Drug Enforcement Administration

Office of Diversion Control
NF L I S
NATIONAL FORENSIC LABORATORY INFORMATION SYSTEM
Y E A R 2 0 0 5 A N N U A L R E P O R T
x
v
i
i
s

a
c
c
·

~
x
x
u
~
i

v
v
v
o
v
)

CONT E NT S
Foreword 3
Introduction 4
Section1
NationalandRegionalEstimates 6
11 DrugItemsAnalyzed 6
12 DrugCasesAnalyzed 8
13 NationalandRegionalDrug
Trends 9
Section2
MajorDrugCategories 11
21 NarcoticAnalgesics 11
22 Benzodiazepines 12
23 ClubDrugs 13
24 AnabolicSteroids 14
25 Stimulants 15
Section3
DrugCombinations 16
31 CocaineCombinations 17
32 HeroinCombinations 17
33 Methamphetamine
Combinations 17
Section4
DrugsIdentifiedbyLocation 18
Section5
GISAnalysis:TopFourDrugs,
byPlaceofOrigin 20
Section6
DrugPurity 23
61 HeroinPurity 23
62 CocainePurity 24
DEAUpdate 26
AppendixA:ParticipatingandReporting
ForensicLaboratories 27
AppendixB:NFLISBenefits
andLimitations 28
AppendixC:NFLISInteractive
DataSite 29
AppendixD:NationalEstimates
Methodology 30

The new DEA-NFLIS Web site, which provides access
to the Interactive Data Site (IDS), is now available.
The address is
https://www.nflis.deadiversion.usdoj.gov
As part of the enhanced IDS, various access levels are assigned to
satisfy users’ specific NFLIS data needs. Basic information about NFLIS,
published reports, NFLIS contact information, information relevant to
drug control efforts, and links to agency Web sites are available to the
general public. Participating NFLIS laboratories have access to their own
case- and item-level data, as well as to aggregate national-, regional-,
state-, and city-level data. Laboratories in the process of joining
NFLIS have access to aggregate state- and city-level data. Approved
government agency staff have access to the aggregate data. Depending
on the level of access, users can conduct analyses using preset queries.
New usernames and passwords are required to gain access to restricted
areas of the IDS.
Laboratories with high-speed Internet access are no longer limited
to using dial-up to access the IDS. Laboratories without high-speed
Internet access can still use a modem to make a direct dial-up
connection to the IDS.
Please visit the new NFLIS Web site
for additional information.
New
DEA-NFLIS
WebSite
Foreword
TheDrugEnforcementAdministration’s(DEA’s)OfficeofDiversionControlispleased
topresenttheNationalForensicLaboratoryInformationSystem(NFLIS)2005Annual
Report.NFLISrepresentsapartnershipthatincludes263federal,state,andlocalforensic
laboratories.TheinformationcollectedthroughNFLISsupportsDEA’smissiontoenforce
thecontrolledsubstanceslawsandregulationsoftheUnitedStates,includingtrackingthe
diversionofcontrolledpharmaceuticalsandthediversionofcontrolledchemicalsinto
illegalmarkets.
NFLISprovidesauniquesourceofinformationonthenation’sdrugproblem,providing
detailedandtimelyinformationonsubstancessecuredinlawenforcementoperationsacross
thecountry.TheNFLIS 2005 Annual Reportpresentsnationalandregionalfindingsondrug
casesanalyzedduringthepastyear,includingcity-andcounty-levelresultsondrugseizure
locations.AmongthekeyfindingspresentedintheNFLIS 2005 Annual Report:
• Anestimated1.7milliondrugitemswereanalyzedbystateandlocallaboratoriesin
theUnitedStatesin2005.Cannabis/THCwasthemostfrequentlyidentifieddrug
(573,904items),followedbycocaine(570,176),methamphetamine(247,288),and
heroin(87,402).
• Nationally,cannabis/THC,heroin,andMDMAdeclinedsignificantlyfrom2001
to2005,whilemethamphetamine,oxycodone,andhydrocodoneitemsincreased
significantly.
• Regionally,methamphetamineincreasedsignificantlyintheSouth,morethandoubling
overthe5-yearperiod,whilecocaineandheroindeclined.Methamphetaminealso
increasedintheNortheast,whileheroindeclined.
• Amongotherdrugsinthetop25,oxycodone,hydrocodone,andalprazolam,
allavailableinpharmaceuticalproducts,increasedsignificantlyintheNortheast
between2001and2005.Inaddition,oxycodoneincreasedintheWestandMidwest,
hydrocodoneincreasedintheSouthandMidwest,andalprazolamincreasedin
theMidwest.
• Overall,hydrocodone(39%)andoxycodone(30%)accountedformorethantwo-thirds
ofallidentifiednarcoticanalgesics,whilealprazolam(e.g.,Xanax)accountedfor61%
ofreportedbenzodiazepinesandMDMAaccountedfor84%ofreportedclubdrugs.
TheDEAstandscommittedtocontinuallyimprovingdrugintelligencedataavailable
toU.S.drugcontrolagencies.Wefullyunderstandthatthesystemwouldnotbesuccessful
withouttheparticipationofforensiclaboratoriesfromacrossthecountry.TheDEAwould
liketoextendaspecialthankyoutothelaboratoriesthathavejoinedNFLISandencourage
thoselaboratoriesthatarenotcurrentlyparticipatinginNFLIStocontactusaboutjoining
thisimportantprogram.
Thankyouagainforyourongoingsupport.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi
Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of Diversion Control
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration

x
v
i
i
s

a
c
c
·

~
x
x
u
~
i

v
v
v
o
v
)
x
v
i
i
s

a
c
c
·

~
x
x
u
~
i

v
v
v
o
v
)

University of
MA Medical
Center, Worcester
M I D W E S T
S O U T H
N O R T H E A S T
W E S T
Baton Rouge
Acadiana
New Orleans
Gulfport
Jackson
Meridian
Batesville
Florence
Huntsville
Tuscaloosa
Birmingham
Montgomary
Jacksonville
Pensacola
Mobile
Dothan
Auburn
Midland
Little Rock
Tallahassee
Jacksonville
Daytona Beach
Orlando
Fort Myers
Pinellas County
Tampa
Indian River
Broward County
Miami-Dade
Key West
Moultrie
Savannah
Macon
Decatur
Augusta
Columbia
Amarillo
Lubbock
Abilene
Midland
Waco
Garland
Tyler
Corpus Christi
McAllen
Laredo
El Paso
Houston
Harris County Bexar County
Austin
Norfolk
Richmond
Roanoke
South Charleston
Fairfax
Augusta
Boston
Sudbury
Amherst
Hartford
Onondaga
County
Philadelphia
Union County
Newark Nassau County
Allegheny
County
Lake County
Miami Valley
Hamilton County
Detroit
Sterling Heights
Northville
Bridgeport
Grand Rapids
East Lansing
Marquette
Westchester
Chicago
Joliet
Rockford
Morton
Springeld
Carbondale
Fairview Heights
St. Louis
Northern Illinois
Des Moines
Macon
Jeerson City
Hillsboro
Willow Springs
Springeld
St. Joseph
Sedgwick County
Denver
Cheyenne
AL
MS
GA
AR
LA
TX
OK
FL
SC
NC
TN
KY
VA
WV
Baltimore City
PA
NY
VT
NH
ME
OH
IN
IL
IA
MO
MI
WI
MN
ND
SD
NE
KS
CO
WY
MT
ID
WA
OR
Santa Fe
San Bernardino
NM
AZ
UT
NV
Riverside
Goleta
Fresno
Watsonville
French Camp
Sacramento
Santa Rosa
Chico
Redding
Eureka
San Diego PD
San Francisco
Sacramento County
CA
Central Point
Bend
Coos Bay
Springeld
Salem
Portland
Kelso
Pendleton
Ontario
Kennewick
Tacoma
Seattle
Marysville
Spokane
Missoula
Individual State/Territory Lab
Reporting Local Lab
Participating Local Lab
(Not Yet Reporting)
No Participating State Lab System
Reporting State/Territory
Lab System
Participating State Lab System
(Not Yet Reporting)
MD
DE
MA
CT
RI
Charleston
Raleigh
Asheville
Anne Arundel County
Baltimore County
Aurora
Canton-
Stark County
Columbus PD
DuPage County
Evansville
Fort
Wayne
Indianapolis
Lowell
Grayling
Bemidji
Saint Paul
Topeka
Great Bend
Pittsburg
Johnson County
Las Vegas
Santa Clara
San Mateo
Kern County
Los Angeles County
Frankfort
Louisville
Ashland
Highland Heights
London
Madisonville
Fresno County
Ogden
Salt Lake City
Cedar City
Madison
Milwaukee
Wausau
Little Falls
West Trenton
Sea Girt
Hammonton
Jeerson Co.
Rapid City
St. Charles County
New York City
Sarasota County
Pasadena
AK
HI
Anchorage
Honolulu
Coeur D’Alene
Meridian
Pocatello
SEMO Regional
Newark PD
Manseld PD
Columbus
NJ
Erie County
Hudson County
MSSU Regional
Orange County
Ventura County
North LA
St. Louis County
Jeerson Parish
Charlotte Mecklenburg
Cape May
Burlington County
Ocean County
Yonkers
Suolk County
Monroe County
Niagara County
Indianpolis-Marion County
Saint Paul
Independence
Grand Junction
Scottsdale
Mesa
Phoenix
Lincoln
North Platte
Northwest Region
Oklahoma City
Southwest Region
Durant Region
Tahlequah Region
Nashville
Memphis
Knoxville
Long Beach
Brazoria County
Southwest LA Lab
Colorado Springs
Westchester
County
No State Lab System
Jeerson Co.
PR
Contra Costa County
Los Angeles
Price
KCMO Regional
Tupelo
Cleveland
Trion
Spartanburg
Montgomery County
Fort Worth
Toledo
Jackson PD
Bethlehem
Erie
Greensburg
Harrisburg Media
Wyoming
San Diego County
London
Richeld
Bowling
Green
Wilmington
San Juan
TheNationalForensicLaboratoryInformationSystem
(NFLIS)isaprogramsponsoredbytheDrugEnforcement
Administration’s(DEA’s)OfficeofDiversionControlthat
systematicallycollectsdrugidentificationresultsand
associatedinformationfromdrugcasesanalyzedbyfederal,
state,andlocalforensiclaboratories.Theselaboratories
analyzesubstancessecuredinlawenforcementoperations
acrossthecountryandrepresentanimportantresource
formonitoringillicitdrugabuseandtrafficking,including
thediversionoflegallymanufacturedpharmaceuticals
intoillegalmarkets.NFLISdataareusedtosupport
drugschedulingdecisionsaswellastoinformdrugpolicy
anddrugenforcementinitiativesbothnationallyandin
localcommunities.
NFLISisacomprehensiveinformationsystemthat
includesdatafromforensiclaboratoriesthathandle
over88%ofthenation’sestimated1.2millionannual
stateandlocaldruganalysiscases.AsofApril2006,
NFLISincluded42statesystems,92localormunicipal
laboratories,and1territoriallaboratory,representingatotal
of263individuallaboratories.FederaldatafromtheDEA’s
SystemToRetrieveInformationfromDrugEvidenceII
(STRIDE),whichincludestheresultsofdrugevidence
analyzedatDEAlaboratoriesacrossthecountry,isalso
apartoftheNFLISdatabase.Effortscontinuetoward
recruitingallstateandlocallaboratories,whilealso
integratingtheremainderoffederallaboratoriesinto
thesystem.
This2005AnnualReportpresentstheresultsofdrug
casesanalyzedbyforensiclaboratoriesbetweenJanuary1,
2005,andDecember31,2005.Section1presentsnational
andregionalestimatesforthe25mostfrequentlyidentified
drugs,aswellasnationalandregionalquarterlytrends
from2001through2005.Nationalandregionalestimates
arebasedondruganalysisdatareportedamongtheNFLIS
nationalsampleoflaboratories(seeAppendixAforalist
ofNFLISlaboratories,includingthoseinthenational
sample).Theremainderofthereportpresentsdruganalysis
resultsforallstateandlocallaboratoriesthatreportedat
least6monthsofdatatoNFLISduring2005,aswellas
federallaboratorydatareportedinSTRIDE.Thebenefits
andlimitationsofNFLISarepresentedinAppendixB.
I NT R ODU C T I ON
Enhancingtheusefulnessandcomprehensivenessof
theNFLISdatacontinuestobeaprimaryobjectiveof
NFLIS.Onekeyenhancementistoprovidemoredetailed
geographicalinformationonthedrugseizurelocation.
Section5presentsGeographicInformationSystem(GIS)
analysisondrugseizuresofcannabis/THC,cocaine,heroin,
andmethamphetamine,bylocation,forselectedstates.
NFLIScontinuallystrivestoimprovetheutilityofthe
NFLISdata,asshownbyrecentenhancementstothe
NFLISInteractiveDataSite(IDS).AppendixC
summarizestheseIDSenhancements,includingWeb
accessibilityoftheIDStoparticipatinglaboratoriesand
otherapprovedusers,aswellasnewdatabasequeryoptions.
NFLISwillcontinuetobedevelopedandenhancedover
thenextseveralyears.
x
v
i
i
s

a
c
c
·

~
x
x
u
~
i

v
v
v
o
v
)

