Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
323153021
label
Drug Strategy Statement 9/5/90 [OA 8315]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
323153021
contentType
document
title
Drug Strategy Statement 9/5/90 [OA 8315]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13727-003
collections
Records of the White House Office of Speechwriting (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Speech Backup Chronological Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
323153021
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
8686362b279f2356
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
S; 2010-1073-F
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Speech File Backup Files
Subseries:
Chron Files, 1989-1993
OA/ID Number:
13727
Folder ID Number:
13727-003
Folder Title:
Drug Strategy Statement 9/5/90 [OA 8315]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
26
20
7
1
McNally/Simon
Sept. 5, 1990
Draft Three (B:DRUGS)
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: STATEMENT AT DRUG WAR BRIEFING
ROOM 450, O.E.O.B.
WED., SEPT. 5, 1990, 11:05 A.M.
One year ago today, I announced one of the most important
initiatives of my Administration -- the National Drug Control
Strategy -- my blueprint for the War on Drugs.
We have devoted unprecedented new resources to the fight --
new materiel, new money, new management, and new manpower. And
this is true virtually across the board: for law enforcement;
for treatment; for school, community, and workplace prevention;
and for our allies in Latin America.
We've pulled the entire federal effort together. We've
given every participating department a clear, anti-drug mission.
And we've joined hands with state and local governments -- and
private citizens -- across the country. Never before has so much
effort, involving so many people, been applied to the scourge of
drugs.
In a moment, Bill Bennett will give you a more detailed
assessment of the progress the nation has already made -- of what
we have done -- and what we have left to do.
But I'm here because I want to tell you personally that I
think America is making progress against drugs -- and will
continue to do SO. III
The crisis is far from over. But there are clear signs of
progress. So-called "casual" drug use is continuing to decline.
There are early, promising signs that even the problem of hard
3
bars, on the run, or have already paid the ultimate price for a
life of crime and violence.
Today's good news is welcome. We've made important
progress. But it's not enough. There is still too much
violence. Too much destruction. Too many innocent victims.
Drugs are still an international menace. So we are going to
stick to our comprehensive drug strategy. We're going to renew
our call for Congress to pass a true crime bill -- one that's
tough on criminals -- not on police. And my Administration will
remain on the front lines until this scourge is licked for good.
Block by block. School by school. Child by child. We will
"Take Back The Streets." And we will never surrender. 111
Thank you. And God bless the United States of America.
#
#
#
McNally/Simon
Sept. 4, 1990
Draft Two (B:DRUGS)
PRESIDENTIAL REMARKS: STATEMENT AT DRUG WAR BRIEFING
ROOM 450, O.E.O.B.
WED., SEPT. 5, 1990, 11:05 A.M.
One year ago today, I announced one of the most important
initiatives of my Administration -- the National Drug Control
Strategy -- my blueprint for the War on Drugs.
We have devoted unprecedented new resources to the fight --
new material, new money, new management, and new manpower. And
this is true virtually across the board: for law enforcement;
for treatment; for school, community, and workplace prevention;
and for our allies in Latin America.
We've pulled the entire federal effort together. We've
given every participating department a clear, anti-drug mission.
And we've joined hands with state and local governments -- and
private citizens -- across the country. Never before has so much
effort, involving so many people, been applied to the scourge of
drugs.
In a moment, Bill Bennett will give you a more detailed
assessment of the progress the nation has already made -- of what
we have done -- and what we have left to do.
But I'm here because I want to tell you personally that I
think America is making progress against drugs -- and will
continue to do so.
And the bottom line is this: Today in America, cocaine is
harder to find, more expensive, and less pure than it was one
year ago. IIII
2
Statistics like these help put perspective in the very real
progress we've made in the war on drugs. Too often public
attention focuses only on the face of battle -- drive-by
shootings and individual tragedies.
The other side might not always make good TV. But many of
you in the press have traveled with me this past year, seen the
recovering addicts who are getting help, seen the families, the
neighborhoods, the whole communities that are being restored to
health and safety. I think of Erma Scales, who took back a park
in Acres Homes, part of my old congressional district in Houston.
Heroes like Al Brooks in that Baptist church basement in Kansas
City. And the rallying cry of Father George Clements in Chicago:
"There are more of us than there are of them."
And so, while the statistics are good, progress can't be
measured only by statistics. The past year has also seen a
fundamental change in attitude, a growing awareness that drugs
can take away your family, your job, your health, your freedom
and your very life.
And we've also seen stunning new successes in law enforce-
ment -- in both this country and Latin America -- that are
difficult to measure by statistics alone. There are drug lords
who -- arrogant and free only a year ago -- are today behind
bars, on the run, or explaining their crimes to St. Peter.
The good news is welcome. We've made important progress.
But it's not enough. There is still too much violence. Too much
destruction. Too many innocent victims. Drugs are still an
3
international menace. So we are going to stick to our
comprehensive drug strategy. We're going to renew our call for
Congress to pass a true crime bill -- one that's tough on
criminals -- not on police. And my Administration will remain on
the front lines until this scourge is licked for good.
Block by block. School by school. Child by child. We will
"Take Back The Streets." And we will never surrender. III
Thank you. And God bless the United States of America.
#
#
#
McNally/Simon
Sept. 4, 1990
Draft One (B:DRUGS)
PRESIDENTIAL TALKING POINTS: STATEMENT AT DRUG WAR BRIEFING
ROOM 450, O.E.O.B.
WED., SEPT. 5, 1990, : 0 .M.
One year ago today, I announced one of the most important
initiatives of my Administration -- the National Drug
Control Strategy -- my blueprint for the War on Drugs.
We have devoted unprecedented new resources to the fight ---
new material, new money, new management, and new manpower.
And this is true virtually across the board: for law
enforcement; for treatment; for school, community, and
workplace prevention; and for' our allies in Latin America.
We've pulled the entire federal effort together. We've
given every participating department a clear, anti-drug
mission. And we've joined hands with state and local
governments -- and private citizens -- across the country.
Never before has so much effort, involving so many people,
been applied to the scourge of drugs.
In a moment, Bill Bennett will give you a more detailed
assessment of the progress the nation has already made --
of what we have done -- and what we have left to do.
But I'm here because I want to tell you personally that I
think America is making progress against drugs -- and will
continue to do SO.
These statistics help put perspective in the drug war's real
progress. Too often public attention focuses only on the
face of battle -- drive-by shootings and individual
tragedies -- what television producers call "bang-bang."
The other side might not always make good TV. But many of
you in the press have traveled with me this past year, seen
the recovering addicts who are getting help, seen the
families, the neighborhoods, the whole communities that are
being restored to health and safety. I think of Erma
Scales, who took back a park in Acres Homes, part of my old
congressional district in Houston. Heroes like Al Brooks in
that Baptist church basement in Kansas City. And the
rallying cry of Father George Clements in Chicago: "There
are more of us than there are of them."
And so, while the statistics are good, progress can't be
measured only by statistics. The past year has also seen a
fundamental change in attitude, a growing awareness that
drugs can take away your family, your job, your health, your
freedom and your very life.
2
And we've also seen stunning new successes in law enforce-
ment -- in both this country and Latin America -- that are
difficult to measure by statistics alone. There are drug
lords who -- arrogant and free only a year ago -- are today
behind bars, on the run, or explaining their crimes to St.
Peter.
The good news is welcome. We've made important progress.
But it's not enough. There is still too much violence. Too
much destruction. Too many innocent victims. Drugs are
still an international menace. So we are going to stick to
our comprehensive drug strategy. And my Administration will
remain on the front lines until this scourge is licked for
good.
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, the indomitable voice of
another great cause: We shall go on to the end. We shall
defend our children. We shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight in the air, we shall fight on the beaches, we
shall fight on the landing strips, we shall fight in our
classrooms and in our neighborhoods. Block by block.
School by school. Child by child. We will take back the
streets. And we will never surrender.
Thank you. And God bless the United States of America.
#
#
#
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 4, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES CICCONI
FROM:
MICHAEL P. JACKSON my
SUBJECT:
The President's Participation at the ONDCP Drug
Briefing on Wednesday
Attached is a copy of the ONDCP white paper that Bill Bennett
plans to release on Wednesday. The text is a compendium of
various drug use indicators, mostly gathered by government
sources. The various chapters were cleared with relevant
departments and agencies by ONDCP. OMB (Janet Hale) also saw the
text last week.
The essential spin of the document is found in Bennett's brief
introduction. This morning I will give a draft of proposed
Presidential remarks to Dave Demarest for review. I think they
are in pretty good shape, so hopefully speechwriters will soon
have something to circulate.
