or to become a
participating laboratory, please use the contact information
on the back cover.
   

30
Drug Enforcement Administration
Office of Diversion Control
600 Army Navy Drive
Arlington, VA 22202

Attention: Liqun Wong, DEA Program Officer

Phone: 202-307-7176
Fax: 202-353-1263
E-mail: [email protected]

RTI International*
Health, Social, and Economics Research
3040 Cornwallis Road, PO Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194

Attention: Valley Rachal, Project Director

Phone: 1-800-334-8571, ext. 7712
Fax: 919-485-7700
E-mail: [email protected]

May 2005

*RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute.