1 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Office of Applied Studies, Summary of Findings from
the 1999 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA), DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 00-3466, (Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000) p.13.
2 Ibid, p.G-81.
3 The Gallup Organization, Consultation with America: A Look at How Americans View the Country’s Drug Problem, Final Report
(Rockville, MD: The Gallup Organization, November 22, 1999).
4 National League of Cities, National School Boards Association, Joe DiMaggio Children’s Hospital and Youth Crime Watch, Ten Critical Threats to America’s Children: Warning Signs for the Next Millennium (Alexandria, VA: The National League of Cities, November 1999), p. 13.
5 1998 NHSDA, p. 15.
6 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies, Analyses of Substance Abuse and Treatment Need Issues, Analytic Series A-7, DHHS Publication No. SMA98-3227, (Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1998), p. 93.
7 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies, Driving After Drug or Alcohol Use: Findings from the 1996 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, Analytic Series A-8, DHHS Publication No. SMA99-3273, (Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
1998), p. 50.
8 Thomas A. Gray and Eric D. Wish, Substance Abuse Need for Treatment Among Arrestees (SANTA) in Maryland: Youth in the Juvenile Justice System (Rockville, MD: Maryland Alcohol and Drug Abuse Administration, 1998).
9 Brook, J.S., Balka, E.B., and Whiteman, M., The Risks for Late Adolescence of Early Adolescent Marijuana Use, American Journal of Public Health, 1549-1554, 1999, p. 89.
10 1999 NHSDA, p.36.
11 Partnership for a Drug-Free America, 2000 Partnership Attitude Tracking Study: Teens in Grades 7 through 12, (New York, NY: PDFA, fall 2000).
12 Johnston, L.D., O’Malley, P.M., & Bachman, J.G.,, National survey results on drug use from the Monitoring the Future study, Volume I: Secondary school students, NIH Publication No. 99-4660, (Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2000.
13 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, “Advancing Knowledge through Research” Fact Sheet, fall, 1999.
14 Merrill, Jeffrey, Kimberly Fox, Susan Lewis and Gerald Pulver, Cigarettes, Alcohol, Marijuana: Gateways to Illicit Drug Use (New York: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Columbia University, 1994), p. 15.
15 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies, Results from the 1999 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, p. 21. Binge drinking is defined as consuming five or more drinks on one occasion during the past thirty days. A heavy drinker is defined as one who consumes five or more drinks on one occasion five or more days during the past thirty days.
16 National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA), No Place to Hide: Substance Abuse in Mid-Size Cities and Rural America, Commissioned by the United States Conference of Mayors and Funded by the DEA with Support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, January 1999, p. 3.
17 1999 NHSDA, unpublished SAMHSA data.
18 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies, Results from the 1999 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse supplemental tables.
19 Ibid.
20 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Healthy People 2010: Understanding and Improving Health. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Government Printing Office, 2000), p. 31.
21 The Department of Health and Human Services, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Tobacco Use Among Middle and High School Students—United States 1999,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 49. No.3, January 28, 2000, pp. 49-53.
22 Ibid.
23 National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA), No Place to Hide: Substance Abuse in Mid-Size Cities and Rural America, Commissioned by the United States Conference of Mayors and Funded by the DEA with Support from the National Institute on Drug Abuse), January 1999, p. 3.
24 Jayant K., Pakhale S.S., Toxic constituents in bidi smoke, in Sanghvi LD, Notani P, eds. Tobacco and health: the Indian scene, (Bombay, India: Tata Memorial Center, 1989).
25 Rickert W.S., Determination of yields of “tar,” nicotine, and carbon monoxide from bidi cigarettes: final report. (Ontario, Canada: Labstat International, Inc., 1999).
26 Gupta P.C., Hamner J.E. III, Murti P.R., eds. Control of tobacco-related cancers and other diseases; proceedings of an international symposium. Bombay, India: Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Oxford University Press, 1992.
27 Drug Enforcement Administration Drug Intelligence Brief—An Overview Club Drugs, February 2000, p.1.
28 National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, Dangerous Liaisons: Substance Abuse and Sex (New York: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, December 1999).
29 Ibid.
30 Rome, E.S., Rybicki, M.S., & Durant, R.H. (1998), “Pregnancy and Other Risk Behaviors Among Adolescent Girls in Ohio,”
Journal of Adolescent Health. 22(1), pp. 50-55.
31 1999 NHSDA, p.13.
32 1999 NHSDA, p.4.
33 1999 NHSDA, p. 30
34 NHSDA, p.2.
35 2000 Monitoring the Future Study. (MTF).
36 1999 NHSDA, p.4.
37 1999 NHSDA, p.4.