Attachment
CC: Ede Holiday
David Demarest
Chriss Winston
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 ; 8-31-90 ; 4:09PM ;
00000->
CABINET AFFAIRS:# 2
suggested Presidential Talking Points
Drop-by at Media Briefing on the Status of the Drug War
Room 450, OEOB -- Wednesday, September 5, 1990, 11:00am
One year ago today, I announced one of the most important
initiatives of my Administration: the National Drug Control
Strategy, my blueprint for a renewed American war on drugs.
As you all know, we have provided unprecedented budgetary and
programmatic support for the fight against drugs: for law
enforcement; for treatment; for school, community, and
workplace prevention; and for our allies in Latin America.
We have pulled the entire Federal government together, and
given every relevant agency and department a clear anti-drug
mission. And we have joined hands with state and local
governments -- and private citizens -- across the country.
Never before has so much effort, involving so many people,
been applied to the scourge of drugs.
In a moment, Bill Bennett will give you a more complete
assessment of the progress the nation has already made and the
work we have left to do. But I want to tell you myself that
I think America 18 making progress against drugs -- and will
continue to make progress against drugs. And I want to tell
you that our Administration will remain up front, on the
offensive; my commitment to a successful fight against drug
crime and drug addiction is long-term.
The good news is welcome. But it's not enough. We have only
just begun. There is still too much violence. Too much
destruction. Too many innocent victims. Drugs are still a
national menace.
so we are going to stick to our comprehensive drug strategy.
We're going to implement every provision and program, and ask
Congress to provide every necessary dollar. We're going to
join with every governor and state legislator who has a good
idea. Every employer who bans drugs from his workplace.
Every school that has a clear no-drug policy. Every
neighborhood that wants to work with the police to keep its
streets safe and secure. Every family that teaches its kids
that drugs are wrong.
made important progress
*
We've this past year. And my Administration
will remain on the front lines of battle until this drug
plague is licked for good.
Leading
Drug
Indicators
An Office of National Drug Control Policy
White Paper
September 1990
For sale by the Supertntendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402
Contents
Preface
1
Leading Drug Indicators
3
The National Household Survey
7
The Drug Abuse Warning Network
11
The Drug Use Forecasting Program
16
The High School Senior Survey
20
Drug Price and Purity Indicators
24
Crime Statistics
28
The International Narcotics Control Strategy Report
31
The National Narcotics Intelligence
Consumers Committee Report
34
Blank Page
Do Not Print
Preface
One year ago, President Bush unveiled his National Drug Control
Strategy. a comprehensive plan for addressing our Nation's drug prob-
lem. At the time. no one doubted the dire need for such a Strategy. The
destructive power of drugs had touched virtually every community
across the country. Hospitals were crowded with drug-related emergen-
cies, children not yet in their teens were found addicted to cocaine, and
crack was cheap and easy to find in almost every city.
Today the drug crisis is far from over. But there are some clear
signs of progress. Mounting empirical evidence indicates that our
current epidemic. though still intolerably large. has begun to recede. In
the pages that follow. an attempt is made to sift through some of this
evidence, to place it in proper context. and to present a comprehensive
look at what we now know about the problem. Measuring the extent of
drug use has never been an exact science. But the array of indicators
presented in this brief report suggest that, all things considered. the
situation has taken a turn for the better in the last twelve months.
It would be a grave mistake to attribute momentum against drugs
to a specific policy or single government initiative; no such credit is
claimed here. The fight against drugs may often require leadership at
some remove. but it is actually fought close at hand - by individual
doctors, teachers, policeman. neighborhoods, and families. The en-
couraging statistical trends outlined in the following pages are the cu-
mulative product of an all-too-often unnoticed individual and collective
effort in local communities across our country - and of comparable
allied sacrifice and diligence in foreign lands, as well.
I am also painfully aware that despite successes already achieved.
many Americans still confront the tragedy and misery of drug use and
addiction everyday. There still remain cities. towns, and neighborhoods
where drugs have the upper hand, and raw statistics and surveys offer
their residents little consolation. But I am confident that through
continued pressure and determination on every front. we can restore
more and more of them to safety and health.
I am also confident that the small but sure signs of progress we
have seen thus far make the best case for sticking with our plan. We
have. in the National Drug Control Strategy. an ambitious but realistic
program to erode steadily the prevalence of American drug use. Our
task for the year ahead is to press on with our Strategy. ensure that it is
implemented. and consolidate all its component parts. By combining
ever stronger Federal effort with the energy of private citizens, State and
local government and civic leaders. we may soon see the scourge of
drugs in full retreat.
William J. Bennett
Director, Office of National Drug
Control Policy
1
Blank Page
Do Not Print
Leading
Drug
Indicators
By the late 1980s, a series of surveys and statistical indicators had
confirmed what many American law enforcement officials, medical pro-
fessionals, teachers. and parents already knew: that the United States
was experiencing a serious epidemic of drug use. Cocaine use was
widely and correctly understood to be the most immediately threatening
aspect of the epidemic. And beginning in 1985, a cheap, easily manu-
factured, and highly addictive smokeable form of that drug - crack -
achieved widespread prevalence. Hard data collected in subsequent
years made clear just how bad the Nation's drug problem had become:
the number of drug-related hospital emergencies was soaring; as many
as eight out of every ten men arrested had traces of cocaine in their
systems; and the number of Americans reporting weekly or more fre-
quent cocaine use was rising sharply.
Statistical analysis is always a complicated business, of course,
and the task of measuring illegal activities like the trafficking and use of
drugs is especially difficult. National surveys tend to miss hard-to-
reach subsections of the population: some statistical measures are too
narrowly focused; and others don't provide enough material on which to
base a national estimate. Nevertheless, broad, regular, and objective
measurement is the best way - indeed, the only way - the scope of the
crisis can be understood, and intelligent policy toward it can be formu-
lated. Reports of drive-by shootings or teenage drug overdoses are
horrifying evidence of the destructive power that drugs can have. But a
strategy designed to fight the problem requires a more systematic. albeit
less vivid, evaluation of drug use and trafficking patterns and effects.
Impressions and anecdotes are not enough.
Unfortunately, there exists no single measurement, no annual
report. no one set of data that can by itself fairly describe a drug
epidemic in all its complexity. Indeed, any attempt to measure the drug
ONDCP White Paper
3
Leading Drug Indicators
problem begs a more fundamental question: what, exactly, are we
trying to measure? Different sets of drug-related statistics very often
seem to suggest different - even sharply conflicting - conclusions.
This summer, for example, the Washington, D.C. murder rate - gener-
ally assumed to be strongly related to the local drug problem - rose to
an all-time high. But at exactly the same time, the percentage of D.C.
arrestees testing positive for drug use fell to its lowest level in nearly
three years. Last fall, 20 tons of cocaine were found in a Los Angeles
warehouse, the largest single seizure in history. inviting speculation
that the amount of cocaine in the country was far greater than previ-
ously supposed. Yet only a few months later, Drug Enforcement
Administration officials reported that Los Angeles-area wholesale co-
caine had become significantly more expensive and less pure - a
striking sign that the drug was possibly becoming scarce.
Like the old fable about blind men describing an elephant. individ-
ual drug statistics usually tell us only part of a large and complex story.
Each piece of news they deliver is vital to our understanding of the
extent and nature of the problem. But each must be read in full context.
Our drug-related information is culled from myriad different sources; is
necessarily released and evaluated in piecemeal fashion, as it becomes
available; and is not always the product of research conducted in
identical time periods. The temptation to assess progress or failure in
the fight against drugs by the standard of whatever happens to be the
latest piece of good or bad news is natural, perhaps. But it is almost by
definition shortsighted and misleading.
This document is designed to facilitate a broader and more dispas-
sionate view of the latest available drug-related data in several basic
areas. By most objective evaluations, these data describe a drug prob-
lem that has been getting better. not worse. Some of the most important
indicators, in fact, suggest dramatic improvement. Cocaine-related
emergency room mentions, which since 1985 had been multiplying at
an alarming rate, actually leveled off in early 1989 - and then began to
decline. dropping a full 22 percent between October and December. In
the first quarter of this year, these numbers fell a further 4 percent. And
after three successive years of surges in cocaine-related deaths, the rate
of increase slowed considerably between 1988 and 1989.
Other drug use surveys have recorded steady, meaningful declines.
This June. for example, SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories
released a survey showing that 13.8 percent of nearly one million
American workers tested positive for drugs; three years earlier, a similar
survey found 18.1 percent testing positive. Law enforcement data from
the largest American metropolitan areas increasingly suggest that once
ubiquitous cocaine has become harder to find, more expensive, and less
pure. And Colombian government crackdowns on cocaine cartel activi-
ties have apparently so depressed the market for coca leaf in the Andes
that peasant farmers have begun voluntarily switching to alternative,
legal crops.
