CEWG January 09 Full Report - National Institute on Drug Abuse

EpidEmiologic TrEnds in drug AbusE: HigHligHTs And ExEcuTivE summAry
heroin items were highest in Baltimore City (22.4
percent) and Maryland (19.8 percent), compared
with other <strong>CEWG</strong> areas. Heroin drug items identified
were lowest in Texas (1.7 percent), followed by
Atlanta (1.8 percent) (figure 16; appendix table 2).
Heroin was not ranked as the number one
most frequently identified drug in any of the
<strong>CEWG</strong> areas in the first half of 2008 (section II,
table 1), and it appeared as no higher than third
in the rankings of drug items identified in that
reporting period. However, it ranked third in
all areas within the northeastern, southern, and
midwestern regions, with the exception of Atlanta
(where it ranked seventh) and Minneapolis/St.
Paul (where it ranked fifth) in the South and Midwest,
respectively.
Heroin Domestic Monitor Program
(HDMP) Price and Purity Data
The map below (figure 17) depicts the most recent
data on the average price per milligram pure and
the average percentage of heroin purity across
<strong>CEWG</strong> areas, as reported by the DEA’s HDMP
for 2007. Data from the HDMP suggest that for
CY 2007, SA heroin continued to be the primary
source of heroin east of the Mississippi River, as
has been the case since the mid-1990s. Mexican
black tar and, to a lesser extent, Mexican brown
powder heroin dominated markets west of the
Mississippi. Data shown here are confined to
SA and Mexican heroin, since the availability of
Southwest Asian heroin was limited in the <strong>CEWG</strong>
areas where it was reported—Atlanta, Baltimore
Figure 16. Heroin Items Identified as a Percentage of Total NFLIS Drug Items, 22 <strong>CEWG</strong> Areas:
1H 2008
Baltimore City
Maryland
Chicago
Philadelphia
New York City
Boston
Washington, DC
Albuquerque
Detroit
St. Louis
Phoenix
Cincinnati
San Francisco
Seattle
Los Angeles
San Diego
Denver
Minneapolis/St. Paul
Miami
Honolulu
Atlanta
Texas
0 5 10 15 20 25
7.4
6.6
6.4
5.7
5.4
5.1
4.1
3.4
3.3
2.4
2.2
2.2
1.8
1.7
10.6
10.6
10.0
8.9
8.7
12.2
19.8
22.4
SOURCE: NFLIS, DEA, received <strong>January</strong> 4, 20<strong>09</strong>; see appendix table 2
80
Proceedings of the Community Epidemiology Work Group, <strong>January</strong> 20<strong>09</strong>