05.11.2014 Views

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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 />

Benzodiazepines/Depressants<br />

Treatment Admissi<strong>on</strong> Data <strong>on</strong><br />

Benzodiazepines<br />

In most <str<strong>on</strong>g>CEWG</str<strong>on</strong>g> area treatment data systems,<br />

benzodiazepines are included with other depressants,<br />

barbiturates, and sedative/hypnotics; these<br />

admissi<strong>on</strong>s c<strong>on</strong>tinued to account for small proporti<strong>on</strong>s<br />

of total treatment admissi<strong>on</strong>s. However,<br />

some <str<strong>on</strong>g>CEWG</str<strong>on</strong>g> areas note that benzodiazepines or<br />

sedative/hypnotics are sec<strong>on</strong>dary or tertiary drugs<br />

of abuse am<strong>on</strong>g some treatment admissi<strong>on</strong>s.<br />

Forensic Laboratory Data <strong>on</strong><br />

Benzodiazepines<br />

Three benzodiazepine-type items—alprazolam,<br />

cl<strong>on</strong>azepam, and diazepam—were the most frequently<br />

reported benzodiazepines identified by<br />

Table 9.<br />

Selected Benzodiazepine Items <str<strong>on</strong>g>Report</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed by Forensic Laboratories in 22 <str<strong>on</strong>g>CEWG</str<strong>on</strong>g> Areas, by<br />

Number and Percentage of Total Items Identified 1 : 1H 2008 2<br />

<str<strong>on</strong>g>CEWG</str<strong>on</strong>g> Alprazolam Cl<strong>on</strong>azepam Diazepam Total<br />

Area # (%) # (%) # (%) Items<br />

Albuquerque 1 * 1 * 3 * 733<br />

Atlanta 249 3.7 33 * 29 * 6,779<br />

Baltimore City 144 * 84 * 26 * 28,288<br />

Bost<strong>on</strong> 152 1.0 259 1.7 45 * 14,921<br />

Chicago 92 * 22 * 27 * 40,400<br />

Cincinnati 57 * 29 * 36 * 7,011<br />

Denver 25 * 11 * 6 * 4,252<br />

Detroit 67 1.9 7 * 15 * 3,527<br />

H<strong>on</strong>olulu 1 * 2 * 7 * 1,143<br />

Los Angeles 112 * 58 * 66 * 29,567<br />

Maryland 179 * 96 * 39 * 33,219<br />

Miami 293 1.8 15 * 10 * 16,015<br />

Minneapolis/<br />

8 * 7 * 5 * 2,502<br />

St. Paul<br />

New York City 517 1.9 138 * 41 * 27,064<br />

Philadelphia 464 2.9 75 * 49 * 16,057<br />

Phoenix 16 * 9 * 10 * 3,372<br />

San Diego 81 * 34 * 49 * 10,234<br />

San Francisco 40 * 53 * 70 * 11,925<br />

Seattle 8 * 8 * 8 * 1,573<br />

St. Louis 162 1.7 27 * 52 * 9,605<br />

Texas 2,025 4.2 351 * 195 * 47,868<br />

Washingt<strong>on</strong>, DC 5 * 4 * 0 * 2,3<str<strong>on</strong>g>09</str<strong>on</strong>g><br />

1<br />

Only percentages of 1.0 or higher are reported in this table; percentages of less than 1.0 are indicated with the symbol *.<br />

2<br />

Data are for the first half of 2008: <str<strong>on</strong>g>January</str<strong>on</strong>g>–June 2008.<br />

SOURCE: All data were received from NFLIS, DEA, <str<strong>on</strong>g>January</str<strong>on</strong>g> 4, 20<str<strong>on</strong>g>09</str<strong>on</strong>g> (see appendix table 2); data are subject to change and may differ according<br />

to the date <strong>on</strong> which they were queried<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> 87

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!