4
ONDCP White Paper
Leading Drug Indicators
Not all trends are encouraging. By most conventional measures,
violent crime in the United States continues unabated. As explained in a
subsequent chapter of this paper, the relationship between drugs and
crime is ambiguous and complex. Although the wave of recent homi-
cides across the country is commonly associated with the drug trade,
many law enforcement experts speculate that rising murder rates in
many cities might be due, paradoxically, to a shrinking drug market - a
situation in which gangs and dealers battle one another over restricted
turf and fewer customers.
Similarly mixed signals emerge from reports concerning opium
poppy cultivation in Central America and Asia. The International
Narcotics Control Strategy Report. discussed at further length later in
this document, makes clear that many countries have had bumper
crops of opium in the last year. raising alarms that cheaper. high quality
heroin may soon be flooding American cities - perhaps even replacing
cocaine as the drug of choice. So far. however, there is virtually no hard
evidence that heroin use is significantly increasing in the United States.
Emergency room mentions for heroin actually dropped in the first three
months of this year. A comparable threat was widely noted last
summer. when reports that "ice," a smokeable methamphetamine widely
used in Hawaii, would be the next wave of the drug epidemic. Here, too,
little evidence exists to suggest that ice has penetrated the mainland
drug market.
New threats do exist, of course. Illegal drug markets are volatile
and unpredictable. And steady. recent gains against drug trafficking
and use should delude no one into believing that the drug problem is no
longer unacceptably large and dangerous. Illegal drugs continue to
account for thousands of American deaths, billions of dollars in health
care costs, and immeasurable damage to families and communities. If
current statistical trends describe a drug problem no longer spiralling
wildly out of control - and actually abating - then a longer, historical
view should make clear that now is exactly the wrong time to change
direction, withdraw attention and effort, and give in to false comfort.
In the pages that follow. the leading indicators of America's drug
problem are described, evaluated, and interpreted. More targeted, sub-
sidiary indicators of drug trafficking and use sometimes make the news,
of course. But the surveys, studies, and statistical reports summarized
here are widely considered the best, most basic and important meas-
ures now available. An attempt is made here to place each of these
indicators in a larger context, to describe what it can tell us and to
acknowledge what it can't, and to interpret its results in light of what we
know about the drug problem from other sources.
In the months ahead. all of these indicators will. as always, be
closely scrutinized for evidence of significant further movement - for
good or ill. This document is offered as a way to encourage better
ONDCP White Paper
5
Leading Drug Indicators
understanding and accurate interpretation of such data as it continues
to emerge. And it is hoped that our national strategy against drugs -
shaped in part by these statistics - will continue to help move the
numbers in the right direction, further and faster than seemed possible
just one short year ago.
6
ONDCP White Paper
The National Household Survey
on Drug Abuse
The National Household Survey on Drug Abuse is a comprehensive
indicator that measures the prevalence of drug use in the Nation among
the American household population age 12 and older. Periodically since
1972, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) used a sample of ap-
proximately 4,000 to 9,000 randomly selected Americans to be inter-
viewed in person in their homes. The survey was last conducted in
1988, and data for the 1990 survey was collected earlier this year. After
the compilation and analysis of the data, NIDA releases a report that
estimates the percentage of the general population that has used drugs
in that year, with results broken down into estimates for various
demographic groups and the Nation as a whole.
As with any such survey, the Household Survey must rely solely
upon the answers of its respondents. While it is true that a survey
based on self-reported drug use is less reliable than results from
urinalysis or medical examination, researchers in the field of deviant
behavior say that fairly accurate data is obtained by the Household
Survey's carefully selected and trained interviewers who do everything
possible to minimize their respondents' perception of risk in answering
questions with candor. Concern for the confidentiality of respondents'
answers is central to the design and execution of the Household Survey,
which provides privacy for the respondents during the interview.
Despite these precautions, however, it is not unreasonable to as-
sume that some unknown proportion of respondents will have a ten-
dency to deny the use of illicit drugs, which would result in a lower
estimate of national drug use. It is also possible that the candor of
respondent answers has decreased to some degree as social tolerance
for drug use has diminished, just as it is possible some respondents
may have exaggerated reports of drug use when it enjoyed more social
acceptability. In any case, it is generally accepted by researchers that
the number of respondents who answer dishonestly is essentially con-
sistent and represents a negligibly small percentage of the sample.
The Household Survey estimates the prevalence of the use of a wide
variety of drugs, marijuana and other illicit drugs, such as cocaine,
heroin, and hallucinogens, as well as non-medical use of prescription
drugs. For an estimate of aggregate drug use, the survey also includes
a report on "any illicit drug use." The reported estimates of drug use are
then tabulated in three categories: "current" use (within the past 30
days): "past year" use: and lifetime use. In 1985. the survey began to
record the frequency of drug use in the past year for marijuana and
ONDCP White Paper
7
Leading Drug Indicators
cocaine, reporting data on those using drugs "12 or more times" and
"once a week or more". The published report breaks down findings by
age, sex, race, region, current employment, and educational attainment
of those 18 years or older.
The Household Survey is an important indicator because it at-
tempts to measure the prevalence of drug use among an estimated 98%
of the population: those Americans who live in households, as opposed
to college dormitories, military barracks. nursing homes, and prisons.
Understanding drug use trends among so broad a section of the
population is essential in discerning the extent of the drug problem in
the United States. But it should again be noted, however. that esti-
mates of drug use provided by the survey may be conservative since
some groups known for higher drug use rates - the homeless, prison-
ers, college students in dormitories - have not been included in the
survey sample. On the other hand, people with low rates of drug use,
such as those in nursing homes. have not been included in the sample
either.
Strengths and Limitations
The most significant strength of the Household Survey is that it is
our broadest measure of drug use in the Nation. Since the survey
collects information on the use of a large number of illicit drugs, it can
determine which drugs are being used most frequently and by what
segment of the population. Moreover, since the survey has been con-
ducted since its inception in 1972 with a consistent set of questions and
interview methodology. data from the survey (unlike many indicators)
can be used to establish clear trends and patterns over time.
A widely recognized limitation of the Household Survey is the delay
between the time the survey is conducted and the date its results are
released. And during the 1980s the survey was conducted only once
every three years, which did not give us enough data to study the evolu-
tion of drug use trends in detail. The survey, therefore, has been useful
as a general review of the size and direction of the Nation's drug problem
as it has developed over recent years, rather than the most up-to-date
information on national drug use. Beginning with the 1990 Household
Survey. however. data will be collected each year, and thus reported in a
more timely and relevant fashion.
An additional limitation is that only about 80 percent of those
selected for the study agree to be interviewed. While the 20 percent who
are not interviewed has been consistent over time and is comparable to
other major surveys, there is reason to believe that a disproportionate
share of non-respondents use drugs - perhaps heavily.
Some critics of the Household Survey have charged that the small
sample of approximately 9,000 respondents is too small to produce an
accurate picture of nationwide drug use, especially in certain subsec-
8
ONDCP White Paper
Leading Drug Indicators
Estimated Number of Current U.S. Drug Users, 1985 and 1988¹
25
23.0
20
Number of Current Drug Users
15
14.5
(In Millions)
10
5
0
1985
1988
1
Current drug users are those reporting drug use in the past 30 days.
Source: NIDA National Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 1989
tions of the population. Drugs like crack and heroin, used by a very
small segment of the population - are not truly amenable to study by
the Household Survey. Frequent heroin use, for example, is not even
estimated in the Household Survey because interviewers rarely find
more than a few people who use the drug. Yet it is worth noting that one
of the key findings of the survey - that weekly cocaine use soared
between 1985 and 1988 - has been confirmed by virtually every other
drug indicator. Nonetheless, the 1991 survey will be based on an in-
creased sample size of nearly 31,000, which will include expanded
coverage of hard-to-reach populations, and a set of metropolitan area
studies.
What the Household Survey Tells Us
According to the 1988 Household Survey, 37 percent of the house-
hold population aged 12 and older have used illicit drugs one or more
times in their lives. About 7 percent of this population - 14.5 million
people - were current users (had used drugs in the past month). In
addition, nearly twice as many males as females were cocaine users,
and whites constituted 69 percent of all cocaine users. More important
than these statistics, however, are drug use trends - patterns of drug
use over time.
ONDCP White Paper
9
Leading Drug Indicators
The 1988 report revealed some startling news when compared to
the 1985 survey. As the graph on page 9 makes clear, the number of
Americans using any illicit drug in the 30-day period preceding the
survey dropped 37 percent; current use of cocaine and marijuana
dropped 49 percent and 36 percent respectively. This was a continu-
ation of the general downward trend since drug use peaked in 1979.
Other news from the 1988 survey. however, suggests that another
part of the drug problem intensified between 1985 and 1988. As the
graph below illustrates, the estimated "frequent" use of cocaine - in-
gesting the drug one or more times each week, and calculated as a per-
centage of the total cocaine-using population - essentially doubled
from 5.3 percent to 10.5 percent from 1985 to 1988. What these
numbers make clear is that while fewer people are using cocaine overall,
those who were still using the drug in 1988 were using it more often.