University of
MA Medical
Center, Worcester
M I D W E S T
S O U T H
N O R T H E A S T
W E S T
Baton Rouge
Acadiana
New Orleans
Gulfport
Jackson
Meridian
Batesville
Florence
Huntsville
Tuscaloosa
Birmingham
Montgomary
Jacksonville
Pensacola
Mobile
Dothan
Auburn
Midland
Little Rock
Tallahassee
Jacksonville
Daytona Beach
Orlando
Fort Myers
Pinellas County
Tampa
Indian River
Broward County
Miami-Dade
Key West
Moultrie
Savannah
Macon
Decatur
Augusta
Columbia
Amarillo
Lubbock
Abilene
Midland
Waco
Garland
Tyler
Corpus Christi
McAllen
Laredo
El Paso
Houston
Harris County Bexar County
Austin
Norfolk
Richmond
Roanoke
South Charleston
Fairfax
Augusta
Boston
Sudbury
Amherst
Hartford
Onondaga
County
Philadelphia
Union County
Newark Nassau County
Allegheny
County
Lake County
Miami Valley
Hamilton County
Detroit
Sterling Heights
Northville
Bridgeport
Grand Rapids
East Lansing
Marquette
Westchester
Chicago
Joliet
Rockford
Morton
Springeld
Carbondale
Fairview Heights
St. Louis
Northern Illinois
Des Moines
Macon
Jeerson City
Hillsboro
Willow Springs
Springeld
St. Joseph
Sedgwick County
Denver
Cheyenne
AL
MS
GA
AR
LA
TX
OK
FL
SC
NC
TN
KY
VA
WV
Baltimore City
PA
NY
VT
NH
ME
OH
IN
IL
IA
MO
MI
WI
MN
ND
SD
NE
KS
CO
WY
MT
ID
WA
OR
Santa Fe
San Bernardino
NM
AZ
UT
NV
Riverside
Goleta
Fresno
Watsonville
French Camp
Sacramento
Santa Rosa
Chico
Redding
Eureka
San Diego PD
San Francisco
Sacramento County
CA
Central Point
Bend
Coos Bay
Springeld
Salem
Portland
Kelso
Pendleton
Ontario
Kennewick
Tacoma
Seattle
Marysville
Spokane
Missoula
Individual State/Territory Lab
Reporting Local Lab
Participating Local Lab
(Not Yet Reporting)
No Participating State Lab System
Reporting State/Territory
Lab System
Participating State Lab System
(Not Yet Reporting)
MD
DE
MA
CT
RI
Charleston
Raleigh
Asheville
Anne Arundel County
Baltimore County
Aurora
Canton-
Stark County
Columbus PD
DuPage County
Evansville
Fort
Wayne
Indianapolis
Lowell
Grayling
Bemidji
Saint Paul
Topeka
Great Bend
Pittsburg
Johnson County
Las Vegas
Santa Clara
San Mateo
Kern County
Los Angeles County
Frankfort
Louisville
Ashland
Highland Heights
London
Madisonville
Fresno County
Ogden
Salt Lake City
Cedar City
Madison
Milwaukee
Wausau
Little Falls
West Trenton
Sea Girt
Hammonton
Jeerson Co.
Rapid City
St. Charles County
New York City
Sarasota County
Pasadena
AK
HI
Anchorage
Honolulu
Coeur D’Alene
Meridian
Pocatello
SEMO Regional
Newark PD
Manseld PD
Columbus
NJ
Erie County
Hudson County
MSSU Regional
Orange County
Ventura County
North LA
St. Louis County
Jeerson Parish
Charlotte Mecklenburg
Cape May
Burlington County
Ocean County
Yonkers
Suolk County
Monroe County
Niagara County
Indianpolis-Marion County
Saint Paul
Independence
Grand Junction
Scottsdale
Mesa
Phoenix
Lincoln
North Platte
Northwest Region
Oklahoma City
Southwest Region
Durant Region
Tahlequah Region
Nashville
Memphis
Knoxville
Long Beach
Brazoria County
Southwest LA Lab
Colorado Springs
Westchester
County
No State Lab System
Jeerson Co.
PR
Contra Costa County
Los Angeles
Price
KCMO Regional
Tupelo
Cleveland
Trion
Spartanburg
Montgomery County
Fort Worth
Toledo
Jackson PD
Bethlehem
Erie
Greensburg
Harrisburg Media
Wyoming
San Diego County
London
Richeld
Bowling
Green
Wilmington
San Juan
Section 1
Thefollowingsectiondescribesnationalandregional
estimatesfordrugitemsanalyzedbystateandlocallaboratories
in2005.Trendsarealsopresentedforselecteddrugsfrom2001
through2005.Themethodsusedinpreparingtheseestimates
aredescribedinAppendixD.
1.1 DRUG ITEMS ANALYZED
In2005,anestimated1,749,275drugitemswereanalyzedby
stateandlocalforensiclaboratoriesintheUnitedStates.Thisis
aslightincreasefromthe1,734,658drugitemsanalyzedduring
2004.Table1.1presentsthe25mostfrequentlyidentifieddrugs
forthenationandforcensusregions.
The top 25 drugs accounted for 94% of all drugs analyzed
in 2005, an estimated 1,641,130 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 85% of all
drugs analyzed. Nationally, 573,904 items were identified as
cannabis/THC (33%), 570,176 as cocaine (33%), 247,288
as methamphetamine (14%), and 87,402 as heroin (5%).
Amongotherdrugsinthetop25,morethanhalfare
availableinpharmaceuticalproducts.Ofthese,therewere
sevennarcoticanalgesics:hydrocodone(23,549items),
oxycodone(19,274items),methadone(7,302items),morphine
(3,619items),codeine(3,346items),propoxyphene(1,970
items),andhydromorphone(1,218items).Alsoincludedwere
fourbenzodiazepines:alprazolam(24,631items),diazepam
(6,871items),clonazepam(6,723items),andlorazepam
(1,557items).Othercontrolledsubstanceswerephencyclindine
(PCP)(3,047items)andthepharmaceuticalmethylphenidate
(1,370items).Thenon-controlledpharmaceuticalcarisoprodol
(3,020items)aswellaspseudoephedrine(8,249items),alisted
chemical,werealsoincludedinthetop25mostfrequently
identifieddrugs.
NAT I ONA L A ND RE GI ONA L E S T I MAT E S
Since 001, NFLIS has produced
estimates of the number of drug
items and drug cases analyzed
by state and local laboratories from
a nationally representative sample
of laboratories.
w
w
w
.
E
r
o
w
i
d
.
o
r
g
LSD microdot
2-CB tablet
LSD blotter
2C-T-2 tablet
MDMA tablet

x
v
i
i
s

a
c
c
·

~
x
x
u
~
i

v
v
v
o
v
)
x
v
i
i
s

a
c
c
·

~
x
x
u
~
i

v
v
v
o
v
)

Table11 NATIONALANDREGIONALESTIMATESFORTHE25MOSTFREQUENTLYIDENTIFIEDDRUGS*
Estimated number and percentage of total analyzed drug items, 2005.
National West Midwest Northeast South
Drug Number Percent NumberPercent NumberPercent Number Percent Number Percent
Cannabis/THC ,90 .81% ,91 1.% 19,0 .8% 8, 1.98% 1,9 1.09%
Cocaine 0,1 .9% ,08 0.0% 11,1 .% 11,19 1.% ,0 9.%
Methamphetamine ,88 1.1% 19,080 0.8% ,91 8.8% 99 0.0% 9,9 8.%
Heroin 8,0 .00% 1,8 .% , .1% ,0 11.9% 19,9 .91%
Alprazolam ,1 1.1% ** ** ,10 1.1% , 1.1% 1,1 .1%
Hydrocodone ,9 1.% ,1 0.% ,088 0.9% ,0 0.9% 1, .11%
Non-controlled, non-narcotic drug 0,19 1.1% ,9 1.0% ,8 1.% , 1.8% , 0.8%
Oxycodone 19, 1.10% , 0.0% , 1.0% ,18 1.% , 1.1%
MDMA 1,00 0.% ,0 0.8% ,1 0.1% 1,98 0.% ,8 0.9%
Pseudoephedrine*** 8,9 0.% 1,1 0.% , 0.8% ** ** ,1 0.0%
Methadone ,0 0.% 1,0 0.9% 1,0 0.% 1,8 0.8% , 0.9%
Diazepam ,81 0.9% 1,0 0.9% 1,9 0.% 89 0.% ,1 0.%
Clonazepam , 0.8% 0.1% 1,0 0.1% 1, 0.8% , 0.9%
Acetaminophen**** ,08 0.% ** ** ,0 0.% ** ** 8 0.1%
Morphine ,19 0.1% 88 0.% 900 0.1% 1 0.% 1,8 0.18%
Amphetamine ,1 0.19% 19 0.11% 1,001 0.% 0.1% 1,88 0.%
Codeine , 0.19% 9 0.1% 0.1% 0 0.1% 1,8 0.%
Phencyclidine (PCP) ,0 0.1% 8 0.1% 0.0% 1,0 0.% 81 0.1%
Psilocin ,08 0.1% 980 0.% 1,0 0.% 111 0.0% 81 0.1%
Carisoprodol ,00 0.1% ** ** 9 0.0% 1 0.0% 1,910 0.8%
Propoxyphene 1,90 0.11% 1 0.0% 88 0.0% 1 0.0% 8 0.1%
Lorazepam 1, 0.09% 0.08% 9 0.1% 08 0.08% 8 0.08%
MDA 1,9 0.08% 8 0.08% 18 0.0% 0.1% 08 0.09%
Methylphenidate 1,0 0.08% 1 0.0% 0 0.10% 0.08% 98 0.0%
Hydromorphone 1,18 0.0% 1 0.0% 9 0.0% 0.0% 0.09%
Top 25 Total 1,1,10 9.8% ,8 9.% 09,9 9.% ,0 9.% 8,8 9.01%
All Other Analyzed Items 108,1 .18% ,0 .% 18,1 .% 1,1 .8% 8,0 .99%
Total Analyzed Items 1,9, 100.00% ,8 100.00% ,9 100.00% 0,019 100.00% 8,908 100.00%

