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 />
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