Not coincidentally, 1985 was the first year in which crack-cocaine
became widely available.
Percentage of U.S. Cocaine Users Reporting Frequent Use
1
12
10.5
9
Percent of Cocaine Users
Reporting Frequent Use
6
5.3
3
0
1985
1988
1
Frequent cocaine users are those reporting cocaine use once a week or more.
Source: NIDA Household Survey on Drug Abuse, 1989
10
ONDCP White Paper
Drug Abuse Warning Network
The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN), administered by the
National Institute on Drug Abuse, monitors the number and pattern of
drug-related health emergencies and drug-related deaths in major met-
ropolitan areas across the country. The program was initiated in 1972
and records data every quarter.
In 1989, DAWN data were collected from a panel of over 700
hospital emergency rooms in 21 metropolitan areas and from 87 medi-
cal examiners in 27 different metropolitan areas. All the emergency
rooms participating in the DAWN system are open 24 hours a day and
are located in non-Federal, short-term hospitals. The system bases
trend estimates on consistently reporting hospitals.
DAWN collects two basic sorts of information: drug-related deaths
reported by medical examiners and drug-related visits to hospital emer-
gency rooms. Forensic data and/or hospital case records are analyzed
to determine whether use of illicit drugs was involved in the death or
emergency room visit in question - and if so, which drugs. Also
collected are data regarding the sex, age, and race of individuals; the
reason for admission or cause of death; single or multiple drug use; and
the method in which the drug was consumed (injected, smoked. in-
haled, etc.) Because of the hazardous and even deadly effects of drug
use, the information provided by emergency rooms in the DAWN system
helps measure increases and decreases in the drug-related damage
done to the Nation's health.
Strengths and Limitations
DAWN data by themselves do not allow us to conclude what type of
drug user becomes an emergency room statistic. DAWN researchers
speculate that in most instances, people who arrive at emergency rooms
as a result of their drug use are heavy users of illegal drugs. They are
people who, after a prolonged period of regular drug use, begin either to
consume increased amounts of drugs to overcome their higher tolerance
levels or to experiment with multiple drug use: Both practices make
drug use even more dangerous and life-threatening.
It is also possible that among the DAWN statistics are many first-
time or "experimental" users whose inexperience with drugs leads to a
serious medical emergency. But the data alone do not permit us to
determine the precise mix of bottomed-out addicts and novices showing
up in emergency rooms. Nonetheless, most drug researchers agree that
DAWN statistics most likely capture drug users who are at the peak of
their consumption: a medical emergency is often the precipitating event
that steers a drug user either to treatment or to reduced levels of con-
sumption.
ONDCP White Paper
11
Leading Drug Indicators
Cocaine Emergency Room Cases, 1985-1989
50,000
42,512
42,145
40,000
Number of Cases
32,052
30,000
20,000
18,579
10,248
10,000
0
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
Source: NIDA Drug Abuse Warning Network, 1990
Cocaine Emergency Room Cases, 1988-1990, by Quarter
12,000
10,993
11,247
11,122
11,302
11,096
10,210
10,000
8,627
8,135
Number of Cases
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Q2 88
Q3 88
94 88
91 89
Q2 89
Q3 89
94 89
Q1 90
Source: NIDA . Drug Abuse Warning Network, 1990
12
ONDCP White Paper
Leading Drug Indicators
By definition, drug users who become part of DAWN statistics are
people who have gotten into trouble with drugs. That is why DAWN
statistics are so important in assessing the severity of the Nation's drug
problem. Still, some caution should be taken in interpreting the data.
The total DAWN figures are not necessarily a true representative sample
of hospital emergencies across the country. And since reporting hospi-
tals are primarily in large metropolitan areas, dangerous drug use in
rural areas goes under-reported. (DAWN is now being reconstituted to
include more data from rural areas and create a true national sample).
DAWN statistics are also subject to the shifting potency and quality of
the drugs themselves. A sudden drop in the purity of cocaine in one city
may result in a parallel drop in medical emergencies, even though the
number of users and frequency of use remains the same.
What DAWN Tells Us
Few other indicators have illustrated the sweep of the Nation's
cocaine epidemic during the mid-1980s as well as DAWN. As the graph
on page 12 illustrates, the DAWN hospitals reported 10,248 cocaine-re-
lated emergency room cases in 1985. After three years of steep in-
creases, that number had grown more than 400 percent to 42,512
"mentions" in 1988. In some cities, the boom in cocaine emergencies
was far greater still: Phoenix jumped from 15 emergency room visits in
1
Cocaine-Related Deaths, 1985-1989
2500
2496
2254
2000
1725
Number of Deaths
1500
1223
1000
717
500
0
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1
Excludes New York City
Source: NIDA - Drug Abuse Warning Network, 1990
ONDCP White Paper
13
Leading Drug Indicators
1985 to 296 in 1988; during the same period, Detroit emergency rooms
saw a jump from 186 cocaine mentions in one quarter to over 1000
three years later.
The number of cocaine mentions reached a plateau, however, in the
final quarter of 1988, and remained stable for three successive quarters.
In the last three months of 1989, emergency room mentions for cocaine
dropped a dramatic 22 percent from the prior quarter. Preliminary data
indicate that they continued to decline a further 4 percent in the first
three months of 1990.
Medical examiner data, meanwhile, demonstrates the dramatic
increase between 1985 and 1988 in the number of deaths attributable
to cocaine. As the graph on the previous page illustrates, the total
number of cocaine-related deaths (excluding New York City) more than
tripled between 1985 and 1988 before the rate of increase slowed to just
11 percent between 1988 and 1989.
All these figures suggest that the cocaine epidemic, at least as
measured by emergency room visits, leveled off and may even have
begun to recede in the latter half of 1989. While it is possible that the
dramatic drop in cocaine emergencies during the fourth quarter of 1989
was due to transient and temporary factors (bad weather that kept
dealers in doors or drug supply disruptions) it is worth noting that
similar plateaus were reached during 1988 and 1989 for emergency
room mentions of marijuana and of all drugs combined. And as the
graph on page 15 shows, the number of heroin cases were level during
1989 before taking a 14 percent drop (according to preliminary figures)
in the first quarter of 1990, reaching the lowest level since 1986.
Because the magnitude of the drops recently observed in the DAWN
data so far has no parallel in any other indicator, we must be cautious
about reading them as evidence of a long-term decline in drug use. And
the most recent DAWN data show that cocaine and other drug-related
emergencies are still occurring at a historically very high level. Never-
theless, the small decline in emergency room mentions during the first
quarter of 1990 was the second consecutive quarter showing a mean-
ingful decline in cases, raising hopes that a genuine national trend of
decreased heavy drug use may be underway.
14
ONDCP White Paper
Leading Drug Indicators
Heroin Emergency Room Cases, 1985-1989
20,000
15,435
15,230
15,000
14,087
Number of Cases
13,080
12,165
10,000
5,000
0
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
Source: NIDA . Drug Abuse Warning Network. 1990
Heroin Emergency Room Cases, 1988-1990, by Quarter
5000
4151
4000
3851
3905
3936
3800
3675
3589
3071
Number of Cases
3000
2000
1000
0
92 88
Q3 88
Q4 88
g1 89
Q2 89
Q3 89
94 89
9190
Source: NIDA - Drug Abuse Warning Network, 1990
ONDCP White Paper
15
The Drug Use Forecasting Program
The Drug Use Forecasting program (DUF) was established by the
National Institute of Justice to measure the rate of drug use among
those arrested for serious crimes. Since 1986, the DUF program has
used urinalysis to test a sample of arrestees in selected major cities
across the Nation to determine recent drug use. Urine specimens are
collected from arrestees anonymously and voluntarily. and tested so as
to detect the use of ten different drugs. including cocaine, marijuana,
PCP. methamphetamine, heroin. and opium. The DUF program re-
leases a report every quarter on the percentage of arrestees tested in
each city who have recently used drugs.
In 1989, 22 cities participated in the DUF program, which found
that anywhere from 56 to 82 percent of male arrestees volunteering for
DUF tested positive for at least one drug. DUF also tests females at
most of its sites, although the sample sizes are smaller. Where possible.
DUF breaks down its findings by race, age, and the crime with which an
individual has been charged.
The DUF program is unique in two significant ways. First, it
determines drug use primarily through urinalysis: and second, it exam-
ines drug use among those charged with criminal behavior. Urinalysis is
currently the most reliable method of determining whether someone has
recently used drugs. The testing system employed by the DUF program
can detect whether drugs have been used during the last two to three
days, although marijuana and PCP can sometimes be detected weeks
later. The alternative - simply asking arrestees, soon after arrest, if
they have recently used drugs - produces understandably unreliable
results.