Numbers may not sum to totals due to suppression and rounding.
MDMA=3,4 Methylenedioxymethamphetamine
MDA=3,4 Methylenedioxyamphetamine
* Sample n’s and 95% conf idence intervals for all estimates are available upon request.
** The estimate for this drug does not meet standards of precision and reliability due to few laboratories reporting this specif ic drug.
***Includes items from a small number of laboratories that do not specify between pseudoephedrine and ephedrine.
****Substance is an ingredient of many controlled pharmaceutical products.
NAT I ONA L A ND RE GI ONA L E S T I MAT E S
x
v
i
i
s

a
c
c
·

~
x
x
u
~
i

v
v
v
o
v
)
8
MOSTFREQUENTLYIDENTIFIEDDRUGSINSTRIDE,2005
Drug Number Percent
Cocaine 1,0 .01%
Cannabis/THC 1,0 .%
Methamphetamine , 1.%
Heroin ,9 8.1%
MDMA 1,1 .1%
Non-controlled, non-narcotic drug 1,01 1.9%
Pseudoephedrine 81 1.%
Hydrocodone 91 1.1%
Alprazolam 0.8%
Oxycodone 1 0.1%
All Other Drugs , 9.0%
Total All Drugs 1, 100.00%
System To Retrieve Information from Drug Evidence II
(STRIDE)
TheDEA’sSystemToRetrieveInformationfromDrug
EvidenceII(STRIDE)collectstheresultsofdrugevidence
analyzedatDEAlaboratoriesacrossthecountry.STRIDE
reflectsevidencesubmittedbytheDEA,otherfederallaw
enforcementagencies,andsomelocalpoliceagenciesthatwas
obtainedduringdrugseizures,undercoverdrugbuys,andother
activities.STRIDEcapturesdataonbothdomesticand
internationaldrugcases;however,thefollowingresultsdescribe
onlythosedrugsobtainedintheUnitedStates.
During2005,atotalof51,467drugexhibitsoritemswere
reportedinSTRIDE,about3%oftheestimated1.7million
drugexhibitsanalyzedbystateandlocallaboratoriesduringthis
period.MostdrugsinSTRIDEwereidentifiedascocaine
(34%),cannabis/THC(27%),methamphetamine(12%),or
heroin(9%).Amongotherdrugs,3%werereportedasMDMA
and2%aspseudoephedrine.
Table12 NATIONALCASEESTIMATES
Number and percentage of cases containing the
25 most frequently identif ied drugs, 2005.
Drug Number Percent
Cocaine 1,99 8.%
Cannabis/THC ,88 .%
Methamphetamine 18,8 1.8%
Heroin 9, .9%
Alprazolam 1,1 1.81%
Hydrocodone 19,9 1.%
Oxycodone 1, 1.%
Non-controlled, non-narcotic drug 1,0 1.0%
MDMA 10,1 0.9%
Methadone , 0.%
Diazepam ,1 0.%
Clonazepam ,01 0.%
Pseudoephedrine* ,8 0.8%
Acetaminophen** ,89 0.%
Morphine ,0 0.%
Amphetamine ,91 0.%
Carisoprodol ,80 0.%
Phencyclidine (PCP) ,9 0.%
Codeine ,8 0.%
Psilocin , 0.%
Propoxyphene 1,89 0.1%
Lorazepam 1, 0.1%
MDA 1,0 0.11%
Methylphenidate 1, 0.11%
Dihydrocodeine 1,10 0.10%
Top 25 Total 1,, 109.%
All Other Substances 8,1 .%
Total All Substances 1,, 11.81%***
* Includes cases from a small number of laboratories that do not
specify between pseudoephedrine and ephedrine.
** Substance is an ingredient of many controlled pharmaceutical products.
*** Multiple drugs can be reported within a single case, so the
cumulative percentage exceeds 100%. The estimated national total
of distinct cases that drug case percentages are based on is 1,167,307.
Cocainewasthemostcommondrugreportedinalaboratory
drugcaseduring2005.Nationally,anestimated39%ofanalyzed
drugcasescontainedoneormorecocaineitems,followedby
cannabis/THC,whichwasidentifiedin37%ofalldrugcases.
About16%ofdrugcaseswereestimatedtohavecontainedone
ormoremethamphetamineitems,and6%ofcasescontained
oneormoreheroinitems.About2%ofcasescontainedoneor
morealprazolamorhydrocodoneitems,whileoxycodoneand
MDMAwerereportedinabout1%ofdrugcases.
1.2 DRUG CASES ANALYZED
DruganalysisresultsarealsoreportedtoNFLISatthe
caselevel.Thesecase-leveldatatypicallydescribealldrugs
identifiedwithinadrug-relatedincident,althoughasmall
proportionoflaboratoriesmayassignasinglecasenumberto
alldrugsubmissionsrelatedtoanentireinvestigation.Table1.2
presentsnationalestimatesforthenumberofcasescontaining
the25mostcommonlyidentifieddrugs.Thistableillustrates
thenumberofcasesthatcontainedoneormoreitemsofthe
specifieddrug.
x
v
i
i
s

a
c
c
·

~
x
x
u
~
i

v
v
v
o
v
)
9
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
Hydrocodone
Oxycodone
Alprazolam
MDMA
Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1
2001 2002 2003
MDMA
Alprazolam
Oxycodone
Hydrocodone
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

I
t
e
m
s
2004 2005
Figure12 Nationalestimatesforotherselecteddrugs
byquarter,2001–2005.
1.3 NATIONAL AND REGIONAL DRUG TRENDS
National drug trends
Figure1.1presentsnationaltrendsforthenumberof
drugitemsanalyzedbystateandlocallaboratoriesin3-month
incrementsfor2001through2005forthetopfourdrugs
reportedinNFLIS.Whilethesedatamaydescribetrafficking
andabusepatterns,theymayalsoreflectdifferingdrug
enforcementprioritiesandlaboratorypolicies.
Overall,amongthetopfourdrugs,therewasadecrease
intotalanalyzeditemsbetween2001and2005from457,967
itemsduringthe1stquarterof2001to436,769itemsduring
the4thquarterof2005.Amongthetopfourreporteddrugs,
cannabis/THCandheroinitemsdeclinedsignificantlyacross
thequartersfrom2001to2005(α =.05).Reportsofcannabis/
THCdeclinedfrom161,343itemsto140,974items,while
heroindecreasedfrom26,750itemsto20,939items(Figure
1.1).Reportsofmethamphetamineincreasedsignificantlyacross
thequarters,from52,674itemsto62,971items.
Regional drug trends
Figure1.3presentsregionaltrendsper100,000persons
aged15orolderforthetopfourreporteddrugs.Thisillustrates
changesindrugsreportedovertime,takingintoaccountthe
populationofeachregion.
Cannabis/THCreportingdeclinedsignificantlyinthe
SouthandMidwest(α=.05).Overall,thehighestrateof
cannabis/THCcontinuestobereportedintheMidwest,
followedbytheSouthandtheNortheast.IntheSouth,reports
ofcocainealsodeclinedsignificantlyoverthe5-yearperiod.
Methamphetaminereportingsignificantlyincreasedinthe
NortheastandtheSouth.Therateofmethamphetamineitems
reportedintheSouthmorethandoubled,from8to20items
per100,000persons(6,534itemsto15,631items).
Figure1.4showsregionaltrendsper100,000persons
aged15orolderforotherselecteddrugs—hydrocodone,
oxycodone,MDMA,andalprazolam—fromJanuary2001
throughDecember2005.ReportsofMDMAdeclined
significantlyacrossallcensusregions,andreportsofoxycodone
increasedsignificantlyintheWest,theMidwest,andthe
Northeast(α =.05).IntheNortheast,thereportedrateof
oxycodoneitemsanalyzedmorethandoubled,from1.5
to3.1per100,000(636itemsto1,308items).Reportsof
hydrocodoneincreasedsignificantlyintheNortheast(from
0.3to1.2per100,000persons),theMidwest(from0.7to2.2
itemsper100,000),andtheSouth(from2.3to5.0itemsper
100,000persons).Reportsofalprazolamincreasedsignificantly
intheNortheast(from1.3to2.2itemsper100,000persons)
andtheMidwest(from0.9to2.6itemsper100,000persons).
Figure1.2describesnationalreportingtrendsforselected
drugs:MDMA,alprazolam,oxycodone,andhydrocodone.
Amongthesedrugs,reportsofMDMAexperienceda
significantdecrease(from5,427itemsto3,396items).
Reportsofoxycodoneandhydrocodoneexperiencedsignificant
increases.Oxycodonereportingincreasedfrom2,771itemsin
the1stquarterof2001to4,892itemsinthe4thquarterof
2005.Hydrocodonereportingincreasedfrom2,742items
to6,182.
Figure11 Nationalestimatesforthetopfourdrugsby
quarter,2001–2005.
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
HEROIN
METHAMPHETAMINE
COCAINE
CANNABIS
Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

I
t
e
m
s
Cannabis/THC
Cocaine
Methamphetamine
Heroin
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
x
v
i
i
s

a
c
c
·

~
x
x
u
~
i

v
v
v
o
v
)
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
S
NE
MW
WEST
Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1
I
t
e
m
s

p
e
r

1
0
0
,
0
0
0
2001 2002 2004 2003 2005
MDMA
0
1
2
3
4
5
S
NE
MW
WEST
Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1
I
t
e
m
s

p
e
r

1
0
0
,
0
0
0
2001 2002 2004 2003 2005
0
1
2
3
4
5
S
NE
MW
Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1
I
t
e
m
s

p
e
r

1
0
0
,
0
0
0
2001 2002 2004 2003 2005
Alprazolam
Hydrocodone
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
South
Northeast
Midwest
West
Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1
2001 2002 2004 2003 2005
I
t
e
m
s

p
e
r

1
0
0
,
0
0
0

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
S
NE
MW
WEST
Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1
I
t
e
m
s

p
e
r

1
0
0
,
0
0
0
2001 2002 2004 2003 2005
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
S
NE
MW
WEST
Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1
I
t
e
m
s

p
e
r

1
0
0
,
0
0
0
2001 2002 2004 2003 2005
Heroin
Cocaine
Methamphetamine
Cannabis/THC
0
1
2
3
4
5
S
NE
MW
WEST
Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1
I
t
e
m
s

p
e
r

1
0
0
,
0
0
0

2001 2002 2004 2003 2005
Oxycodone
Figure13 Trendsinthetopfourdrugsreportedper100,000persons15orolder,January2001–December2005.*
Figure14 Trendsinotherselecteddrugsreportedper100,000persons15orolder,January2001–December2005.*
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
S
NE
MW
WEST
Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1
I
t
e
m
s

p
e
r

1
0
0
,
0
0
0
2001 2002 2004 2003 2005
*Adashedlineimpliesunstableestimatesduetofewlaboratoriesintheregionreportingthisspecificdrug.
*Adashedlineortheabsenceofatrendlineimpliesunstableestimatesduetofewlaboratoriesintheregionreportingthisspecificdrug.
x
v
i
i
s

