CEWG January 09 Full Report - National Institute on Drug Abuse
CEWG January 09 Full Report - National Institute on Drug Abuse
CEWG January 09 Full Report - National Institute on Drug Abuse
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Secti<strong>on</strong> IV. Across <str<strong>on</strong>g>CEWG</str<strong>on</strong>g> Areas: Treatment Admissi<strong>on</strong>s, Forensic Laboratory Analysis Data, and Average <strong>Drug</strong> Price and Purity Data<br />
Club <strong>Drug</strong>s (MDMA, GHB/GBL, LSD, Ketamine)<br />
Treatment Admissi<strong>on</strong> Data <strong>on</strong><br />
Club <strong>Drug</strong>s<br />
The club drugs reported <strong>on</strong> in this secti<strong>on</strong> include<br />
MDMA (methylenedioxymethamphetamine, or<br />
ecstasy), GHB (gamma hydroxybutyrate), GBL<br />
(gamma butyrolact<strong>on</strong>e), LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide),<br />
and ketamine. Admissi<strong>on</strong>s for primary<br />
treatment of club drugs or MDMA are not captured<br />
in all treatment data systems, but they appear<br />
low in those areas that do report <strong>on</strong> these drugs.<br />
Forensic Laboratory Data <strong>on</strong> Club <strong>Drug</strong>s<br />
MDMA. MDMA was the club drug most frequently<br />
reported am<strong>on</strong>g NFLIS data in the 22<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>CEWG</str<strong>on</strong>g> areas depicted in table 12. As shown,<br />
MDMA equaled or exceeded 2 percent of all drug<br />
items in 11 areas. These include Atlanta and San<br />
Francisco, which had the highest percentage (3.8<br />
percent each), followed by Detroit (3.7 percent),<br />
Minneapolis/St. Paul (3.6 percent), and Seattle<br />
(3.2 percent). Others in this group were St. Louis,<br />
Los Angeles, H<strong>on</strong>olulu, Denver, Washingt<strong>on</strong>, DC,<br />
and San Diego (table 12). As shown in secti<strong>on</strong> II,<br />
table 1, MDMA was the third most frequently<br />
identified drug item in Atlanta, and it ranked<br />
fourth in Chicago, Minneapolis/St. Paul, and<br />
H<strong>on</strong>olulu in the first half of 2008.<br />
GHB. GHB items were reported am<strong>on</strong>g the<br />
forensic laboratory data in 10 <str<strong>on</strong>g>CEWG</str<strong>on</strong>g> areas: Bost<strong>on</strong>,<br />
Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, San<br />
Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, St. Louis, Texas,<br />
and Washingt<strong>on</strong>, DC. These items accounted for<br />
much less than 1 percent of all items in all reporting<br />
areas. GHB was not am<strong>on</strong>g the top 10 drugs<br />
reported from any <str<strong>on</strong>g>CEWG</str<strong>on</strong>g> area (table 13 and secti<strong>on</strong><br />
II, table 1).<br />
LSD. LSD was reported in the forensic laboratory<br />
data am<strong>on</strong>g drug items identified for 17<br />
<str<strong>on</strong>g>CEWG</str<strong>on</strong>g> metropolitan areas. N<strong>on</strong>e, however, had<br />
30 or more cases. LSD was not am<strong>on</strong>g the top 10<br />
drugs reported for any <str<strong>on</strong>g>CEWG</str<strong>on</strong>g> reporting area, and<br />
no LSD items were reported from Albuquerque,<br />
Detroit, H<strong>on</strong>olulu, Phoenix, and Washingt<strong>on</strong>, DC<br />
(table 13 and secti<strong>on</strong> II, table 1).<br />
Ketamine. Ketamine items were reported<br />
am<strong>on</strong>g drug items identified from all except 5<br />
of 22 <str<strong>on</strong>g>CEWG</str<strong>on</strong>g> areas during the first half of 2008.<br />
While ketamine represented less than 1 percent of<br />
total drug items identified in any reporting area,<br />
four areas reported 30 cases or more: Texas, New<br />
York City, Los Angeles, and Atlanta (table 13).<br />
Ketamine did not figure am<strong>on</strong>g the top 10 most<br />
frequently identified drug items in any <str<strong>on</strong>g>CEWG</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
area (secti<strong>on</strong> II, table 1).<br />
Proceedings of the Community Epidemiology Work Group, <str<strong>on</strong>g>January</str<strong>on</strong>g> 20<str<strong>on</strong>g>09</str<strong>on</strong>g> 95