Detecting and measuring drug use among those charged with
criminal behavior is crucial to understanding the nature and extent of
drug use in the Nation. The criminal population is underrepresented in
other drug use surveys of the U.S. population such as the National
Household Survey or the High School Senior Survey. By drug testing a
sample of those arrested in major cities, the DUF program provides us
with concrete information about a subsection of the population where
drug use is heavily concentrated. Indeed, the results of the DUF
program show that the rate of drug use is as much as ten times greater
among those arrested for serious crimes than among the general popu-
lation.
Strengths and Limitations
The strength of the DUF program is, as mentioned, that it provides
information on the criminal population where rates of drug use are
high. The quarterly reports provided by DUF allow us to see the extent
16
ONDCP White Paper
Leading Drug Indicators
of drug use among those charged with criminal offenses, a group
thought to be underrepresented in household and other surveys, and it
supports other evidence suggesting drug use and criminal activity often
go hand in hand. Moreover, because DUF tests for ten different drugs,
we can determine which drugs are most frequently used by the criminal
population. The DUF system has tracked both the rise of cocaine in
most cities as well as the decreasing popularity of PCP in several
metropolitan areas over the last few years. For this reason, the National
Institute of Justice suggests that DUF can be used as a forecasting tool
in determining which drug trends may reach the general population.
While it is certainly true that DUF has charted the rapid growth of crack
use among the criminal population. it is not clear whether information
regarding the use of drugs by criminals gives us any ability to forecast
epidemic drug use among the general population.
The chief limitation of the DUF system is that it does not employ a
"probability sample" - the arrestees selected for testing are not neces-
sarily an accurate reflection of all arrestees. That means that informa-
tion obtained by DUF in a given quarter cannot be reliably extrapolated
to the larger criminal population, either from city to city or from quarter
to quarter. And because the method by which the sample is taken
varies from city to city, it is difficult to make meaningful comparisons
between cities. As a result, DUF provides us with valuable information
about arrestees tested in a given city. during a given quarter, but is less
effective in establishing national drug use trends over a longer period.
The findings of the DUF program give rise to two questions that no
current indicator can adequately answer. First. although DUF tells us
about recent drug use, it doesn't tell us about the frequency of drug use.
DUF numbers cannot tell us whether the arrestee is an addict or an
occasional user. Second, DUF appears to establish a link between drug
use and crime. although the precise nature of the connection remains
unclear: we don't know. for example, whether the arrestee committed
the crime with which he has been charged while under the influence of
the drug that has been detected through urinalysis. That ambiguity
should warn us to treat all cause-and-effect statements about criminal
behavior and drug use that are based exclusively on DUF data as highly
speculative.
What DUF Tells Us
Throughout 1989 and through the first quarter of 1990, cocaine
remained the most prevalent drug used by males and females arrested
for serious crimes. As the graph on page 18 illustrates, the percentage
of male arrestees testing positive for any drug during the first three
months of this year ranged from a high of 80 percent in San Diego and
Philadelphia to a low of 57 percent in Kansas City. Although no clear
trends are evident, in the last two quarters of available data, 9 of 20 DUF
ONDCP White Paper
17
Leading Drug Indicators
Drug Use by Male Arrestees, First Quarter, 1990
Philadelphia
80
San Diego
80
New York
79
Chicago
78
Houston
70
Los Angeles
70
Dallas
66
Cleveland
65
San Antonio
63
Phoenix
60
Washington, D.C.
59
San Jose
58
Kansas City
57
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent
Source: Drug Use Forecasting Program. 1990
cities recorded their lowest rates of male arrestee drug use since data
collection was initiated. No clear downward trend has been established,
however, and arrestee drug use could fluctuate as it has in the past.
Nevertheless, this decline in arrestee drug use seen in a number of DUF
sites across the country parallels what has occurred in Washington,
D.C., the only city in the Nation that currently tests every arrestee for
drug use. In June of 1990, only 48 percent of arrestees tested positive
for cocaine, the lowest level since May 1987 and a substantial drop from
the 67 percent who tested positive one year earlier.
The DUF program has also provided some interesting information
about heroin and amphetamine use. Although numerous studies and
press reports have suggested that the United States is on the verge of a
new heroin epidemic or about to undergo a wave of methamphetamine
use in the form of "ice," those fears are not bore out by the DUF data.
True, a few cities such as Chicago have seen an increase in the number
of arrestees testing positive for opiates. which would include heroin.
But in most cities oplate use shows up in less than 10 percent of the
arrestee sample. DUF data shows that opiate use in most cities has
neither gone up or down. Amphetamine use, on the other hand. has yet
to penetrate more than a few Western cities. In San Diego, where illicitly
manufactured dangerous drug use has traditionally been far higher
than elsewhere, 30 percent of male arrestees tested positive for am-
18
ONDCP White Paper
Leading Drug Indicators
phetamines. But in most other cities, less than 7 percent of arrestees
test positive for amphetamine use. So although the threat of new drug
epidemics remains, there has not been, at least through the first quarter
of 1990, any evidence of significant increases in the use of either heroin
or ice among the criminal population tested, the very place where one
would expect to see such emerging trends.
Finally, the DUF data does provide us with some additional insight
into drug use and crime. It is widely and correctly assumed that many
crimes are committed by those seeking money to support their drug
habit. The DUF data bolster this assumption: approximately three-
quarters of those arrested for burglary or robbery in 1989 tested positive
for drugs. But as the table on this page suggests, drug use is prevalent
among the majority of most other serious offenders, including those
charged with assault, homicide, and weapons offenses - crimes that
have no direct and obvious link with generating income. While it is clear
that drugs like cocaine and PCP can induce violent and aggressive
states of mind, the DUF data falls short of establishing that these drugs
have been the sole cause of violent crimes committed by otherwise
nonviolent drug users.
Drug Use by Charge at Arrest, January-December, 1989
Percentage Testing
Charge
Total Sample
Positive for any Drug
Assault
1711
55
Burglary
1701
75
Damage/Destroy Property
226
55
Drug Sale/Possession
2652
83
Family Offense
425
50
Flight/Escape/Warrant
488
68
Fraud/Forgery
415
58
Homicide
263
57
Larceny/Theft
2321
71
Probation/Parole Violation
481
64
Prostitution
145
59
Robbery
990
73
Sex Offenses
418
44
Stolen Vehicle
1080
64
Stolen Property
356
70
Weapons
675
63
Source: NIDA - Drug Abuse Warning Network, 1990
ONDCP White Paper
19
High School Senior Survey
The National High School Senior Drug Abuse Survey is the leading
indicator of drug use and attitudes toward drugs among our Nation's
high school seniors. The Survey has been conducted on an annual
basis since 1975 through a program entitled "Monitoring the Future: A
Continuing Study of the Lifestyles and Values of Youth." The program is
conducted by the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research
and is funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).
The High School Senior Survey includes a national sample of over
130 public and private high schools, with approximately 17,000 partici-
pating seniors. A representative follow-up sample of 2,400 individuals
is chosen from each class, half of whom are surveyed every year. The
survey is administered in the schools, and students responding to the
questions are assured confidentiality. Survey questions focus on the
respondents' use of illicit drugs and alcohol, including current use (use
within the last 30 days), annual use, and lifetime use. The Survey also
includes a series of questions concerning attitudes towards drug use,
perceived harmfulness of drug use, and perceived availability of drugs.
The survey sample does not capture high school dropouts or those
absent the day of the survey. Survey statistics may therefore be some-
what conservative since dropouts and truants are believed to have
higher than average rates of drug use. But since the methodology has
been consistent since 1975, the value of the survey as an indicator of
trends remains high.
Strengths and Limitations
The High School Senior Survey is the best information currently
available on trends in drug use, changes in values, behaviors, and
habits of American youth. As a fifteen-year survey with a continuous
history, it is also a useful barometer of drug use among young people in
general. The survey has also used the same methodology over the entire
period. thereby ensuring minimal variances due to the influence of
changes in wording, formatting, interview techniques, and so on that
can have profound effects on survey results in general.
The overriding importance of the High School Seniors Survey,
however, is that it takes a snapshot of Americans who are on the verge of
assuming the full responsibilities of citizenship - entering the work
force, attending college. entering the military. and raising families. High
rates of drug use at this stage are certainly cause for concern. By
providing information about drug use at this stage of education, the
High School Senior Survey helps assess the effectiveness of prevention
and education efforts designed to teach young people resist illicit drugs.
20
ONDCP White Paper
Leading Drug Indicators
Despite its success in measuring trends, the survey is not without
its limitations. As noted before, it misses the 15 to 20 percent of youth
who drop out of high school and the 5 to 10 percent of students absent
due to sickness, extracurricular activities, truancy, or other reasons. A
further limitation is that no perspective is provided on how and why
those seniors who use drugs in fact use them - that is, in what settings,
and under what circumstances. Finally, without more longitudinal
data, it is impossible to assess the seniors' "natural history" of drug use,
and thus determine whether those reporting drug use are at the begin-
ning. end, or middle of their drug-using career.