a
c
c
·

~
x
x
u
~
i

v
v
v
o
v
)
11
Section 2
Maj or drug
categori es
Section presents analytic results
for major drug categories reported
by NFLIS laboratories during 00.
It is important to note differences
between the results presented
in this section and the national
and regional estimates presented
in Section 1. The estimates
presented in Section 1 are based
on data reported by the NFLIS
national sample of laboratories.
Section and subsequent sections
present data reported by all NFLIS
laboratories that reported or
more months of data during 00.
During 00, NFLIS laboratories
analyzed a total of 1,01,
drug items.
2.1 NARCOTIC ANALGESICS
Narcoticanalgesicsarepainrelieversavailablebyprescription.
Accordingtothe2005NationalSurveyonDrugUseand
Health(NSDUH),approximately5%ofpersonsaged12or
older,or11.8million,usedpainrelieversinthepastyearfor
non-medicalreasons.Amongadolescentsaged12to17,an
estimated7%,or1.7million,reportedsuchuseduringthe
pastyear.
1
Atotalof51,432narcoticanalgesicswereidentifiedby
NFLISlaboratoriesin2005,representingnearly4%ofall
itemsanalyzed(Table2.1).Hydrocodone(39%)andoxycodone
(30%)accountedforthemajorityofallnarcoticanalgesics
reported.Thefollowingdrugsmadeupmorethanone-quarter
ofnarcoticanalgesics:methadone(11%),morphine(6%),
codeine(5%),propoxyphene(3%),dihydrocodeine(2%),
andhydromorphone(2%).
1
SubstanceAbuseandMentalHealth
ServicesAdministration,OfficeofApplied
Studies.Results from the 2005 National
Survey on Drug Use and Health: National
Findings(DHHSPublicationNo.SMA
06-4194,NSDUHSeriesH-30).Rockville,
MD,2006.
Fentanyl
w
w
w
.
E
r
o
w
i
d
.
o
r
g
Table21 NARCOTICANALGESICS
Number and percentage of identif ied narcotic
analgesics, 2005.
Analgesics Number Percent
Hydrocodone 19,89 8.8%
Oxycodone 1, 0.0%
Methadone , 10.%
Morphine ,9 .%
Codeine ,8 .8%
Propoxyphene 1,9 .91%
Dihydrocodeine 1,11 .%
Hydromorphone 1,011 1.9%
Tramadol* 90 0.9%
Buprenorphine 0.8%
Fentanyl 8 0.%
Meperidine 0.9%
Pentazocine 0.1%
Oxymorphone 1 0.0%
Nalbuphine* 11 0.0%
Butorphanol 0.01%
Total Narcotic Analgesics 1, 100.00%
Total Items Analyzed 1,01,
* Non-controlled substance.
x
v
i
i
s

a
c
c
·

~
x
x
u
~
i

v
v
v
o
v
)
1
Figure22Distributionofbenzodiazepineswithinregion,2005.
Figure21Distributionofnarcoticanalgesicswithinregion,2005.
During2005,differenceswerefoundinthetypesof
analgesicsreportedbyregion(Figure2.1).Thehighest
percentagesofhydrocodonewerereportedintheSouth(48%)
andWest(37%).Oxycodonerepresented45%ofanalgesics
reportedintheNortheast,comparedto33%intheMidwest,
28%intheWest,and25%intheSouth.TheNortheastalso
reportedthehighestrelativepercentageofmethadone(15%),
whiletheWestreportedthehighestpercentageofmorphine(9%).
2.2 BENZODIAZEPINES
Benzodiazepinesareusedtherapeuticallytoproducesedation,
inducesleep,relieveanxietyandmusclespasms,andprevent
seizures.Benzodiazepineabuseisoftenassociatedwithyoung
adultsandadolescentswhotakebenzodiazepinestoget"high."
2

During2005,alittlemorethan2%ofallanalyzeddrugs,
or33,834items,wereidentifiedasbenzodiazepinesinNFLIS
(Table2.2).Alprazolam(e.g.,Xanax)accountedfor61%
ofreportedbenzodiazepines.Approximately17%of
benzodiazepineswereidentifiedasdiazepam,and16%
wereidentifiedasclonazepam.
MorethanhalfofbenzodiazepinesreportedintheSouth
(68%),Northeast(58%),andMidwest(53%)wereidentified
asalprazolam(Figure2.2).Diazepamaccountedfornearlyone-
thirdofbenzodiazepinesidentifiedintheWestandmorethan
one-fifthofthoseidentifiedintheMidwest.Aquarterormore
ofitemsidentifiedintheWestandNortheastwereidentified
asclonazepam.
2
DrugEnforcementAdministration.Drugs of Abuse. (2005).
Table22 BENZODIAZEPINES
Number and percentage of identif ied
benzodiazepines, 2005.
Benzodiazepines Number Percent
Alprazolam 0, 1.1%
Diazepam ,81 1.19%
Clonazepam ,9 1.%
Lorazepam 1,9 .9%
Temazepam 8 0.%
Chlordiazepoxide 10 0.0%
Triazolam 9 0.1%
Flunitrazepam 0 0.0%
Midazolam 11 0.0%
Total Benzodiazepines ,8 100.00%
Total Items Analyzed 1,01,
x
v
i
i
s

a
c
c
·

~
x
x
u
~
i

v
v
v
o
v
)
1
Figure23Distributionofclubdrugswithinregion,2005.
2.3 CLUB DRUGS
MDMA,ketamine,andGHB/GBLarethemostcommon
clubdrugs.TheabuseofMDMA,alsoknownasEcstasy,has
declinedinrecentyears.However,accordingtothe2005
MonitoringtheFutureSurvey,anestimated5%of12thgrade,
4%of10thgrade,and3%of8thgradestudentsusedMDMA
duringtheirlifetimes.
3
InNFLIS,12,473clubdrugswereidentifiedin2005
(Table2.3).Ofthese,84%wereidentifiedasMDMA.Among
theotherclubdrugsreported,9%wereidentifiedasMDA,
4%asketamine,and3%asGHB/GBL.
AsshowninFigure2.3,MDMAconstitutesthehighest
percentagesforeachregion,representing87%ofclubdrugsin
theWest,87%intheMidwest,86%intheSouth,and65%in
theNortheast.TheNortheastcontinuestoreportthehighest
percentagesofMDA(19%)andketamine(14%).
Ketamine
3
Johnston,L.D.,O'Malley,P.M.,Bachman,J.G.,&Schulenberg,J.E.
(2006).Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975-
2005. Volume I: Secondary school students (NIHPublicationNo.06-5883).
Bethesda,MD:NationalInstituteonDrugAbuse.
w
w
w
.
E
r
o
w
i
d
.
o
r
g
Table23 CLUBDRUGS
Number and percentage of identif ied club drugs,
2005.
ClubDrug Number Percent
MDMA 10, 8.%
MDA 1,1 9.%
Ketamine 81 .8%
GHB/GBL .8%
MDEA 1 0.%
-MeO-DIPT 9 0.0%
BZP 0.0%
AMT 0.0%
PMA 0.0%
TFMPP* 1 0.01%
Total Club Drugs 1, 100.00%
Total Items Analyzed 1,01,
* Non-controlled substance.
GHB/GBL=gamma-hydroxybutyrate or gamma-butyrolactone
MDEA=N-ethyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine
5-MeO-DIPT=5-Methoxy-N,N-diisopropyltryptamine
BZP=1-Benzylpiperazine
AMT=Alpha-Methyltryptamine
PMA=Paramethoxyamphetamine
TFMPP=1-(3-Trifluormethyphenyl) piperazine
x
v
i
i
s

a
c
c
·

~
x
x
u
~
i

v
v
v
o
v
)
1
Figure24Distributionofanabolicsteroidswithinregion,2005.
2.4 ANABOLIC STEROIDS
WhileanabolicsteroidsarelegallyavailableintheUnited
Statesbyprescription,manyusersobtainthesteroidsillegally
throughproductioninclandestinelaboratories,smugglingfrom
othercountries,ordiversionfromU.S.pharmacies.The2005
MonitoringtheFutureStudyshowsasignificantdeclineinpast
yearsteroiduseamong12thgradestudents,from2.5%in2004
to1.5%in2005.However,pastyearsteroiduseremained
relativelythesamefrom2004to2005among8thand10th
gradestudents.
3

During2005,atotalof1,728itemswereidentifiedas
anabolicsteroids(Table2.4).InNFLIS,themostcommonly
identifiedanabolicsteroidwastestosterone(38%),followedby
methandrostenolone(17%),nandrolone(13%),andstenozolol
(12%).Approximately44%ofitemsintheMidwestandSouth,
31%intheWest,and28%intheNortheastwereidentifiedas
testosterone(Figure2.4).Slightlylessthanone-fifthofitems
acrossallcensusregionswereidentifiedasmethandrostenolone.
Steroids
Table24 ANABOLICSTEROIDS
Number and percentage of identif ied anabolic steroids,
2005.
Steroids Number Percent
Testosterone 8.0%
Methandrostenolone 0 1.8%
Nandrolone 0 1.%
Stenozolol 0 11.%
Anabolic steroids, not specified 11 .%
Boldenone 1 .11%
Oxymetholone .%
Oxandrolone .01%
Mesterolone 1 0.98%
Methenolone 9 0.%
Methyltestosterone 9 0.%
Methandriol 0.%
Drostanolone 0.1%
Fluoxymesterone 0.1%
Androstene dione* 0.1%
Total Anabolic Steroids 1,8 100.00%
Total Items Analyzed 1,01,
*Non-controlled substance.
x
v
i
i
s

a
c
c
·

~
x
x
u
~
i

v
v
v
o
v
)
1
4
ElPasoIntelligenceCenter’s(EPIC’s)ClandestineLaboratory
SeizureSystem(CLSS).(2005).
5
SubstanceAbuseandMentalHealthServicesAdministration,
OfficeofAppliedStudies.Drug Abuse Warning Network, 2003:
Interim National Estimates of Drug-Related Emergency Department
Visits. DAWNSeriesD-26,DHHSPublicationNo.(SMA)04-3972.
Rockville,MD,2004.
2.5 STIMULANTS
Methamphetamineisahighlyaddictivestimulant.The
numberofmethamphetaminelaboratoriesseizedbylaw
enforcementagenciesincreasedby25%between2001
and2004.
4
Stimulants,includingmethamphetamineand
amphetamine,wereinvolvedin42,538emergencydepartment
(ED)visits,accountingforabout7%ofalldrug-relatedED
visitsduringthelasttwoquartersof2003.
5