38 National Drug Intelligence Center, Draft National Drug Threat Assessment 2001: The Domestic Perspective, p. vii.
39 Drug Enforcement Administration, Drug Intelligence Brief—Drug Trafficking in the United States, September 1999, p. 9.
40 National Drug Intelligence Center, Draft National Drug Threat Assessment 2001: The Domestic Perspective (Johnstown, PA: U.S. Department of Justice, October 2000), p. 42.
41 Drug Enforcement Administration, Drug Intelligence Brief—The Cannabis Situation in the United States, December 1999, p. 4.
42 USDA Statistics provided for ONDCP, November 2000.
43 Drug Enforcement Administration, 2000 Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program Statistics.
44 Drug Enforcement Administration, Drug Intelligence Brief—Drug Trafficking in the United States, September 1999, p. 11.
45 Ibid.
46 1999 NHSDA, p.170.
47 1999 NHSDA, p.168.
48 1999 NHSDA, p.171.
49 1999 NHSDA, p.31.
50 Drug Enforcement Administration, Drug Intelligence Brief—Drug Trafficking in the United States, September 1999, p. 2.
51 Office of National Drug Control Policy, Mid-Year Interagency Assessment of Cocaine Movement (Washington, D.C.: Office of National Drug Control Policy, August 2000), p.4 .
52 Office of National Drug Control Policy, Mid-Year Interagency Assessment of Cocaine Movement (Washington, D.C.: Office of National Drug Control Policy, August 2000), p. 4.
53 Office of National Drug Control Policy, What America’s Users Spend on Illegal Drugs, 1988-1999 (Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy, 1999), 20. This analysis is based on a composite model which integrates or compares data from the following sources: 1) coca cultivation figures developed by the Central Intelligence Agency’s Crime and Narcotics Center, 2) the foreign movement analysis derived from the “Interagency Assessment Cocaine Movement,” 3) loss figures (law enforcement
seizures and non-US consumption estimates), and 4) the domestic US cocaine consumption estimate.
54 Ibid.
55 National Drug Intelligence Center, Draft National Drug Threat Assessment 2001: The Domestic Perspective (Johnstown, PA: U.S. Department of Justice, 2000), p. 2.
56 1999 NHSDA, p.170.
57 1999 NHSDA, p.31.
58 1999 NHSDA, p.171.
59 1999 NHSDA, p.31.
60 The MTF study is not a particularly precise source of estimates for heroin because of the small umber of respondents reporting its use. Consequently, the estimates are relatively unstable and show a certain degree of variability in the trend over time.
61 Drug Enforcement Administration, Drug Intelligence Brief—Drug Trafficking in the United States, September 1999, p. 6.
62 Office of National Drug Control Policy, High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program (Washington, D.C.: Office of National Drug Control Policy, 1999), p. 15.
63 Office of National Drug Control Policy, Draft—What America’s Users Spend on Illegal Drugs, 1988-1998 p. 20.
64 U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, El Paso Intelligence Center, Methamphetamine Trafficking Trends (El Paso, TX: EPIC, 1999), pp. 3-4.
65 1999 NHSDA, p.33.
66 Office of National Drug Control Policy, Draft—What America’s Users Spend on Illegal Drugs, 1988-1998, p. 21.
67 1999 NHSDA, p.33.
68 National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA), No Place to Hide: Substance Abuse in Mid-Size Cities and Rural America, p. 3.
69 National Drug Intelligence Center, Draft National Drug Threat Assessment 2000: An Interim Report (Johnstown, PA: U.S. Department of Justice, 1999), p. 5.
70 National Institute of Justice, Interim Report of the Methamphetamine Interagency Task Force, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1999), p. 9.
71 El Paso Intelligence Center Statistics provided to ONDCP, November 6, 2000. The vast majority of labs reported to EPIC were methamphetamine labs. However, a small number of labs reported produced LSD, MDMA, or methcathinone.
72 El Paso Intelligence Center, Statistics provided to ONDCP, November 6, 2000.
73 Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Midwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, December 11, 2000. In Kansas, the Kansas Bureau of Investigation seized 99 labs in 1997, 189 in 1998, and 511 in 1999. In Missouri, the Missouri State Highway Patrol seized 319 labs in 1997, 485 in 1998, and 920 in 1999. In Iowa, the Iowa Division of Narcotics Enforcement seized 85 labs in 1997, 339 in 1998,
and 514 in 1999.
