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
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
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 />
City, Chicago, Detroit, and Washingt<strong>on</strong>, DC—<br />
and no Southeast Asian heroin was purchased in<br />
the HDMP program in 2006 or 2007.<br />
Table 5 reports average percent purity and<br />
average price per milligram pure of SA heroin in<br />
10 <str<strong>on</strong>g>CEWG</str<strong>on</strong>g> cities for the period 2004–2007. From<br />
2006 to 2007, average purity levels for SA heroin<br />
increased in 6 of 10 <str<strong>on</strong>g>CEWG</str<strong>on</strong>g> areas (Philadelphia,<br />
New York City, Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, and<br />
Washingt<strong>on</strong>, DC), in c<strong>on</strong>trast to 2005–2006, when<br />
purity levels remained stable or declined in most<br />
areas. Am<strong>on</strong>g the <str<strong>on</strong>g>CEWG</str<strong>on</strong>g> areas with declining<br />
average purity, Baltimore and Atlanta represented<br />
the largest declines of between 10 and 13 percentage<br />
points (31.0 to 18.0 percent and 39.1 to 29.1<br />
percent, respectively) during the period.<br />
Over the 1-year period from 2006 to 2007,<br />
average prices for SA heroin fell in 6 of 10 <str<strong>on</strong>g>CEWG</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />
areas (Atlanta, Miami, Bost<strong>on</strong>, Chicago, St. Louis,<br />
and Washingt<strong>on</strong>, DC), and rose in 4 (Philadelphia,<br />
New York City, Baltimore, and Detroit)<br />
(table 5).<br />
Data <strong>on</strong> results of purchases of Mexican black<br />
tar heroin are presented in table 6 for another 10<br />
Figure 17. Heroin Domestic M<strong>on</strong>itor Program—Average Heroin Purity and Average Price<br />
Per Milligram Pure by Predominant Source in <str<strong>on</strong>g>CEWG</str<strong>on</strong>g> Areas: 1 2007<br />
8.1%<br />
($1.28)<br />
San<br />
Francisco<br />
Los<br />
Angeles<br />
San Diego<br />
43.7%<br />
($0.20)<br />
Seattle<br />
19.5%<br />
($1.12)<br />
Denver<br />
St.<br />
47.6%<br />
Louis 2<br />
($0.28)<br />
21.0%<br />
24.0% 56.9% ($0.80)<br />
($0.32) ($0.31)<br />
Phoenix<br />
El Paso<br />
39.8% ($0.49)<br />
Dallas<br />
20.6%<br />
($1.<str<strong>on</strong>g>09</str<strong>on</strong>g>)<br />
Chicago<br />
22.4%<br />
($0.45)<br />
46.0%<br />
($0.98)<br />
Detroit<br />
56.3%<br />
($0.71)<br />
Philadelphia<br />
Atlanta<br />
29.1%<br />
($1.89)<br />
17.0%<br />
($1.37)<br />
Bost<strong>on</strong><br />
New York City<br />
49.0% ($0.79)<br />
Baltimore<br />
18.1% ($0.60)<br />
Washingt<strong>on</strong>, DC<br />
19.5% ($1.34)<br />
San Ant<strong>on</strong>io<br />
7.1%<br />
($1.88)<br />
Houst<strong>on</strong><br />
7.0%<br />
($1.66)<br />
Predominant Heroin Source<br />
South American Heroin<br />
Mexican Heroin<br />
Miami<br />
18.1%<br />
($1.48)<br />
1<br />
Not included here are some types, e.g., Southeast and Southwest Asian heroin. Where both South American (SA) and Mexican heroin<br />
purchases were made, the more prevalent drug source identified is reported as predominant.<br />
2<br />
In St. Louis, Mexican heroin was the predominant source in 2006, unlike 2005 and 2007 when SA heroin samples were more frequently<br />
identified. Therefore, while data are reported for St. Louis in tables for both forms of heroin, <strong>on</strong>ly SA heroin average price and purity data are<br />
presented <strong>on</strong> this map.<br />
SOURCE: DEA, 2007 HDMP <strong>Drug</strong> Intelligence <str<strong>on</strong>g>Report</str<strong>on</strong>g>, published November 2008, page 7<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> 81