Atotalof230,769stimulantswereidentifiedinNFLIS
during2005,accountingforabout16%ofallitemsreported
(Table2.5).Anestimated97%ofstimulants,or224,605items,
wereidentifiedasmethamphetamine.Anadditional2,888items
wereidentifiedasamphetamine,and1,468asmethylphenidate.
Methamphetamineaccountedformorethan9outof10
stimulantsreportedintheWest,Midwest,andSouth,and
foralmost6outof10stimulantsreportedintheNortheast
(Figure2.5).IntheNortheast,24%ofstimulantswerereported
asamphetamineand12%asmethylphenidate.
Total Number
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
West Midwest Northeast South
Other
Amphetamine
Ephedrine
Methamphetamine
Methylphenidate
122,569 1,154 64,183 42,863 230,769
3
5
6
1
2
1
,
8
5
1
1
1
3
1
8
5
6
4
8
0
9
4
1
,
2
1
2
3
7
7
3
5
0
1
1
5
6
6
4
1
,
4
4
5
1
3
4
7
1
7
6
0
,
8
7
8
2
7
8
8
4
4
6
2
6
3
9
0
Figure25Distributionofstimulantswithinregion,2005.
Table25 STIMULANTS
Number and percentage of identif ied stimulants,
2005.
Stimulants Number Percent
Methamphetamine ,0 9.%
Amphetamine ,888 1.%
Methylphenidate 1,8 0.%
Ephedrine* 0.%
Phentermine 0.19%
Caffeine** 0.19%
N,N-dimethylamphetamine 9 0.0%
Cathinone 9 0.0%
Phendimetrazine 1 0.0%
Benzphetamine 0.0%
Cathine 0.01%
Methcathinone 1 0.01%
Modafinil 1 0.01%
Diethylpropion 11 0.00%
Pemoline 10 0.00%
Phenylpropanolamine* 0.00%
Clobenzorex 0.00%
Propylhexedrine 0.00%
Chlorphentermine 0.00%
Fenproporex 0.00%
Phenmetrazine 0.00%
Fenfluramine 0.00%
Sibutramine 0.00%
Aminorex 1 0.00%
Mazindol 1 0.00%
Mefenorex 1 0.00%
Total Stimulants 0,9 100.00%
Total Items Analyzed 1,01,
*Listed chemical.
**Substance is an ingredient of many controlled pharmaceutical
products and is often used as a cutting agent for illicit drugs.
Takingmultipledrugssimultaneouslyormixingsubstances
canbedeadly.Thetypicaldrugmisusedeathreportedaspart
ofthe2003DrugAbuseWarningNetwork(DAWN)involved
twoormoredrugs.Cocainewithopiates/opioidswasthemost
commonillicitdrugcombinationinvolvingdeath.
6
During2005,19,560itemsidentifiedinNFLIS,about
1%ofallreporteditems,containedtwoormoresubstances
(Figure3.1).Thefivemostcommoncombinationsin2005—
cannabis/THCandcocaine(8%),methamphetamineand
MDMA(7%),cocaineandheroin(7%),methamphetamineand
dimethylsulfone(6%),andmethamphetamineandephedrine/
pseudoephedrine(4%)—accountedfornearlyone-thirdofall
combinationsreported.
Figure31Distributionofdrugcombinations,2005.
Section 3
In addition to tracking the types
of substances identified by state
and local forensic laboratories,
another important function
of NFLIS is the system’s ability
to capture information on
drug combinations or multiple
substances reported within a
single drug item. Combinations
reported in NFLIS are both mixtures
of substances and separately
packaged substances within
the same item or exhibit.
Drug combinations reported in STRIDE, 2005
Atotalof17,045drugcombinations,or33%ofalldrugs,werereportedinSTRIDEduring2005.
STRIDEcollectsresultsofdrugevidenceanalyzedatDEAlaboratoriesacrossthecounty.Themost
commoncombinationidentifiedwasmethamphetamineanddimethysulfone,whichaccountedfor6%ofall
combinationsreported.Manyoftheothermostfrequentlyreportedcombinationsincludedexcipientsused
todiluteoradulterateeithercocaineorheroin,includingcocaineandprocaine(2%),cocaineandsodium
bicarbonate(2%),heroinandcaffeine(2%),andcocaineandcaffeine(2%).MDMAwasreportedin
combinationwithmethamphetamineinapproximately2%ofallcombinations.
6
SubstanceAbuseandMentalHealthServicesAdministration,Office
ofAppliedStudies.Drug Abuse Warning Network, 2003: Area Prof iles
of Drug-Related Mortality. DAWNSeriesD-27,DHHSPublication
No.(SMA)05-4023.Rockville,MD,2005.
Drug
Combinations
1
x
v
i
i
s

a
c
c
·

~
x
x
u
~
i

v
v
v
o
v
)
x
v
i
i
s

a
c
c
·

~
x
x
u
~
i

v
v
v
o
v
)
1
3.1 COCAINE COMBINATIONS
Cocaine,includingpowderandcrackcocaine,waspresentin
24%ofalldrugcombinationsreportedduring2005(Table3.1).
Themostcommoncocainecombinationcontainedcannabis/
THC(8%).Cocaine/heroin,whichisoftenreferredtoasa
“speedball,”representednearly7%ofcocainecombinations,and
cocaine/methamphetaminerepresentedabout3%.Manyof
theothercocaine-relatedcombinationsincludedexcipients
usedtodilutecocaine.Theseincludednon-controlledsubstances
suchasprocaine(alocalanesthetic),inositol,caffeine,boricacid,
benzocaine,andlactose.

3.2 HEROIN COMBINATIONS
Heroinwaspresentin15%ofalldrugcombinations,or
2,899items,reportedin2005(Table3.2).Almostone-half
oftheheroincombinationswerereportedasheroin/cocaine.
Amongtheothersubstancescombinedwithheroin,manywere
excipientsdesignedtodiluteoradulterateheroin,including
procaine,caffeine,mannitol,lidocaine,inositol,andlactose.

3.3 METHAMPHETAMINE COMBINATIONS
Methamphetaminewaspresentinatotalof6,012
items,orinabout31%ofalldrugcombinations(Table3.3).
Methamphetamine/MDMA(1,446items),methamphetamine/
dimethylsulfone(1,131items),methamphetamine/ephedrine
orpseudoephedrine(752items),methamphetamine/cocaine
(577items),andmethamphetamine/cannabis(548items)
werethemostcommonlyreportedcombinations.MDMA
wasreportedin7%ofmethamphetaminecombinations,up
from5%in2004.
Table31 COCAINECOMBINATIONS
Items identif ied as cocaine combinations, 2005.
SubstanceOne SubstanceTwo Number Percent
Cocaine Cannabis/THC 1,8 .%
Cocaine Heroin 1,1 .%
Cocaine Methamphetamine .9%
Cocaine Procaine 9 .0%
Cocaine Inositol 1 1.8%
Cocaine Caffeine 90 0.%
Cocaine Boric Acid 8 0.%
Cocaine Oxycodone 9 0.0%
Cocaine Benzocaine 0.%
Cocaine Lactose 0.%
Other cocaine combinations 1.%
Total Cocaine Combinations ,8 .9%
All Combinations 19,0 100.00%
Table32 HEROINCOMBINATIONS
Items identif ied as heroin combinations, 2005.
SubstanceOne SubstanceTwo Number Percent
Heroin Cocaine 1,1 .%
Heroin Procaine 19 .%
Heroin Cannabis/THC 1 0.90%
Heroin Caffeine 1 0.%
Heroin Mannitol 1 0.%
Heroin Lidocaine 8 0.%
Heroin Methamphetamine 0.8%
Heroin Diphenhydramine 0.8%
Heroin Inositol 9 0.1%
Heroin Lactose 0.1%
Other heroin combinations 8 1.8%
Total Heroin Combinations ,899 1.8%
All Combinations 19,0 100.00%
Table33 METHAMPHETAMINECOMBINATIONS
Items identif ied as methamphetamine combinations,
2005.
SubstanceOne SubstanceTwo Number Percent
Methamphetamine MDMA 1, .9%
Methamphetamine Dimethylsulfone 1,11 .8%
Methamphetamine Ephedrine/Pseudoephedrine .8%
Methamphetamine Cocaine .9%
Methamphetamine Cannabis/THC 8 .80%
Methamphetamine Amphetamine 8 .9%
Methamphetamine MDA 11 0.%
Methamphetamine Heroin 0.8%
Methamphetamine Chlorpheniramine 0.%
Methamphetamine Caffeine 8 0.%
Other methamphetamine combinations .81%
Total Methamphetamine Combinations ,01 0.%
All Combinations 19,0 100.00%
Cannabis/THC
Cocaine
Methamphetamine
Heroin
Phencyclidine (PCP)
Alprazolam
Benzodiazepine
Oxycodone
Dimethylsulfone
Ephedrine/pseudoephedrine
MDMA
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 00 by
NFLIS laboratories in selected large cities.
Section 4
DRUGS I DENTI FI ED BY LOCATION
Thetypesofdrugsreportedvaryacrossregionsofthe
country.Thefollowingresultshighlightgeographicdifferences
inthetypesofdrugsabusedandtrafficked,suchasthehigher
levelsofreportingmethamphetamineontheWestCoastand
cocaineontheEastCoast.Thisanalysispresents2005datafor
thefourmostcommondrugsreportedbyNFLISlaboratories
inselectedlocations.Drugsreported2%orlessarenot
presentedeveniftheywereoneofthetopfourdrugsfor
aselectedlocation.
EastCoastcitiessuchasthefollowingreportedthehighest
relativepercentagesofcocaine:Miami(61%),Newark(54%),
Atlanta(52%),NewYorkCity(51%),Baltimore(44%),
Philadelphia(44%),andTampa(42%).Denver(49%)and
Cincinnati(45%)alsoreportedahighpercentageofdrugs
identifiedascocaine.Nationally,33%ofalldrugswereidentified
ascocaine.Thehighestpercentagesofmethamphetaminewere
reportedincitieslocatedintheMidwestandWest,suchas
18
x
v
i
i
s

a
c
c
·

~
x
x
u
~
i

v
v
v
o
v
)
x
v
i
i
s

a
c
c
·

~
x
x
u
~
i

v
v
v
o
v
)
19
Cannabis/THC
Cocaine
Methamphetamine
Heroin
Phencyclidine (PCP)
Alprazolam
Benzodiazepine
Oxycodone
Dimethylsulfone
Ephedrine/pseudoephedrine
MDMA
DRUGS I DENTI FI ED BY LOCATION
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)
Cincinnati (Hamilton County Coroner’s
Office)
Dallas (Texas Department of Public
Safety—Garland Laboratory)
Denver (Denver Police Department
Crime Laboratory)
Detroit (Detroit Police Department)
Houston (Harris County Medical
Examiner’s Office)
Las Vegas (Las Vegas Police
Department)
Los Angeles (Los Angeles Police
Department and Los Angeles County
Sheriff’s Department)
Miami (Miami-Dade Police Department
Crime Laboratory)
Minneapolis (Minnesota Bureau
of Criminal Apprehension—
Minneapolis Laboratory)
Newark (Newark Police Department)
New York City (New York City Police
Department Crime Laboratory)
Philadelphia (Philadelphia Police
Department Forensic Science
Laboratory)
Phoenix (Phoenix Police Department)
Pittsburgh (Allegheny County Coroner’s
Office)
Portland (Oregon State Police Forensic
Services Division—Portland Laboratory)
Sacramento (Sacramento County
District Attorney’s Office)
Seattle (Washington State Patrol Crime
Laboratory—Seattle Laboratory)
St. Louis (St. Louis Police Department
Crime Laboratory)
San Diego (San Diego Police
Department Crime Laboratory)
Santa Fe (New Mexico Department of
Public Safety)
Tampa (Florida Department of Law
Enforcement—Tampa)
Minneapolis(47%),Sacramento(40%),Portland(34%),
Phoenix(33%),LosAngeles(32%),Dallas(32%),and
SantaFe(31%).Nationally,13%ofdrugswereidentifiedas
methamphetamine.Highpercentagesofheroinwerereported
inNortheasterncities,suchasNewark(32%),Baltimore(29%),
Pittsburgh(23%),Boston(13%),NewYorkCity(11%),and
Philadelphia(9%),althoughChicago(17%),Detroit(10%),and
St.Louis(10%)alsoreportedheroinataratehigherthanthe
nationalaverageof5%.Cannabis/THCreportingdidnotshow
thesametypeofpatternswithrespecttoregions,withChicago
(48%),Boston(44%),Cincinnati(38%),SanDiego(36%),
St.Louis(35%),andDetroit(34%)reportingcannabis/THC
atahigherratethanthenationalaverageof33%.
Section 5
Thissectionpresents2005dataatthestateandcountylevelsfor
thepercentageofanalyzeddrugitemsidentifiedasoneofthetopfour
drugs.TheGISanalysisisbasedoninformationprovidedtothe
forensiclaboratoriesbythesubmittinglawenforcementagencies.
TheinformationsubmittedbylawenforcementincludestheZIP
Codeorcountyoforiginassociatedwiththedrugseizureincidentor
thenameofthesubmittinglawenforcementagency.WhentheZIP
Codeorcountyoforiginisnotavailable,thedrugseizureorincident
isassignedtothesamecountyasthesubmittinglawenforcement
agency.Ifthesubmittingagencyisunknown,theseizureorincidentis
assignedtothecountyinwhichthelaboratorycompletingtheanalyses
islocated.
Itisimportanttonotethatthesedatamaynotincludeall
drugitemsseizedatthestateandcountylevels.Instead,thesedata
representonlythoseitemsthatweresubmittedandanalyzedby
forensiclaboratories.Inaddition,somelaboratorieswithinseveral
statesarenotcurrentlyreportingdatatoNFLIS.However,thesedata
canserveasanimportantsourceforidentifyingabuseandtrafficking
trendsandpatternsacrossandwithinstates.
GIS ANALYSIS:
TOP FOUR DRUGS, BY PLACE Of origin
One of the new features of NFLIS is
the ability to analyze and monitor
variations in drugs reported by
laboratories by the county of origin.
This is part of the larger initiative to
use geographic information system
(GIS) analyses in providing more
detailed geographical information
on drug seizure location.
Figure51 Percentageofanalyzeddrugitemsidentifiedascannabis/
THC,bystate,2005.
35.0–56.0
25.0–34.9
17.0–24.9
10.0–16.9
0.0–9.9
No Data
Percent/State
0
x
v
i
i
s

a
c
c
·

~
x
x
u
~
i

v
v
v
o
v
)
x
v
i
i
s

a
c
c
·

~
x
x
u
~
i

v
v
v
o
v
)
1
GIS ANALYSIS:
TOP FOUR DRUGS, BY PLACE Of origin
Figure53 Percentageofanalyzeddrugitemsidentifiedas
cocaine,bystate,2005.
30.0–58.0
25.0–29.9
17.0–24.9
6.0–16.9
0.0–5.9
No Data
Percent/State
Figure52 Percentageofanalyzeddrugitemsidentifiedas
methamphetamine,bystate,2005.
25.0–62.0
17.0–24.9
6.0–16.9
2.0–5.9
0.0–1.9
No Data
Percent/State
Figure54 Percentageofanalyzeddrugitemsidentifiedas
heroin,bystate,2005.
10.0–16.2
4.0–9.9
2.0–3.9
1.0–1.9
0.0–0.9
No Data
Percent/State
x
v
i
i
s

a
c
c
·

~
x
x
u
~
i

v
v
v
o
v
)

