ARCHIVED Skip to text.To Contents     To Previous Page     To Next Page     To Publications Page     To Home Page


NDIC seal linked to Home page. National Drug Intelligence Center
National Drug Threat Assessment 2003
January 2003

Scope and Methodology

The National Drug Threat Assessment 2003 is a comprehensive assessment of the threat posed to the United States by the trafficking and abuse of illicit drugs. The National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) prepared the assessment through detailed analysis of the most recently available reporting from law enforcement, intelligence, and public health agencies. A critical component of this undertaking was information provided by nearly 2,900 state and local law enforcement agencies through NDIC's National Drug Threat Survey 2002. Approximately 2,400 of these agencies were part of a probability-based sample surveyed to provide nationally and regionally representative data. (Details on survey methodology are provided in Appendix A.) State and local law enforcement agencies also provided information through personal interviews with NDIC's Field Program Specialists, a network of retired law enforcement professionals under contract with NDIC to promote information sharing among federal, state, and local counterdrug agencies. These agencies have been invaluable but are too many to mention individually.

This report addresses the trafficking and use of primary substances of abuse as well as the laundering of drug proceeds. Major substances of abuse are discussed in terms of their availability, demand, production and cultivation, transportation, and distribution. Primary market areas for each drug are identified and addressed in the report (see Figure 4). Primary market areas for cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and MDMA were determined through analysis of public health data and law enforcement reporting regarding use in these areas and the extent to which wholesale quantities are distributed from these areas to other markets. Primary market areas for marijuana were determined based on distribution alone.

  • Availability. To evaluate drug availability, analysts considered quantitative information on seizures, investigations, arrests, indictments, sentencing, drug purity or potency, and price. Qualitative data, such as the subjective views of individual agencies on availability and the relationship between individual drugs and crime, particularly violent crime, were also considered.
       

  • Demand. The evaluation of the domestic demand for illegal drugs was based on accepted interagency estimates and data captured in national substance abuse indicators. Quantitative and qualitative information compared include the estimated number of total users, prevalence of drug use among various age groups, admissions to treatment facilities, influence of drugs on crime and the penal system, emergency department information, and drug-related deaths. The differing methodologies applied by national substance abuse indicators, as well as their inherent limitations, were considered and addressed in assessing domestic drug demand. (Data from selected national substance abuse indicators are provided in Appendix B.)

  • Production and Cultivation. To evaluate drug production and cultivation, analysts considered accepted interagency estimates of production and cultivation. Qualitative information pertaining to the presence and level of domestic activity, general trends in production or cultivation levels, involvement of organized criminal groups, toxicity and other related safety hazards, environmental effects, and associated criminal activity were also considered.

  • Transportation. To evaluate drug transportation, analysts assessed interagency estimates of the amounts of specific drugs destined for U.S. markets, involvement of organized criminal groups, smuggling and transportation methods, and indicators of changes in smuggling and transportation methods.

  • Distribution. The evaluation of drug distribution was almost entirely qualitative. Analysts considered the extent to which specific drugs are distributed nationally, regionally, and in primary market areas based on law enforcement reporting. Also considered were qualitative data pertaining to the involvement of organized criminal groups, including their involvement in wholesale, midlevel, and retail distribution.1

This report cites trademarked names such as OxyContin and Rohypnol in discussing the diversion and abuse of such substances. The use of any trademarked names in this assessment does not imply any criminal activity, criminal intent, or misdealing on the part of the companies that manufacture these drugs. All such citations are made for reference purposes only.

National Drug Threat Survey data used in this report do not imply there is only one drug threat per region or that only one drug is available per region. A percentage given for a region represents the proportion of state and local law enforcement agencies in that region that identified a particular drug as their greatest threat or as available at high, medium, or low levels. Regions reported in this assessment correspond to the nine Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) regions (see Figures 1, 2, and 3).

To Top      To Contents

Figure 1. Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force Regions

Map of the United States broken up into the nine OCDETF regions.

d-link

 

Figure 2. Greatest Drug Threat Percentage of State & Local Agencies Reporting

Map of the U.S. with a chart superimposed showing percentages of state and local law enforcement agencies nationwide that identified a particular drug as their greatest threat.

d-link

Percentages given represent the proportions of state and local law enforcement agencies nationwide that identified a particular drug as their greatest threat.
Source: NDIC, National Drug Threat Survey 2002.

 

Figure 3. Regional Drug Availability Percentage of State & Local Agencies Reporting High Availability

Map of the U.S. broken into OCDETF regions, showing the percentage of state and local law enforcement agencies per region that identified a particular drug as available at high levels.

d-link

Percentages given represent the proportions of state and local law enforcement agencies per region that identified a particular drug as available at high levels.
Source: NDIC, National Drug Threat Survey 2002.

 

Figure 4. Primary Market Areas

Map of the U.S. showing primary market areas for cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, marijuana, and MDMA.

d-link

Primary market areas for cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and MDMA were determined through analysis of public health data and law enforcement reporting regarding use in these areas and the extent to which wholesale quantities are distributed from these areas to other markets. Primary market areas for marijuana were determined based on distribution alone.


End Note

1. In this assessment wholesale distribution refers to the level at which drugs are purchased directly from a source of supply and sold, typically, to midlevel distributors in pound, kilogram, or multi-unit quantities. Midlevel distribution refers to the level at which drugs are purchased directly from wholesalers in pound, kilogram, or multi-unit quantities and sold in smaller quantities to other midlevel distributors or to retail distributors. Retail distribution refers to the level at which drugs are sold directly to users.

 


To Top      To Contents     To Previous Page     To Next Page

To Publications Page     To Home Page


End of page.