74 Drug Enforcement Administration, Drug Intelligence Brief—Drug Trafficking in the United States, September 1999, p. 8.
75 Office of National Drug Control Policy, Draft—What America’s Users Spend on Illegal Drugs, 1988-1998, p. 24. Because a portion of the methamphetamine consumed in the United States is produces domestically by numerous small clandestine laboratories, often for selective chose customers, a meaningful assessment of domestic consumption is very difficult to develop. Additionally, this data
represents the first attempt at estimating methamphetamine consumption; some uncertainty may exist.
76 Drug Enforcement Administration, Drugs of Concern: MDMA (Ecstasy), www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/mdma.html, January 13,
2000.
77 See Hatzidimitriou, G., McCann, U.D., and Ricaurte, G.A. “Altered Serotonin Innervation Patterns in the Forebrain of Monkeys Treated with (±)3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine Seven Years Previously:
Factors Influencing Abnormal Recovery,” The Journal of Neuroscience, June 15, 1999, 19(12):5096-5107 and McCann, U.D., Eligulashivili, V., Ricuarte, G.A., “Cognitive Performance in
(+/-) 3,4 Methylenedioxymethamphetamine Users: A Controlled Study,” Psychopharmacology, April 1999, 143(4):417-25.
78 Ibid.
79 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies, Year-End 1999 Emergency Department Data from the Drug Abuse Warning Network Annual, DHHS Publication No.
SMA00-3462, (Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, August 2000).
80 Drug Enforcement Administration, Drugs of Concern: MDMA (Ecstasy),www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/mdma/mdma_factsheet.html, January 13, 2000.
81 Drug Enforcement Administration, Drug Intelligence Brief: MDMA—June 1999, p. 2.
82 Drug Enforcement Administration, Report of the International Conference on Ecstasy & Club Drugs, October 2000, p. ii. The National Drug Intelligence Center, Draft National Drug Threat Assessment 2001: The Domestic Perspective. p. 49.
83 Ibid., p. 2.
84 United States Customs Service, Office of Public Affairs, Ecstasy Seizures and Smuggling Methods Fact Sheet, January 5, 2000.
85 National Drug Intelligence Center, Draft National Drug Threat Assessment 2001: The Domestic Perspective, October 2000.
86 National Drug Intelligence Center, MDMA Trafficking—unclassified briefing for the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Washington, D.C., December 15, 1999.
87 National Drug Intelligence Center, MDMA Trafficking—unclassified briefing for the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
88 Drug Enforcement Administration, Drug Intelligence Brief—Drug Trafficking in the United States, September 1999, p. 13.
89 Drug Enforcement Administration, Drug Intelligence Brief—Caribbean MDMA Trends, February 2000.
90 Drug Enforcement Administration, Drug Intelligence Brief: MDMA—June 1999, p. 1.
91 Department of the Air Force, Office of Special Investigations, Letter from Brigadier General F.X. Taylor to Joseph Peters, ONDCP, December 7, 2000.
92 1999 NHSDA, p.32.
93 1999 NHSDA, p.171.
94 1999 NHSDA, p.170.
95 National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, Anabolic Steroids: A Threat to Mind and Body, NIDA Research Reports, (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, NIH, NIDA, 1991) (DHHS Publication No. (ADM)91-1810).
96 1999 NHSDA, p.171.
97 1999 NHSDA, p.32.
98 National Institute on Drug Abuse, Community Epidemiology Work Group, Epidemiological Trends in Drug Abuse, Volume I (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, 1999), p. 77.
99 Drug Enforcement Administration, The Diversion of Drugs and Chemicals (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, 1999), p. 6.
100 Drug Enforcement Administration, The Diversion of Drugs and Chemicals, p. 7.
101 United States Customs Service, Office of Public Affairs, unpublished seizure statistics.
102 Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control Statistics, January 13, 2000.
103 See http://www.drugquest.com/ (January 20, 2000) and http://www.feral.org/vitality/in_1main.htm (January 20, 2000).
104 Drug Enforcement Administration, The Diversion of Drugs and Chemicals, p. 4.
105 Ibid., p. 11.
106 Wilson, Doris James, “Drug Use, Testing, and Treatment in Jails,” Bureau of Justice Statistics, May 2000 and Mumola, Christopher, “Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997,” Bureau of Justice Statistics, January 1999.
107 Wilson, Doris James, “Drug Use, Testing, and Treatment in Jails,” Bureau of Justice Statistics, May 2000 and Mumola, Christopher, “Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997,” Bureau of Justice Statistics, January 1999.