Cleveland
Toledo
Cincinnati
Dayton
71
675
75
70
470
77
80
475 280
Akron
90
271
490
480
680 76
Columbus
50.0–78.5
35.0–49.9
25.0–34.9
0.1–24.9
0.0
No Data*
Percent/County
Figure55Percentageofanalyzeddrugitemsidentified
ascannabisinOhio,bycounty,2005.
Winston-Salem
Greensboro
Durham
Raleigh
Fayetteville
Charlotte
40
73
77
240
26
85
95
55.0–100.0
35.0–54.9
20.0–34.9
0.1–19.9
0.0
No Data
Percent/County
Figure57PercentageofanalyzeddrugitemsidentifiedascocaineinNorthCarolina,
bycounty,2005.
Figure58Percentageofanalyzeddrug
itemsidentifiedasheroininNewJersey,
bycounty,2005.
Medford
Portland
Eugene
Salem
84
205
105
5
70.0–100.0
50.0–69.9
30.0–49.9
0.1–29.9
0.0
No Data*
Percent/County
Figure56Percentageofanalyzeddrugitemsidentifiedas
methamphetamineinOregon,bycounty,2005.
15.0–25.0
10.0–14.9
7.0–9.9
0.1–6.9
0.0
No Data
Percent/County
295
76
676
Trenton
95
195
78
80
Elizabeth
47
Newark
280
Paterson
287
Atlantic City
*Based on information submitted by law enforcement agencies,
no analyzed drug items came from these counties.
*Based on information submitted by law enforcement agencies,
no analyzed drug items came from these counties.
x
v
i
i
s

a
c
c
·

~
x
x
u
~
i

v
v
v
o
v
)

Section 6
DRUG PURITY
One of the unique functions of
NFLIS is the system’s ability to
monitor and analyze drug purity
data. NFLIS drug purity data reflect
results verified by chemical analysis
and therefore have a high degree
of validity. In addition, the NFLIS
purity data are timely, allowing for
recent fluctuations in purity to be
monitored and assessed.
Somestateandlocalforensiclaboratoriesperform
quantitative(orpurity)analyses,butthemajoritydosoonly
underspecialcircumstances,suchasaspecialrequestfrom
lawenforcementorfromtheprosecutor.Asmallernumber
oflaboratoriesperformquantitativeanalysisonamoreroutine
basisduetostatelawsthatrequiretheamountofpureheroin
orcocaineinanitemtobedetermined.During2005,atotal
of12stateorlocallaboratoriesorlaboratorysystemsreported
puritydatatoNFLIS.
Itisimportanttoconsiderthelaboratorypoliciesfor
conductingquantitativeanalysiswhencomparingpurity
dataacrosslaboratories,asthesefactorscanimpacttheresults
presented.Forexample,theIllinoisStatePoliceandtheTexas
DepartmentofPublicSafetytypicallylimitquantitative
analysistolargerseizures(e.g.,powdersover200gramsor1
kilogram).Otherlaboratories,suchastheBaltimoreCityPolice
DepartmentCrimeLaboratory,performquantitativeanalyses
onamoreroutinebasis,includingsmallercocaine
andheroinseizures.
6.1 HEROIN PURITY
Thissectiondescribesheroinpurityanalysesreportedby
theBaltimoreCityPoliceDepartmentandtheMassachusetts
StatePoliceCrimeLaboratory.TheBaltimoreCityPolice
Departmentlaboratoryperformsquantitativeanalysison
allwhitepowdersgreaterthan1/4ounceorifmorethan30
dosageunitsarepresentinacase,especiallyforheroinseizures.
TheMassachusettsStatePoliceCrimeLaboratoryexpresses
purityintermsoffreebaseandhasapolicyofroutinely
performingquantitativeanalysesforheroinandcocaine
submissions.Theaveragepurityofheroin,asreportedby
bothoftheselaboratoriesaswellasbyDEAlaboratoriesin
STRIDE,hasdeclinedsince2001.AccordingtoSTRIDE,the
averagepurityofheroinexhibitswas45%in2005,compared
to40%in2004,42%in2003,49%in2002,and48%in2001.
Heroin
w
w
w
.
E
r
o
w
i
d
.
o
r
g
x
v
i
i
s

a
c
c
·

~
x
x
u
~
i

v
v
v
o
v
)

Crack Cocaine
TheBaltimoreCityPoliceDepartmentreportedheroin
purityresultsfor236drugitemsin2005(Figure6.1).The
averagepurityofheroinwas35%,downslightlyfrom38%in
2004andconsiderablylowerthantheaveragepurityof45%in
2003and49%in2002.Overall,morethan40%ofheroinitems
reportedbytheBaltimoreCityPoliceDepartmentwereless
than25%pure.
TheMassachusettsStatePolicereportedheroinpurityresults
for685itemsin2005(Figure6.2).Theaveragepurityofheroin
was31%,thesameaveragepurityasreportedin2004butlower
thantheaverageof40%in2003and47%in2002.Overone-
thirdofheroinitemsreportedbytheMassachusettslabwereless
than25%pure.
6.2 COCAINE PURITY
CocainepurityispresentedforfourNFLISlaboratories:
theTexasDepartmentofPublicSafety(DPS),theArkansas
StateCrimeLaboratory,theBaltimoreCityPoliceDepartment
CrimeLaboratory,andtheMassachusettsStatePoliceCrime
Laboratory.Incontrasttothedeclineinheroinpurity,NFLIS
laboratoriesreportedcocainepurityaveragesin2005atlevels
eitherequaltoorincreasedfrom2001to2004levels.Cocaine
purityreportedbyfederallaboratoriesinSTRIDEincreased
duringthisperiod,fromanaverageof58%in2001to73%
in2005.
TheTexasDPSlaboratorysystem,whichtypicallyconducts
quantitativeanalysesforpowdersof200gramsormore,reported
puritydatafor231cocaineitemsduring2005(Figure6.3).The
averagecocainepurityfor2005was71%,upfrom66%in2004,
63%in2003,60%in2002,and56%in2001.
Figure63 Cocainepurity,2005:TexasDepartmentofPublic
SafetyCrimeLaboratory.
Figure62Heroinpurity,2005:MassachusettsStatePolice
CrimeLaboratory.
Figure61Heroinpurity,2005:BaltimoreCityPoliceDepartment
CrimeLaboratory.
©
2
0
0
4

L
G
C
x
v
i
i
s

a
c
c
·

~
x
x
u
~
i

v
v
v
o
v
)

TheMassachusettsStatePolicereportedcocainepurityfor
1,694itemsin2005(Figure6.6).Theaveragecocainepurity
reportedbyMassachusettshasincreasedsteadily,withaverage
purityof60%in2005,55%in2004,53%in2003,and48%in
2002.
TheArkansasStateCrimeLaboratoryreportedcocaine
purityfor119itemsin2005(Figure6.4).TheArkansasState
CrimeLaboratorytypicallyconductsquantitativeanalysisif
thedrugexhibitcontainsanamountforwhichpossessionwith
intenttodeliverischarged.Theaveragecocainepurityreported
inArkansaswas69%in2005,thesameaveragepurityreported
in2004and2003.
TheBaltimoreCityPoliceDepartmentCrimeLaboratory
reportedcocainepurityfor65itemsin2005(Figure6.5).
Theaveragecocainepurityreportedduring2005was71%,
comparedto79%in2004,75%in2003,67%in2002,and
61%in2001.
Figure64 Cocainepurity,2005:ArkansasStateCrime
Laboratory.
Figure66 Cocainepurity,2005:MassachusettsStatePolice
CrimeLaboratory.
Figure65 Cocainepurity,2005:BaltimoreCityPolice
DepartmentCrimeLaboratory.
Powder Cocaine
w
w
w
.
E
r
o
w
i
d
.
o
r
g

x
v
i
i
s

a
c
c
·

~
x
x
u
~
i

v
v
v
o
v
)
DEA Update
Illicit Manufacture of Fentanyl
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is
concerned about the apparent increase in the illicit manufacture
and distribution of fentanyl. Within the last two and a half
years, at least three fentanyl clandestine laboratories, a
kilogram of high-purity fentanyl hydrochloride, a variety
of fentanyl-containing tablets (both Ecstasy mimics and
OxyContin® mimics), and various mixtures of fentanyl
powders, heroin, and cocaine have been seized throughout the
United States. Several hundred overdoses and overdose deaths
in the Chicago, Detroit, and Philadelphia metropolitan areas
have been attributed to fentanyl since September 2005. The
initial review of this fentanyl activity has indicated the
presence and distribution of illicitly manufactured fentanyl.
The DEA’s Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section (ODE)
is considering controlling fentanyl’s precursor chemicals. ODE
is interested in obtaining information on all seizures of illicitly
manufactured fentanyl within the past 4 years, as well as all
seizures through the end of 2007, to document the extent
of the problem. It is seeking information concerning the
synthetic route used by clandestine laboratories to manufacture
fentanyl. Furthermore, to evaluate the impact on public health,
ODE is requesting data on the number of overdoses and
overdose deaths attributed to illicitly manufactured fentanyl
only (i.e., not to legitimately manufactured fentanyl patches
or to pharmaceutical-grade fentanyl citrate, both of which
are occasionally abused).
In 1965, Janssen Pharmaceutica patented the original
synthesis route for fentanyl, which uses N-benzyl-4-piperidone
as its starting material. The challenging Janssen synthesis route
is beyond the skill level of most chemists manufacturing drugs
illicitly; however, it has been used illicitly by chemists with
advanced technical training. In the early 1980s, an alternative
fentanyl synthesis route was published in the scientific
literature. This route, which uses N-phenethyl-4-piperidone
(NPP) as its starting material, has been used in a number
of clandestine laboratories.
Illicit fentanyl’s synthesis route can be determined by
identifying marker contaminants in the seized material.
The presence of benzylfentanyl (also known as N-1-benzyl-
4-piperidyl-N-phenylpropanamide) suggests that the Janssen
synthesis route was used to manufacture the illicit fentanyl.
From a gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer (GC/MS)
analysis of the drug exhibits, the benzylfentanyl contaminant
can be tentatively identified by matching the four primary
mass fragments (82, 91, 146, 173) in benzylfentanyl’s mass
spectrum (see the May 2006 Microgram Bulletin for a printed
mass spectrum).
7
If present, the benzylfentanyl contaminant
peak has a relative retention time of about 0.963 to that of
fentanyl, depending on the type of capillary column used
and the GC temperature program used.
In contrast, the presence of the immediate precursor
4-anilino-N-phenethylpiperidine (ANPP) suggests that
the NPP synthesis route was used. Likewise, the ANPP
contaminant can be tentatively identified by matching the
three primary mass fragments (146, 189, 280) in ANPP’s
mass spectrum (see the May 2006 Microgram Bulletin for a
printed mass spectrum).
7
If present, the ANPP contaminant
peak has a relative retention time of about 0.891 to that of
fentanyl. The NPP synthesis route was independently tested
by F. Taylor Noggle et al., and the results were published
in Microgram.
8