What the High School Senior Survey Tells Us
The 1989 Survey. released on February 13, 1990, provides encour-
agement that many of the positive trends of recent years have been
continuing and, indeed, intensifying. Reported use of any illegal drug in
the past 30 days decreased from 21.3 percent in 1988 to 19.7 percent in
1989, down from the peak of 38.9 percent found in 1978 and 1979.
Annual use of any illicit drug decreased from 38.5 percent in 1988 to
35.4 percent in 1989, down from 54.2 percent reported in 1979. The
trend is the same when individual drugs are examined, with both
lifetime and current use of marijuana and cocaine decreasing from 1988
to 1989. The only drug which saw an increase in use from 1988 to 1989
was PCP, where annual use increased from 1.2 percent to 2.4 percent.
Despite the decrease in use of most drugs. the situation in our
Nation's high schools is far from ideal. One out of two students has
used an illegal drug before he graduates: one out of ten has used
cocaine. The graphs on page 22 show how drug use in general among
high school seniors peaked in the late 1970s and how lifetime cocaine
use peaked in the mid-1980s and has fallen sharply since.
One of the most positive findings of the survey is that disapproval of
drug use, which was already high, continues to grow. Seniors who
disapprove of occasional marijuana use increased from 74 percent in
1988 to 77.2 percent in 1989, continuing a trend which began in 1979.
while the percentage disapproving of occasional cocaine use increased
from 89.1 in 1988 to 90.5 in 1989, continuing à trend which began in
1982. At the same time. the perceived harmfulness of drug use has
been on the rise. Seniors who thought occasional use of cocaine was
harmful rose from 69.2 percent in 1988 to 71.8 percent in 1989,
continuing a trend that has been seen since these data began to be
collected in 1986.
While drug use, disapproval of drug use, and the perceived harm-
fulness of drug use have all been heading in positive directions, the
perceived availability of drugs has been increasing. In 1989, 58.7
percent of seniors thought that cocaine was easily available, up from the
55.0 percent who thought so in 1988, while the percentage that thought
ONDCP White Paper
21
Leading Drug Indicators
Percentage of High School Seniors Reporting
Drug Use in the Past 30 Days, 1975-1989
40
35
Percentage Using Any
30
Illicit Drug
25
20
15
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
Source: NIDA - High School Student Survey, 1990
Percentage of High School Seniors Reporting
Lifetime Cocaine Use, 1975-1989
18
16
Percentage Having
14
Used Cocaine
12
10
8
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
Source: NIDA High School Student Survey, 1990
22
ONDCP White Paper
Leading Drug Indicators
heroin would be easily available increased from 28.0 percent to 31.4
percent in the same year. Both of these increases continue a trend
which has been afoot since 1983.
One of the most fascinating findings of the 1989 survey is the
correlation between the use of cocaine and marijuana by seniors and
the perceived harmfulness of such use. Perceptions of the harmfulness
of marijuana use increased steadily between 1980 and 1989, while
seniors' reported use of the drug declined. Likewise. as the perceived
harmfulness of cocaine use started to rise in 1987, cocaine use among
seniors began to decline. While several factors have obviously contrib-
uted to this phenomenon, it is important to note that efforts to educate
our young people as to the dangers of drug use seem to be taking hold.
For the first time, the 1989 survey examined the use of steroids,
finding that 3 percent of seniors had taken steroids at least once in their
lifetime. Significantly. 4.7 percent of males had tried these drugs while
only 1.3 percent of females had tried them. Another interesting finding
of the 1989 survey involved students who are frequently truant. While
those who routinely skip class do have higher rates of drug use, their
level of reported drug use is also declining. This offers hope that the
movement away from drug use may run broad and deep among this age
group.
The longitudinal data collected from past survey participants pro-
vide some interesting information on changes in drug use as the respon-
dents to the survey get older. Use of marijuana and cocaine tends to
increase after high school until age 21, and then drop. Use of other
illicit drugs such as amphetamines, barbiturates, and LSD falls after
high school. Although one must remain cautious in discussing causal-
ity from this sort of longitudinal data, use of a drug has been found to
decrease over time as the perceived harmfulness of such use rises.
ONDCP White Paper
23
Price and Purity Indicators
Following trends in both the price and purity of illicit drugs is a
crucial, if imprecise. method for determining the availability of drugs in
the United States. Field agents from the DEA regularly report on street
availability of drugs in major metropolitan areas. But because such
reports often must rely on rumor and local perceptions, the DEA also
tracks changes in both price and purity data through purchases and
seizures to determine shifts in the availability of illegal drugs.
Strengths and Limitations
The value of price and purity indicators rests on two beliefs: first,
that if drugs are scarce fewer people will use them: and second. shifts in
the supply and demand for drugs are reflected in their price, purity, and
general availability. These arguments, if true, suggest that the econom-
ics of drug trafficking are subject to the same laws of the marketplace as
other goods: if supply rises and/or demand falls, prices drop; if supply
falls and/or demand rises, prices climb. The importance of drug purity
stems from a common feature of the drug dealing business. Both heroin
and cocaine are routinely "cut" with other substances (traffickers will
cut heroin with a substance like quinine or lactose; cocaine is frequently
Range of Cocaine Prices, 1989-1990, per Kilogram
City
1989
1990
(Through June 20)
Los Angeles
$14,000-20,000
$21,000-32,000
New York
17,000-25,000
20,000-35,000
Houston
11,000-21,000
20,000-30,000
Chicago
19,000-25,000
19,000-32,000
Miami
16.000-22,000
17,500-23,000
Source: DEA. 1990
24
ONDCP White Paper
Leading Drug Indicators
Average Purity of Cocaine Sold in the U.S., 1988-1990
100
90
Percent Purity
80
70
60
50
1988
1
1989
1990
1
"Wholesale" Level (Kilograms)
Through June 20, 1990
"Retail" Level (Grams)
Source: DEA. 1990
cut with baking soda or powdered milk). which decrease its purity. If
drug supplies dwindle, distributors and street dealers are likely to
adulterate their product with cheap additives SO they can maintain the
same level of sales with less potent doses.
The problem with this market model is that drugs such as heroin
and cocaine are sold exclusively in illegal, underground markets. Not
only does their illegality create all kinds of distortions in normal pricing
systems. but the clandestine nature of their distribution make studies
of price changes very difficult. Moreover, although illegal drugs are
trafficked across the United States, the level of price, purity, and
availability has shown large disparities among different cities and re-
gions.
What Price and Purity Indicators Tell Us
In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in
June 1990, the DEA reported that the price of cocaine at both the
wholesale (by kilegram) and retail (by gram) level had undergone notable
increases, in some cases to the highest level since 1985. The table on
page 24 illustrates the most recent range of prices for cocaine in five
major cities and compares them to 1989 prices. Meanwhile, purity
levels for both kilograms and grams have been declining, suggesting
that the new scarcity of cocaine has reverberations throughout the
market.
ONDCP White Paper
25
Leading Drug Indicators
While all explanations of these price increases are at best specula-
tive, it is nevertheless worth noting a number of plausible theories to
explain the shifts in the cocaine market. For example, it is difficult to
dismiss the importance of the numerous multi-ton seizures of cocaine
by both U.S. and Mexican officials. Between October 1989 and June
1990, 43 tons of cocaine has been seized in the United States. And
during the first five months of 1990, Mexican official seized twice as
much as they had during the same period in 1989. True, large seizures
may only be indicative of better law enforcement or vastly increased
shipments. But when paired with the changes in price and purity,
recent seizures do seem to have had an impact. Moreover, these market
shifts come in the wake of a crackdown on the cocaine cartel initiated by
the Colombian government in August 1989. Since then, numerous
cocaine processing labs in the Andes have been seized and transporta-
tion routes used by traffickers have been disrupted. events that would
certainly bring added costs to drug distributors that could then be
passed on to dealers and consumers in the United States.
There is also the possibility that the shifts in prices reflect the
manipulation of the market by traffickers who are exploiting the percep-
tion of a cocaine shortage. Similarly, increased enforcement activities
may have caused distributors to stockpile cocaine supplies, creating a
market shortage or local price jumps that are only temporary.
Coca Leaf Prices per 100 Pounds, January-May, 1990
80
74
65
60
51
U.S. Dollars
46
40
28
20
13
8.7
10
10.3
9.7
0
Jan 90
Feb 90
Mar 90
Apr 90
May 90
Chapare
Upper Huallaga Valley
Source: DEA, 1990
26
ONDCP White Paper
Leading Drug Indicators
Along with changes in the domestic price of cocaine have been some
noteworthy changes in the price of coca leaf in the producing countries.