108 National Institute of Justice, 1999 Annual Report on Drug Use Among Adult and Juvenile Arrestees, June 2000, p.1.
109 National Institute of Justice, 1999 Annual Report on Drug Use Among Adult and Juvenile Arrestees, June 2000, p.3.
110 National Institute of Justice, 1999 Annual Report on Drug Use Among Adult and Juvenile Arrestees, June 2000, p.2.
111 National Institute of Justice, 1999 Annual Report on Drug Use Among Adult and Juvenile Arrestees, June 2000, p.1.
112 National Institute of Justice, 1999 Annual Report on Drug Use Among Adult and Juvenile Arrestees, June 2000, p.2.
113 National Institute of Justice, 1999 Annual Report on Drug Use Among Adult and Juvenile Arrestees, June 2000, p.1
114 National Institute of Justice, 1999 Annual Report on Drug Use Among Adult and Juvenile Arrestees, June 2000, p.4
115 National Institute of Justice, 1999 Annual Report on Drug Use Among Adult and Juvenile Arrestees, June 2000, p.24.
116 National Institute of Justice, 1999 Annual Report on Drug Use Among Adult and Juvenile Arrestees, June 2000. p.58.
117 National Institute of Justice, 1999 Annual Report on Drug Use Among Adult and Juvenile Arrestees, June 2000, p.3.
118 National Institute of Justice, 1999 Annual Report on Drug Use Among Adult and Juvenile Arrestees, June 2000, p.3.
119 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1999, August 2000, p.2.
120 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1999, August 2000, p.2.
121 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1999, August 2000, p.2.
122 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1999, August 2000, p.1.
123 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1999, August 2000, p.1.
124 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1999, August 2000, p.5.
125 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1999, August 2000, p.12-13.
126 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1999, August 2000, p.10.
127 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1999, August 2000, p.10.
128 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1999, August 2000, p.11.
129 Mumola, Christopher J., Veterans in Prison or Jail, January 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, p.9-10.
130 Mumola, Christopher J., Veterans in Prison or Jail, January 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, p.5.
131 Wilson, Doris James, Drug Use, Testing, and Treatment in Jails, May 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, p.1-2.
132 National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, The Economic Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in the United States (Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1998), http://www.nida.nih.gov/EconomicCosts/Chapter1.html#1.10, January 11, 2000.
133 Ibid., http://www.nida.nih.gov/EconomicCosts/Chapter1.html #1.2, January 23, 2000.
134 Hoyert, D.L., Kochanek, K.D., Murphy, S.L. “Deaths: Final Data for 1997.” National Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 47, No. 19, (Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics, 1999).
135 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies, Drug Abuse Warning Network Annual Medical Examiner Data 1998, p. 50.
136 Leshner, A, “Science-Based Views of Drug Addiction and its Treatment,” Journal of the American Medical Association, October 13, 1999, http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v282n14/full/ jct90020.html,
January 27, 2000.
137 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies, Year-End 1999 Emergency Department Data from the Drug Abuse Warning Network, DHHS Publication No. SMA00-3462, (Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, August 2000), p. 66.
138 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies, Drug Abuse Warning Network Annual Medical Examiner Data 1999, p. 66.
139 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies, Drug Abuse Warning Network Annual Medical Examiner Data 1999, p. 11.
140 Alan Leshner, “Addiction is a Brain Disease—And It Matters,” National Institute of Justice Journal, October 1998, p. 3.
141 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Reported Tuberculosis in the United States, 1999, August 2000, pp.34-36.
142 CDC, HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, 1999; 11(2): 14.
143 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Summary of Notifiable Diseases, U.S., 1997, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 1998; 46(54).
144 The United States Conference of Mayors A Status on Hunger and Homelessness in America’s Cities 1999: A 26-City Survey, Washington, D.C., December 1999.
145 Culhane, Dennis P., Edmund F. Dejowski, Julie Ibanez, Elizabeth Needham and Irene Macchia, “Public Shleter Admission Rates in Philadelphia and New York City: The Implications of turnover for Sheltered Population Counts,” in Understanding Homelessness: New Policy and Research Perspectives, edited by Dennis P. Culhane and Steven P. Hornburg, Fannie Mae Foundation, Washington, D.C., 1997.
146 Rog, Deborah and C. Scott Holupka, “Reconnecting Homeless Individuals and Families to the Community,” Practical Lessons: The 1998 National Symposium on Homelessness Research, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, August 1999).
147 Interagency Council on the Homeless, Homelessness: Programs and the People They Serve, Technical Report, prepared by The Urban Institute, December 1999, pp. 8-18.
148 Ibid.
149 The Data Appendix to this Annual Report traces the reporting requirements outlined by Congress, the existing data instruments used to compile this report, areas where data is insufficient or infrequently collected, and steps being taken to remedy data inadequacies. The Performance Measures of Effectiveness: 2001 Report outlines accomplishments in 2001 by ONDCP’s Data Subcommittee that can help close the PME system data gap.