Unfortunately, the information on fentanyl seizures in
databases such as DEA’s System To Retrieve Information from
Drug Evidence (STRIDE), the El Paso Intelligence Center’s
Clandestine Laboratory Seizure System (CLSS), and DEA’s
National Forensic Laboratory Information System (NFLIS)
does not include sufficient detail to identify the synthesis
route. Therefore, ODE is soliciting information from all
federal, state, and local agencies and offices (e.g., law
enforcement, forensic and crime laboratories, toxicology
laboratories, coroner’s offices, and medical examiners) to
document the presence or absence of the contaminants
benzylfentanyl and ANPP in fentanyl seizures within the
past 4 years, as well as all seizures through the end of 2007.
ODE is requesting the documentation of all occurrences of
illicitly manufactured fentanyl (again, not from pharmaceutical
sources), the synthesis route used (e.g., as determined from
the presence of marker compounds), and the number of
known overdoses and overdose deaths cause by illicitly
manufactured fentanyl. Please contact Michael Wilson,
Drug Science Specialist, at 202-307-7183 with any related
information.
Contact Us
Michael Wilson
Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section
Office of Diversion Control
Drug Enforcement Administration, Washington, DC 20537
Phone: 202-307-7183
Fax: 202-353-1263
E-mail: michael.h.wilson@usdoj.gov
7
Microgram Bulletin.May2006,[http://www.usdoj.gov/dea.gov/
programs/forensicsci/microgram/mg0506/mg0506.html].
8
Noggle,F.Tayloretal.(1993).Microgram.(26)12:285.Washington,
DC:U.S.DrugEnforcementAdministration(DEA).
x
v
i
i
s

a
c
c
·

~
x
x
u
~
i

v
v
v
o
v
)

participating and reporting
FORENSIC laboratories
Appendix A
Lab
State Type Lab Name Reporting
AK State Alaska Department of Public Safety ✓
AL State AlabamaDepartmentofForensicSciences(9sites) ✓
AR State ArkansasStateCrimeLaboratory ✓
AZ Local Mesa Police Department ✓
Local Phoenix Police Department ✓
Local Scottsdale Police Department
CA State CaliforniaDepartmentofJustice(10sites) ✓
Local Contra Costa County Sheriff ’s Office ✓
Local Fresno County Sheriff ’s Forensic Laboratory ✓
Local Kern County District Attorney’s Office (Bakersfield) ✓
Local LongBeachPoliceDepartment ✓
Local LosAngelesPoliceDepartment(2sites) ✓
Local LosAngelesCountySheriff ’sDepartment(4sites) ✓
Local Orange County Sheriff ’s Department ✓
Local SacramentoCountyDistrictAttorney’sOffice ✓
Local SanBernardinoSheriff ’sOffice(2sites) ✓
Local San Diego County Sheriff ’s Department ✓
Local SanDiegoPoliceDepartment ✓
Local SanFranciscoPoliceDepartment ✓
Local San Mateo County Sheriff ’s Office (San Mateo) ✓
Local Santa Clara District Attorney’s Office (San Jose) ✓
Local Ventura County Sheriff ’s Department ✓
CO Local Aurora Police Department ✓
Local Colorado Springs Police Department ✓
Local DenverPoliceDepartment ✓
Local Grand Junction Police Department ✓
Local Jefferson County Sheriff ’s Office (Golden) ✓
CT State ConnecticutDepartmentofPublicSafety ✓
DE State Chief Medical Examiner’s Office ✓
FL State FloridaDepartmentofLawEnforcement(8sites) ✓
Local BrowardCountySheriff ’sOffice(Ft.Lauderdale) ✓
Local Miami-DadePoliceDepartment ✓
Local Indian River Crime Laboratory ✓
Local Pinellas County Forensic Laboratory (Largo) ✓
Local Sarasota County Sheriff ’s Office ✓
GA State GeorgiaStateBureauofInvestigation(7sites) ✓
HI Local Honolulu Police Department ✓
IA State IowaDivisionofCriminalInvestigation ✓
ID State Idaho State Police ( sites) ✓
IL State IllinoisStatePolice(8sites) ✓
Local DuPage County Sheriff ’s Office (Wheaton) ✓
Local NorthernIllinoisPoliceCrimeLaboratory(Chicago) ✓
IN State IndianaStatePoliceLaboratory(4sites) ✓
Local Indianapolis-Marion County Forensic Laboratory ✓
KS State Kansas Bureau of Investigation ( sites) ✓
Local Johnson County Sheriff ’s Office (Mission) ✓
Local Sedgwick County Regional Forensic Science Center (Wichita) ✓
KY State KentuckyStatePolice(6sites) ✓
LA State LouisianaStatePolice ✓
Local AcadianaCriminalisticsLaboratory(NewIberia) ✓
Local Jefferson Parish Sheriff ’s Office (Metairie) ✓
Local NewOrleansPoliceDepartmentCrimeLaboratory ✓
Local North Louisiana Criminalistics Laboratory System ( sites) ✓
Local Southwest Louisiana Regional Laboratory (Lake Charles) ✓
MA State MassachusettsDepartmentofPublicHealth(2sites) ✓
State MassachusettsStatePolice ✓
Local University of Massachusetts Medical Center (Worcester) ✓
MD Local AnneArundelCountyPoliceDepartment(Millersville) ✓
Local BaltimoreCityPoliceDepartment ✓
Local Baltimore County Police Department (Towson) ✓
Local Montgomery County Crime Laboratory (Rockville) ✓
ME State Maine Department of Human Services ✓
MI State MichiganStatePolice(7sites) ✓
Local DetroitPoliceDepartment ✓
MN State Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension ( sites) ✓
Local St. Paul Police Department ✓
MO State MissouriStateHighwayPatrol(6sites) ✓
Local Independence Police Department ✓
Local KCMO Regional Crime Laboratory (Kansas City) ✓
Local MSSU Regional Crime Laboratory (Joplin) ✓
Local St. Charles County Criminalistics Laboratory ✓
Local St. Louis County Crime Laboratory (Clayton) ✓
Local St.LouisPoliceDepartment ✓
Local SouthEastMissouriRegionalCrimeLaboratory(CapeGirardeau) ✓
Lab
State Type Lab Name Reporting
MS State MississippiDepartmentofPublicSafety(4sites) ✓
Local Jackson Police Department Crime Laboratory ✓
Local Tupelo Police Department ✓
MT State Montana Forensic Science Division ✓
NC State NorthCarolinaStateBureauofInvestigation(2sites) ✓
Local Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department ✓
NE State NebraskaStatePatrolCriminalisticsLaboratory(2sites) ✓
NJ State NewJerseyStatePolice(4sites) ✓
Local Burlington County Forensic Laboratory (Mt. Holly) ✓
Local Cape May County Prosecutor’s Office ✓
Local Hudson County Prosecutor’s Office (Jersey City) ✓
Local Newark Police Department ✓
Local Ocean County Sheriff ’s Department (Toms River) ✓
Local UnionCountyProsecutor’sOffice(Westfield) ✓
NM State NewMexicoDepartmentofPublicSafety ✓
NV Local LasVegasPoliceDepartment ✓
NY State NewYorkStatePolice(4sites) ✓
Local Erie County Central Police Services Laboratory (Buffalo) ✓
Local Monroe County Department of Public Safety (Rochester) ✓
Local NassauCountyPoliceDepartment(Mineola) ✓
Local NewYorkCityPoliceDepartmentCrimeLaboratory* ✓
Local Niagara County Police Department (Lockport) ✓
Local OnondagaCountyCenterforForensicSciences(Syracuse) ✓
Local Suffolk County Crime Laboratory (Hauppauge) ✓
Local Westchester County Forensic Sciences Laboratory (Valhalla) ✓
Local Yonkers Police Department Forensic Science Laboratory ✓
OH State OhioBureauofCriminalIdentification&Investigation(3sites) ✓
State OhioStateHighwayPatrol ✓
Local Canton-Stark County Crime Laboratory ✓
Local Columbus Police Department
Local HamiltonCountyCoroner’sOffice(Cincinnati) ✓
Local LakeCountyRegionalForensicLaboratory(Painesville) ✓
Local Mansfield Police Department ✓
Local Miami Valley Regional Crime Laboratory (Dayton) ✓
Local Newark Police Department Forensic Services ✓
Local Toledo Police Forensic Laboratory ✓
OK State OklahomaStateBureauofInvestigation(5sites) ✓
OR State OregonStatePoliceForensicServicesDivision(8sites) ✓
PA State Pennsylvania State Police Crime Laboratory ( sites)
Local AlleghenyCountyCoroner’sOffice(Pittsburgh) ✓
Local PhiladelphiaPoliceDepartment ✓
SC State SouthCarolinaLawEnforcementDivision ✓
Local Charleston Police Department ✓
Local Spartanburg Police Department ✓
SD Local Rapid City Police Department ✓
TN State TennesseeBureauofInvestigation(3sites) ✓
TX State TexasDepartmentofPublicSafety(13sites) ✓
Local AustinPoliceDepartment ✓
Local BexarCountyCriminalInvestigationsLaboratory(SanAntonio)
Local Brazoria County Crime Laboratory (Angleton) ✓
Local Harris County Medical Examiner’s Office (Houston) ✓
Local Jefferson County Sheriff 's Regional Crime Laboratory (Beaumont)
Local Pasadena Police Department ✓
Local Fort Worth Police Department Criminalistics Laboratory ✓
UT State Utah State Crime Laboratory ( sites) ✓
VA State VirginiaDivisionForensicScience(4sites) ✓
WA State WashingtonStatePatrol(6sites) ✓
WI State Wisconsin Department of Justice ( sites) ✓
WV State WestVirginiaStatePolice ✓
WY State Wyoming State Crime Laboratory ✓
PR Territory Puerto Rico Crime Laboratory ✓
This list identifies participating and reporting laboratories as of September 9, 00.
Laboratories in bold are part of our national sample.
*The New York City Police Department Crime Laboratory currently reports summary data.
x
v
i
i
s