U.S. officials cooperating with the host governments in the Andean
source countries, regularly estimate the price of coca leaf sold to be
converted into coca paste and then cocaine powder. Price estimates are
obtained from different growing areas and reported on a monthly basis.
As the graph on page 26 shows, from January to May 1990, the leaf
price of one hundred pounds of coca fell from $65 to $10 in Peru's
Upper Huallaga Valley. and rose slightly. then fell in Bolivia's Chapare
Region.
The precise meaning of these changes if far from certain. Fluctua-
tions in leaf price are a function of local supply and demand for raw
materials generated by cocaine processors and distributors. A drop in
leaf price can also reflect disruptions in processing and transportation
as well as an overabundance of coca due to overplanting or declining
demand. In any case, the impact of low coca leaf prices on the U.S.
street price for cocaine is ambiguous. But the fact that prices both on
the street and at the source have undergone significant changes in the
past months do make a compelling case that there has been some
disruption to the normal market mechanisms, whatever those disrup-
tions may be.
The crucial test will be whether market disruptions can be main-
tained over several more months and into the future. If so, arguments
about the possibility of stockpiling or temporary disruptions will carry
less weight. and we would expect to see more tangible evidence of a
shrinking U.S. cocaine market. At that point, the drug consumers will
feel the full impact of cocaine scarcity, resulting in a significant and
measurable drop in consumption, more addicts seeking treatment,
fewer hospital emergencies, and a lower rate of arrestees testing positive
for cocaine.
ONDCP White Paper
27
Crime Statistics
The U.S. Department of Justice measures crime in three principal
ways. The Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) collected by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation produce both an estimate of all serious or
"index" crimes reported to authorities and a record of all arrests made
by law enforcement officials. The National Crime Survey, administered
by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), gathers data through an
annual survey of 50,000 households, thereby including crimes that go
unreported to the authorities.
According to the UCR, the Crime Index rose 2 percent from 1988 to
1989, a 15 percent increase since 1985. This rise reflects increases in
the number of murders, forcible rapes, robberies, aggravated assaults.
burglaries, larcenies, and motor vehicle thefts. Drug law violations are
not counted as index crimes, and because such violations frequently
involve the willful possession and distribution of drugs, they are less
likely to emerge from survey data. Nevertheless, we do know that there
was, during the latter half of the 1980s, a significant increase in the
number of arrests made for drug violations. The UCR figures show that
between 1985 and 1989, the total number of arrests for drug offenses
rose from 639,530 to 993,881 - a 55 percent increase. We also know
that while drug offenses accounted for only 17 percent of all defendants
convicted in 1980, that figure climbed to 30 percent by 1987. Less
formal but equally impressive statistics come from reports out of local
police departments across the country. In March 1989, for example, the
New York Times reported that approximately 3 out of every 10 arrests in
New York City were drug arrests.
What Crime Statistics Tell Us
It is impossible to determine from the figures above how the in-
crease in predatory crime is linked to the massive rise in drug-related
criminal activity and drug consumption. Yet it is widely and reasonably
assumed that a significant part of the growth in violent crime has been
fueled either directly or indirectly by the large increase in drug crimes
and drug use. Although no consistent figures are kept on "drug-related
crime," we can assume that drug use affects the crime rate in at least
three ways that are distinct from specific drug offenses: crime that is
committed while under the influence of drugs: crime - mostly murder,
assault. and weapons offenses - that is directly linked to drug traffick-
ing; and crime that is committed for the purpose of generating enough
income to support a drug habit. In most cases, however, when a crime
is reported or when police make an arrest, the determination that it is
actually drug-related depends solely on the judgment of those at the
scene.
28
ONDCP White Paper
Leading Drug Indicators
Total Arrests for Drug Abuse Violations, 1985 and 1989
12
994
8
Number of Arrests
(In Thousands)
640
4
0
1985
1989
Source: Uniform Crime Reports, 1990
Even more difficult is finding support for the claim that rising crime
is solely a result of addicts trying to get enough money to support their
addiction. The 1986 BJS study of State prison inmates found that while
nearly 47 percent had actively been involved with drugs, less than one-
seventh of the prison population fit the pattern of addicts who had
committed crimes to generate income. Moreover, nearly three-fifths of
those who had regularly used a major drug indicated that heavy drug
use began after their first arrest, suggesting that in many cases crime
precedes drug use. It appears that once regular drug use begins, those
who have committed crimes tend to commit them at a greater frequency.
Studies cited in the Department of Justice's "Report to the Nation on
Crime and Justice" suggest that criminal involvement intensifies as a
drug addiction develops.
Nevertheless, many law enforcement officials acknowledge that at
times an inverse relationship exits between the drug problem and the
crime rate. One perhaps counterintuitive theory argues that the recent
surges in murder rates in cities across the country could actually reflect
a shrinking of local drug markets: as the availability of cocaine declines
and as the number of customers fall, drug traffickers are left fighting
one another over turf. A declining cocaine market could also explain the
recent rises in robbery and burglary: as drug distribution opportunities
decrease, one-time drug dealers might turn to the next most lucrative
criminal enterprises.
ONDCP White Paper
29
Leading Drug Indicators
Of course, these scenarios are simply theories, but they demon-
strate the need to be cautious about linking the rate of violent crime to
the size of the drug problem. Although crime and drugs are intimately
related, determining trends in the Nation's drug problem requires that
we make important distinctions between the two.
30
ONDCP White Paper
The International Narcotics
Strategy Report
The International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR) is the
Department of State's annual report to Congress that gauges the effec-
tiveness of anti-drug efforts among the world's major drug producing
and transit nations. INCSR has been released since 1987 in accordance
with a law that conditions U.S. assistance to major drug producer or
transit countries upon their full cooperation with the United States and
their progress in the suppression of illicit drug production. trafficking,
and money laundering.
The President is required to "certify" that the anti-drug efforts of
these countries are satisfactory to Congress on or before March 1 of
each year, and INCSR serves as the factual basis for his recommenda-
tions. At stake is the provision of most U.S. economic and all military.
assistance, fifty percent of which is withheld at the beginning of each
fiscal year pending the outcome of the certification process. Certifica-
tion also requires that countries receiving U.S. drug control assistance
have fully cooperated and taken adequate steps to reduce illegal drug
production and punish those involved in the drug trade.
Raw data, the essential ingredient of INCSR, are compiled in the
field by specialists from the Department of State, DEA agents, and other
embassy personnel. Their contributions are supplemented and further
refined in Washington by the Federal agencies directly involved in
international drug policy and enforcement. Each report contains an
extensive description of the progress or lack of progress in the suppres-
sion of illegal drugs in more than 46 countries.
Strengths and Limitations
Each country report provides specific information on the criteria
established for certification. In addition, the report provides an assess-
ment of current production levels of major drugs and a summary of U.S.
funding for drug control. A typical profile contains a status report of
anti-drug efforts (updated at mid-year). an outline of United States anti-
drug programs in place, a catalog of accomplishments and weaknesses
in the country's law enforcement, crop control, drug abuse prevention,
anti-money laundering programs, and a chronology of policy water-
sheds and other significant drug-related events from the previous year.
Because many countries do not collect data themselves regarding their
own drug production and use, INCSR is often the only source available
to assess changes in the international drug trade.
ONDCP White Paper
31
Leading Drug Indicators
Like the National Narcotics Intelligence Consumers Committee
report (discussed in another chapter), INCSR provides increasingly
accurate drug production data, which are arrived at through the use of
sophisticated survey and methodological techniques. Final production
figures are reviewed and certified by a committee which includes the
Department of State and all concerned agencies. INCSR also compiles
drug seizure data, though the evaluation process here is somewhat less
thorough.
Of course, the accuracy of production data in INCSR is always tied
the precision of our measurement techniques, and occasionally in-
creased production estimates may reflect only improved data collection.
In 1989, for example, improved survey and analytic methods required a
substantially increased estimate of Mexican cannabis cultivation over
the previous year. Conversely. drug seizure data are based on informa-
tion from foreign law enforcement and other sources, and are generally
not as methodologically rigorous as production data.
Another function of INCSR is to attempt to gauge foreign govern-
ment resolve toward drug control, while recognizing that governments
are sometimes limited in their ability to combat their drug problems due
to events beyond their control - such as civil war. This year, for
instance, INCSR laid the groundwork for recertifying Lebanon, a coun-
try beset by political chaos whose government has little ability to enforce
civil laws much less drug laws in most of the country. Thus, the INCSR
is an indicator of the international drug problem that is geared toward
the certification process, rather than a statistical measure of long-term
trends in drug production and consumption.
What the 1990 INCSR Tells Us
There are signs of both warning and encouragement in the 1990
INCSR. It warns of increased opium cultivation and heroin refining in
the world's largest opium producer - Burma. In the absence of
Burmese enforcement and eradication efforts, and partly owing to
excellent weather conditions, the 1989 opium crop is estimated at
somewhere between 1,650 and 2,625 metric tons - roughly double last
year's harvest. Prospects for improvement are said to be dimmed by the
military regime's current focus on stifling domestic opposition.
The INCSR Mid-Year Update, released this past summer, indicates
that Colombia, which processes as much as 80 percent of the cocaine
reaching the United States, seized 38 metric tons of cocaine base and
paste in the first five months of 1990 - more than the total for all of
1989. In Peru's Upper Huallaga Valley. where more than half of the
world's illicit coca is grown, large-scale seizures of leaf, paste and coca
base have helped push the market price for coca below the "break-even"
point for many farmers.
32
ONDCP White Paper
Leading Drug Indicators
The updated INCSR also outlines a major turn-around in Mexico's
anti-drug efforts, including a new asset forfeiture law that has led to $1
billion in asset seizures. And the report highlights the Mexican Govern-
ment's newly initiated Northern Border Response Force, which has
contributed significantly to the seizure of 25,000 kilograms (kgs) of
cocaine, 375,000 kgs of marijuana, and 230 kgs of opiates, as well as
5,000 drug-related arrests.
In the context of reports of decreasing cocaine purity and increas-
ing cocaine prices in the U.S., (the price of pure Los Angeles cocaine, for
example, has surged an estimated 88 percent since December), the
report leaves room for cautious optimism. The combination of supply
shortages in the United States and the glut of raw and semi-processed
coca in Peru is suggestive of a squeeze in the traffickers' ability to move
raw coca from the fields to the end market - the United States.
ONDCP White Paper
33
The National Narcotics Intelligence
Consumers Committee Report
The National Narcotics Intelligence Consumers Committee report
(NNICC) is a cooperative, annually produced paper that draws together
facts and figures on worldwide drug production, eradication, seizures,
and trend data on U.S. drug consumption. It is a document based more
on careful compilation and refinement of existing data than on original
research.
NNICC draws on most major drug indicators, prime among them
the Department of State's International Narcotics Control Strategy Re-
port (INCSR). The report also uses data from the Drug Abuse Warning
Network, the Drug Use Forecasting program, and the DEA's Domestic
Monitor Program. NNICC organizes its data by drug type, in contrast to
INCSR which consists of specialized country dossiers. But like INCSR,
NNICC contains a special chapter on drug-related financial crimes.
Because it documents the many facets of the drug problem ranging
from trafficking to illicit drug retail price and purity to drug-related
hospital emergencies, and because it collects them from a range of
sources, NNICC serves primarily as an expanded summary of current
drug statistics. Yet the report also includes comprehensive citations to
original data sources, making it a useful reference text of drug statistics.
Strengths and Limitations
Released every June since 1978, NNICC. like INCSR, reports on
(increasingly accurate) drug production data, which involve the use of
sophisticated survey and methodological techniques. Final production
figures are determined by a multi-agency committee that includes the
Departments of State. Defense, and Treasury, along with NIDA, the FBI,
the CIA, the DEA, the Customs Service, the Coast Guard, the Immigra-
tion and Naturalization Service, and the Office of National Drug Control
Policy. Production figures appearing in the report have the advantage
of being the sole, studied product of the interagency consultative proc-
ess. They are the only figures agreed upon, with occasional reserva-
tions, across the spectrum of drug intelligence consumers. NNICC also
compiles seizure data, though the evaluation process for overseas sei-
zure data is less rigorous than for production. Yet no matter what
method used. all seizure data suffers from the same weakness: no
accurate numbers exist on the total amount of drugs entering the
United States. Seizures of any size do not by themselves tell us whether
we are seizing a greater or smaller portion of smuggled drugs, nor do
they help us determine the overall size of drug trafficking operations. It
is possible that large seizures of illegal drugs could reflect increased
levels of production at the source, or more effective interdiction efforts
by law enforcement officials.
34
ONDCP White Paper
Leading Drug Indicators
What the 1990 NNICC Tells Us
The 1989 NNICC (released in June 1990) reports that cocaine
continues to be widely available in the United States. Despite large
seizures between September and December of 1989, there were few
indications of a drop in domestic cocaine supplies. Yet the report
acknowledges that during this same period there were wholesale price
increases ranging from $1,000 to as high as $12,500 per kilogram and
declines in purity at the retail level of as much as 10 percent. The
NNICC explains these changes as a reaction to press stories about
successful seizures by law enforcement officials of large amounts of
cocaine toward the end of 1989. The much-publicized seizures created
perceptions of a shrinking cocaine market among dealers who raised
their price and increased the use of adulterants.
The report also describes a shift in cocaine smuggling patterns.
Although south Florida had long been a preferred smuggling route,
during 1989, Colombian cocaine traffickers increasingly used Mexican
organizations to transport cocaine through the Southwest border. Such
a shift makes more plausible the theory that increased interdiction
efforts in the Florida area forced traffickers to alter traditional tranship-
ment routes. Also of note is the increase in cocaine seizures in Western
Europe during 1989. Reports indicate that more cocaine than heroin
was seized in Europe last year, a fact that could reflect an expanding
Estimated Coca Leaf Production, 1988-1989
140
123.8
120
110.6
100
Metric Tons
(In Thousands)
80
66.0
60
51.0
40
33.5
21.6
20
0
Bolivia
Colombia
Peru
1988
1989
Source: National Narcotics Intelligence Consumer's Committee, 1990
ONDCP White Paper
35
Leading Drug Indicators
cocaine industry or a saturated or less penetrable U.S. market. And as
the graph on page 35 illustrates, coca leaf production was up in all three
Andean countries in 1989.
The NNICC report also concludes that heroin availability increased
during 1989. It points to three contributing factors: greater opium and
heroin production in source countries; less eradication; and the pres-
ence of well-established trafficking organizations both abroad and in the
United States. Seizures of heroin, too, increased in 1989. A 380 kilo-
gram shipment of Southeast Asian heroin was seized in New York last
year, the largest single seizure of heroin ever in the United States. While
all these indicators point to increased heroin production and importa-
tion, other indicators of heroin use, such as DAWN and DUF, have not
shown increases, at least through the first quarter of 1990.
Finally. the NNICC report surveys the availability of dangerous
drugs during 1989. Although an increased number of clandestine labs
were seized in the United States, methamphetamine use remained high
in the West and Southwest, and the availability of MDMA or "Ecstasy"
increased. The problem of "ice," a crystal, smokeable form of metham-
phetamine, appeared to be restricted to Hawaii where a gram sells for 3
to 4 times the price of a gram of cocaine. Most interesting has been the
significant decrease in the use of PCP, once among the most prevalent
drugs. As both the DUF and DAWN data demonstrate, PCP use has
declined in virtually all major U.S. cities.
36
ONDCP White Paper
Blank Page
Do Not Print
36-30-1990 16:52 FROM DUJ-DEPUTY HITY GENERAL
IU
94567739
DRAFT
DRAFT CRIME BILL STATEMENT
Vaw
Well over a year ago, I sent to Congress a comprehensive
legislative package to deal with the epidemic of violent crime
that threatens our citizens' most basic civil rights. My
proposals include a death penalty for the most heinous federal
crimes, reforms that will stop the federal courts from being used
to nullify state capital sentences through inordinate delays,
stiff new sentences for the criminal use of firearms, and a new
measure to ensure that evidence gathered by the police in good
faith can be used against criminals in court.
Despite the urgency of the problem, Congress has failed to
act on my proposals. What is worse, several measures receiving
serious consideration in Congress would actually weaken law
enforcement instead of strengthening it.
The American people deserve new laws that will help keep
them safe from the predators that infest too many of their
neighborhoods. I want to sign a crime bill, and I want to sign
it this year. We need a workable federal death penalty. We need
to reform the delay-ridden habeas corpus system, which allows
convicted felons to challenge their conviction and sentences over
and over again, even when there is no issue about their guilt.
We need to let our courts use the evidence that our police have
gathered while doing their jobs in good faith. And we need to
boost the penalties for the misuse of guns.
Let me also say that I will not sign a phony crime bill that
would actually weaken law enforcement. I will not sign a bill
overturning Supreme Court decisions on habeas corpus that have
improved the operation of our criminal justice system. I will
not sign a bill that expands the coverage of the exclusionary
rule. And I will not sign a bill that would create a racial
quota system for capital punishment.
Our police and prosecutors are in the front line of the battle
for the most basic civil rights -- freedom from fear, freedom
from robbery and thievery, freedom from rape and murder. They
know the difference between my Administration's bill, which gives
them the new tools they need, and the anti-law-enforcement
proposals that some are offering in the guise of a crime bill.
They know the difference and so will the American people.
Accordingly, I urge the Congress to act promptly on my proposals
and to send me a crime bill that we can all be proud of.
DRAFT