a
c
c
·

~
x
x
u
~
i

v
v
v
o
v
)
8
BENEFITS
Thesystematiccollectionandanalysisofdruganalysis
datacanimproveourunderstandingofthenation’sillegal
drugproblem.NFLISservesasacriticalresourceforsupporting
drugschedulingpolicyanddrugenforcementinitiativesboth
nationallyandinspecificcommunitiesaroundthecountry.
Specifically,NFLIShelpsthedrugcontrolcommunity
achieveitsmissionby
■ providingdetailedinformationontheprevalence
andtypesofcontrolledsubstancessecuredinlaw
enforcementoperations
■ identifyingvariationsincontrolledandnon-controlled
substancesatthenational,state,andlocallevels
■ identifyingemergingdrugproblemsandchangesindrug
availabilityinatimelyfashion
■ monitoringthediversionoflegitimatelymarketeddrugsinto
illicitchannels
■ providinginformationonthecharacteristicsofdrugs,
includingquantity,purity,anddrugcombinations
■ supplementinginformationfromotherdrugsources,
includingtheDEA’sSTRIDE,theDrugAbuseWarning
Network(DAWN),theNationalSurveyonDrugUse
andHealth(NSDUH),andtheMonitoringtheFuture
(MTF)Survey.
NFLISisanopportunityforstateandlocallaboratoriesto
participateinausefulandhigh-visibilityinitiative.Participating
laboratoriesregularlyreceivereportsthatsummarizenational
andregionaldata.Inaddition,theInteractiveDataSite(IDS)
isasecureWebsitethatallowsNFLISparticipants—including
stateandlocallaboratories,theDEA,otherfederaldrugcontrol
agencies,andresearchers—toruncustomizedqueriesonthe
NFLISdata.EnhancementstotheIDSwillalsoprovideanew
interagencyexchangeforumthatwillallowtheDEA,forensic
laboratories,andothermembersofthedrugcontrolcommunity
topostandrespondtocurrentinformation.
LIMITATIONS
NFLIShaslimitationsthatmustbeconsideredwhen
interpretingfindingsgeneratedfromthedatabase.
■ Currently,NFLISincludesdatafromstateandlocalforensic
laboratories,aswellasdatafromDEA’sSTRIDE.STRIDE
includesdatafromDEA’slaboratoriesacrossthecountry.
TheSTRIDEdataareshownseparatelyinthisreport.
Effortsareunderwaytoenrolladditionalfederal
laboratoriesduring2006and2007.
■ NFLISincludesdrugchemistryresultsfromcompleted
analysesonly.Drugevidencesecuredbylawenforcement
butnotanalyzedbylaboratoriesisnotincludedin
thedatabase.
■ Nationalandregionalestimatesmaybesubjectto
variationassociatedwithsampleestimates,including
nonresponsebias.
■ ForresultspresentedinSections2through6,theabsolute
andrelativefrequencyofanalyzedresultsforindividual
drugscaninpartbeafunctionoflaboratories’participating
inNFLIS.
■ Stateandlocalpoliciesrelatedtotheenforcementand
prosecutionofspecificdrugscanaffectthetypesofdrugs
submittedtolaboratoriesforanalysis.
■ Laboratorypoliciesandproceduresforhandlingdrug
evidencevary.Somelaboratoriesanalyzeallevidence
submittedtothem,whileothersanalyzeonlyselecteditems.
Manylaboratoriesdonotanalyzedrugevidenceifthe
criminalcasewasdismissedfromcourtorifnodefendant
couldbelinkedtothecase.
■ Laboratoriesvarywithrespecttotherecordstheymaintain.
Forexample,somelaboratories’automatedrecordsinclude
theweightofthesampleselectedforanalysis(e.g.,the
weightofoneoffivebagsofpowder),whileothersrecord
totalweight.
Appendix B
NFLIS Benefits AND limitations
x
v
i
i
s

a
c
c
·

~
x
x
u
~
i

v
v
v
o
v
)
9
Available since September 2001, the NFLIS Interactive Data
Site (IDS) allows NFLIS laboratories to run queries on their
own case-level data as well as on aggregated regional and
national data.
The IDS operates as a secure Web site located on a restricted
server. To access the IDS, each NFLIS laboratory is assigned a
laboratory-specific username and password.
Over the past year, a number of enhancements have been
made to the IDS, including providing World Wide Web access
to the IDS. This provides more secure and confidential IDS
access, as well as improved system performance for laboratories
with high-speed/broadband Web access. Laboratories without
Internet access can still use a modem to make a direct dial-up
connection to the IDS. As part of the enhanced IDS, different
access levels are assigned to satisfy the specific NFLIS data
NFLIS Interactive Data Site
needs of various users. Information about NFLIS, published
reports, links to agencies, information relevant to drug control
efforts, and NFLIS contact information are available to the
general public. Participating NFLIS laboratories have access
to their own case- and item-level data, as well as to aggregated
state- and metropolitan-level data. Nonparticipating laboratories
have access to aggregated state- and metropolitan-level data.
Approved government agency staff and researchers are able to
access the aggregated and summarized data. Depending upon
the level of access, users have the ability to conduct analyses
using preset queries. New usernames and passwords are required
to access restricted areas of the IDS. To request a username and
password, please visit the NFLIS Web site at https://www.nflis.
deadiversion.usdoj.gov.

Appendix C
x
v
i
i
s

a
c
c
·

~
x
x
u
~
i

v
v
v
o
v
)
0
Appendix D
NATIONAL ESTIMATES METHODOLOGY
Since2001,NFLISreportshaveincludednationaland
regionalestimatesforthenumberofdrugitemsanddrugcases
analyzedbystateandlocalforensiclaboratoriesintheUnited
States.Thisappendixdiscussesthemethodsusedforproducing
theseestimates,includingsampleselection,weighting,and
imputationandadjustmentprocedures.RTIInternational,under
contracttotheDEA,beganimplementingNFLISinSeptember
1997.Resultsfroma1998surveyprovidedlaboratory-specific
information,includingannualcaseloadfigures,usedtoestablish
anationalsamplingframeofallstateandlocalforensiclabsthat
routinelyperformdruganalyses.Arepresentativeprobability
proportionaltosizesamplewasdrawnonthebasisofannual
casesanalyzedperlaboratory,resultinginaNFLISnational
sampleof29statelaboratorysystemsand31localormunicipal
laboratories,atotalof165individuallaboratories(seeAppendix
AforalistofsampledandnonsampledNFLISlabs).Onlythe
dataforthoselaboratoriesthatreporteddruganalysisdatafor
7ormoremonthsduring2005wereincludedinthenational
estimates.
WEIGHTING PROCEDURES
Datawereweightedwithrespecttoboththeoriginal
samplingdesignandnonresponseinordertocomputedesign-
consistent,nonresponse-adjustedestimates.Weightedprevalence
estimateswereproducedfordrugcasesanddrugitemsanalyzed
bystateandlocalforensiclabsfromJanuary2005through
December2005.
Aseparateitem-levelandcase-levelweightwascomputed
foreachsamplelaboratoryorlaboratorysystemusingcaseload
informationobtainedfromanupdatedlabsurveyadministered
in2004.Thesesurveyresultsallowedforthecase-anditem-
levelweightstobepost-stratifiedtoreflectcurrentlevelsof
laboratoryactivity.Item-levelprevalenceestimateswere
computedusingtheitem-levelweights,andcase-levelestimates
werecomputedusingthecase-levelweights.
DRUG REPORT CUTOFF
Notalldrugsarereportedbylaboratorieswithsufficient
frequencytoallowreliableestimatestobecomputed.Forsome
drugs,suchascannabis/THCandcocaine,thousandsofitems
arereportedannually,allowingforreliablenationalprevalence
estimatestobecomputed.Manyothersubstanceshave100or
fewerannualobservationsfortheentiresample.Aprevalence
estimatebaseduponsuchfewobservationsisnotlikelytobe
reliableandthuswasnotincludedinthenationalestimates.
Themethodforevaluatingthecutoffpointwasestablished
usingthecoefficientofvariation,orCV,whichistheratio
betweenthestandarderrorofanestimateandtheestimateitself.
Asarule,drugestimateswithaCVgreaterthan0.5were
suppressedandnotshowninthetables.
IMPUTATIONS AND ADJUSTMENTS
Duetotechnicalandotherreportingissues,severallabsdid
notreportdataforeverymonthduring2005.Thisresultedin
missingmonthlydata,whichisaconcernincalculatingnational
estimatesofdrugprevalence.Imputationswereperformed
separatelybydrugforlaboratoriesmissingmonthlydata,using
drug-specificproportionsgeneratedfromlabsreportingafull
yearofdata.
Whilemostforensiclaboratoriesreportcase-levelanalyses
inaconsistentmanner,asmallnumberoflabsdonotproduce
item-levelcountsthatarecomparabletothosesubmittedbythe
vastmajorityoflabs.Mostlaboratoriesreportitemsintermsof
thenumberofvialsoftheparticularpill,yetafewlaboratories
reportthecountoftheindividualpillsthemselvesasitems.Since
thecase-levelcountsacrosslabsarecomparable,theywereused
todevelopitem-levelcountsforthefewlabsthatcountitems
differently.Forthoselabs,itwasassumedthatdrug-specific
ratiosofcasestoitemsshouldbesimilartolabsservingsimilarly
sizedareas.Item-to-caseratiosforeachdrugwereproducedfor
thesimilarlysizedlaboratories,andthesedrug-specificratios
werethenusedtoadjustthedrugitemcountsfortherelevant
laboratories.
STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES FOR TREND ANALYSIS
AtrendanalysiswasperformedontheJanuary2001through
December2005nationalandregionalestimates.Typically,
modelstestformeandifferences;however,thenationaland
regionalestimatesaretotals.Toworkaroundthischallenge,
abootstrappingtechniquewasemployed.(Bootstrappingisan
iterativetechniqueusedtoestimatevarianceswhenstandard
varianceestimationprocedurescannotbeused.)*Allstatistical
testswereperformedatthe95%confidencelevel(α=.05).
Inotherwords,ifalineartrendwasfoundtobestatistically
different,thentheprobabilityofobservingalineartrend(under
theassumptionthatnolineartrendexisted)waslessthan5%.
* For more information on this technique, please refer to Chernick, M.R. (1999). BootstrapMethods:APractitioner’sGuide.NewYork:Wiley.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ThisreportwaspreparedundercontractDEA-03-C-
0013,DrugEnforcementAdministration,U.S.Department
ofJustice.Pointsofvieworopinionsexpressedinthis
documentdonotnecessarilyrepresenttheofficialposition
oftheDEAortheU.S.DepartmentofJustice.
AtDEA,LiqunWongcontributedtothereportand
providedoversightacrossallpreparationstages.AtRTI,
BeLindaWeimerwasthemajorcontributorandledits
production;KevinStromandValleyRachalprovided
oversightandguidance;JeffreyAnchetaoversawthe
databasepreparation;CeliaEicheldingerprovided
statisticalanalysisandreview;ShariLambertoversaw
thegraphicdesign;andJoanneStuddersandMarceline
BunzeyMurawskieditedthereport.

PUBLIC DOMAIN NOTICE
Allmaterialappearinginthisreportisinthepublic
domainandmaybereproducedorcopiedwithout
permissionfromtheDEA.However,thispublication
maynotbereproducedordistributedforafeewithout
thespecific,writtenauthorizationoftheU.S.Drug
EnforcementAdministration,U.S.DepartmentofJustice.
Citationofthesourceisappreciated.Suggestedcitation:
Weimer,B.J.,Wong,L.,Sannerud,C.,Eicheldinger,C.,
Ancheta,J.,Strom,K.,andRachal,V.(2006).The National
Forensic Laboratory Information System: 2005 Annual Report.
WashingtonDC:U.S.DrugEnforcementAdministration.

OBTAINING COPIES OF THIS REPORT
Electroniccopiesofthisreportcanbedownloadedfrom
theNFLISWebsiteathttps://www.nflis.deadiversion.
usdoj.gov/.
1
x
v
i
i
s

a
c
c
·

~
x
x
u
~
i

v
v
v
o
v
)
DrugEnforcementAdministration
OfficeofDiversionControl
600ArmyNavyDrive
Arlington,VA22202
Attention:LiqunWong,DEAProgramOfficer
Phone:202-307-7176
Fax:202-353-1263
E-mail:liqun.l.wong@usdoj.gov
RTIInternational*
Health,Social,andEconomicsResearch
3040CornwallisRoad,POBox12194
ResearchTrianglePark,NC27709-2194
Attention:ValleyRachal,ProjectDirector
Phone:1-800-334-8571,ext.7712
Fax:919-485-7700
E-mail:jvr@rti.org
August2006
*RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute.