National Forensic Laboratory Information System 2015 Annual Report

NFLIS
NATIONAL FORENSIC LABORATORY

INFORMATION SYSTEM
2015 ANNUAL REPORT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
DIVERSION CONTROL DIVISION
nflis 2015 annual report | 1
Contents
Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Section 1
National and Regional Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1 .1 Drug Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1 .2 Drug Cases Analyzed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1 .3 National and Regional Drug Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Section 2
Major Drug Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2 .1 Narcotic Analgesics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2 .2 Tranquilizers and Depressants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2 .3 Anabolic Steroids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2 .4 Phenethylamines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2 .5 Synthetic Cannabinoids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Section 3
GIS Analysis: Ethylone and AB-CHMINACA Comparisons,
by Location, 2014 and 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Section 4
Drugs Identified by Laboratories in Selected U .S . Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Appendix A: Statistical Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Appendix B: Participating and Reporting Forensic Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . 28
Appendix C: NFLIS Benefits and Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Appendix D: NFLIS Website and Data Query System (DQS) . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Public Domain Notice and Obtaining Copies of This Publication . . . . . . . . 31

Highlights
From January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015, an estimated 1,192,079 distinct drug cases
were submitted to State and local laboratories in the United States and analyzed by March 31,
2016. From these cases, an estimated 1,549,466 drug reports were identified.
Cannabis/THC was the most frequently identified drug (395,767 reports) in 2015, followed by
methamphetamine (272,823 reports), cocaine (216,129 reports), and heroin (187,868 reports).
Nationally, alprazolam showed a linear-increasing trend from 2001 through 2015, with
significant increases occurring in 2014 and 2015 (p < .05).* Oxycodone, hydrocodone,
buprenorphine, fentanyl, and clonazepam reports showed S-shaped trends. Oxycodone and
hydrocodone reports increased dramatically from 2002 to 2010, followed by recent downturns.
The trend curve for buprenorphine showed dramatic increases from 2005 to 2010, followed
by a steady increase through 2013 and significant increases in 2014 and 2015. Fentanyl reports
remained steady from 2001 to 2005, increased in 2006, remained steady again through 2013,
then dramatically increased in 2014 and 2015. The most dramatic increase for clonazepam
occurred between 2008 and 2010, then remained fairly steady until further increases occurred in
2014 and 2015.
From 2014 to 2015, national reports of hydrocodone decreased significantly, while reports of
alprazolam, buprenorphine, fentanyl, and clonazepam increased significantly.
Regionally, for alprazolam, the West, Midwest, and South regions showed linear-increasing
trends, while the Northeast region showed an S-shaped trend that began to curve downward in
2011. For oxycodone, all regions showed S-shaped trends. For hydrocodone, all regions showed
S-shaped trends except the Northeast region, which had an upside-down U-shaped trend that
decreased from 2008 through 2015. For buprenorphine, the West, Midwest, and South regions
showed upward-curving trends, and the Northeast region had an S-shaped trend that began
to turn downward in 2011. For fentanyl, the Midwest, Northeast, and South regions showed
S-shaped trends that dramatically increased from 2013 through 2015, while the West region
showed a linear-increasing trend, with a significant increase in 2015. For clonazepam, the West
region showed a linear-increasing trend, the Midwest region had an upward-curving trend, and
the South and Northeast regions had S-shaped trends.
In 2015, oxycodone and hydrocodone accounted for 52% of narcotic analgesic reports.
Alprazolam accounted for 56% of the reports of identified tranquilizers and depressants. Among
identified synthetic cannabinoids, AB-CHMINACA accounted for 22% and XLR11 accounted
for 21% of reports.
Nationwide, cannabis/THC, methamphetamine, and cocaine reports showed S-shaped trends.
Cannabis/THC decreased from 2001 through 2004, slightly increased from 2005 to 2009, and
decreased since 2009. Methamphetamine reports increased from 2001 through 2005, decreased
from 2005 through 2010, and increased since 2011. Cocaine reports gradually increased from
2001 to 2006 and steadily decreased through 2014 until a slight increase occurred in 2015.
Heroin reports showed a U-shaped trend, with decreases from 2001 through 2005, followed by
increases from 2006 to 2015. MDMA reports showed an upside-down U-shaped trend, with an
overall increase in MDMA reports from 2001 to 2007, followed by a decrease through 2015.
* Curved trends are sometimes described as U-shaped (i.e., decreasing in earlier years and increasing in recent
years) and S-shaped (i.e., two turns in the trend, roughly either increasing-decreasing-increasing or decreasing-
increasing-decreasing). See Appendix A for a more detailed methodology discussion.

INTRODUCTION
Marysville
Seattle
Tacoma
Spokane Coeur dAlene
Kelso WA
The National Forensic Laboratory Information System Portland Kennewick
(NFLIS) is a program of the Drug Enforcement Administration MT

Pendleton Missoula
(DEA), Diversion Control Division, which systematically Springfield
W E S T
Bend
collects drug identification results and associated information
OR ID
from drug cases submitted to and analyzed by Federal, State, and Central Point
Meridian
local forensic laboratories. These laboratories analyze controlled
and noncontrolled substances secured in law enforcement Eureka
Pocatello WY
operations across the country. NFLIS represents an important Redding
Washoe County
Ogden
resource in monitoring illicit drug abuse and trafficking, Chico
Salt Lake City
including the diversion of legally manufactured pharmaceuticals Santa Rosa
Sacramento County
into illegal markets. NFLIS data are used to support drug Oakland PD Sacramento
Contra Costa County Jefferson County
San Francisco French Camp NV
scheduling decisions and to inform drug policy and drug San Mateo Alameda County UT Grand Junction
Santa Clara
enforcement initiatives nationally and in local communities Watsonville CO
Fresno Cedar City
around the country.
Fresno County CA Las Vegas
NFLIS is a comprehensive information system that includes Kern County
Henderson
data from forensic laboratories that handle the Nations drug Goleta Flagstaff
analysis cases. The NFLIS participation rate, defined as the Ventura County Lake Havasu City Santa Fe
Los Angeles County San Bernardino
percentage of the national drug caseload represented by Los Angeles Riverside AZ
Orange County Albuquerque
Long Beach
laboratories that have joined NFLIS, is currently over 97%. Phoenix Scottsdale
San Diego County Phoenix NM
NFLIS includes 50 State systems and 101 local or municipal San Diego PD Mesa
laboratories/laboratory systems, representing a total of 277 Tucson

Tucson Las Cruces
individual laboratories. The NFLIS database also includes
Federal data from DEA and U.S. Customs and Border El Paso
Protection (CBP) laboratories.
The 2015 Annual Report presents the results of drug cases
submitted to State and local laboratories from January through
December 2015 that were analyzed by March 31, 2016.
Section1 presents national and regional estimates for the 25
most frequently reported drugs, as well as national and regional
trends from 2001 through 2015. Section 2 presents estimates of
specific drugs by drug category. All estimates are based on the
NEAR (National Estimates Based on All Reports) approach.
See Appendix A for details on the NEAR approach and
Appendix B for a list of NFLIS participating and reporting
laboratories. Data from Federal laboratories are also included in
this publication. All data presented in this publication include
the first, second, and third drugs that were mentioned in
laboratories reported drug items.
selectedStates. Section 4 presents drugs reported by selected
Sections 3 and 4 present actual reported data rather than laboratories in cities across the country. The benefits and
national and regional estimates; all data reported by NFLIS State limitations of NFLIS are presented in Appendix C. A key area
and local laboratories are included. Section 3 presents a of improvement to NFLIS includes ongoing enhancements to
Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis on ethylone and the NFLIS Data Query System (DQS); Appendix D
AB-CHMINACA reports by State and by county for summarizes these DQS enhancement activities.
4 | nflis 2015 annual report

ME
N O R T H E A S T
Bemidji Augusta
Waterbury
ND
VT NHConcord
Marquette
Bismarck
MN
Onondaga Sudbury University of
Wausau
Grayling County NY MA Medical
Albany Center, Worcester
WI Niagara County MA Providence
SD PIerre
St. Paul
MI Bridgeport
Erie County Port Crane Newburgh RI
Hartford
East
M I D W E S T Milwaukee Grand Lansing
Rapids
Sterling Lorain County
Heights Cuyahoga
Olean
Wyoming Yonkers
CT Suffolk County
Westchester County
Rapid City County Erie Nassau County New York City
Kenosha Union County
Lake County PA
Madison
County Northville West Trenton NJLittle Falls Hudson County
Rockford Chicago Toledo RichfieldAllegheny Bethlehem Burlington County
IA Northern Illinois Fort Mansfield PD
Wayne OH County Philadelphia
Harrisburg
Sea Girt Ocean County
Hammonton
Cheyenne DuPage County Bowling Green Canton- Greensburg Media Bucks County
NE Des Moines
Joliet Lowell
Columbus PD Stark County Baltimore City Cape May
North Platte Lincoln Morton IN Columbus
London Newark PD Pikesville Baltimore County
Greely Indianapolis-Marion County Miami Valley Hagerstown Montgomery County
DE
Denver St. Joseph Macon IL Springfield Indianapolis
Hamilton County
Fairfax Anne Arundel County
Prince Georges County
Denver KCMO Regional MD
Aurora Johnson County St. Charles County WV Berlin
KS Topeka Independence Fairview Heights
Evansville Highland Heights VA Richmond
Colorado Springs Jefferson City St. Louis Ashland South Charleston Norfolk
Great Bend Carbondale Frankfort
Sedgwick County Pittsburg
MO Hillsboro
St. Louis County Louisville
Roanoke
Pueblo
Springfield
SEMO Regional KY London
Willow Springs Madisonville Iredell Co. Greensboro
Raleigh
Joplin Knoxville Asheville NC
Nashville
Charlotte-Mecklenburg PD
Northwest Region
Tulsa TN Spartanburg
Cleveland
OK Tahlequah Region Anderson/Oconee
Oklahoma City AR Memphis
Huntsville Columbia
Amarillo
Southwest Region Tupelo Richland County
Durant Region Little Rock Batesville Decatur SC Charleston
Hope Birmingham
Macon
Hobbs
Lubbock S O U T H Jackson PD MS ALAuburn Midland GA
Savannah
Garland
Fort Worth Montgomery
Abilene Dallas North LA Jackson Meridian Moultrie
Tyler
Midland LA Jacksonville
Waco Mobile
TX Southwest LA
Gulfport Pensacola
Baton Rouge
Jefferson County
Austin Houston New Orleans Orlando
Acadiana
Houston
Jefferson Parish Pinellas County
Bexar County Harris County Pasadena Tampa Indian River
Brazoria County Manatee County FL
Sarasota County
Palm Beach County
Fort Myers
Broward County
Laredo Corpus Christi Miami-Dade PD
McAllen
San Juan
Mayagez
PR
Ponce
Honolulu
AK
HI
Anchorage
Reporting State Laboratory System

Participating State Laboratory System
(Not Yet Reporting)
No State Laboratory System
Individual State Laboratory
Reporting Local Laboratory
Participating Local Laboratory
(Not Yet Reporting)
Section 1 NATIONAL AND
REGIONAL ESTIMATES
This section describes national National and regional drug estimates presented in the
and regional estimates for drugs following section include all drug reports (up to three per
laboratory drug item). The NEAR approach was used to produce
submitted to State and local
estimates for the Nation and for the U.S. census regions.
laboratories from January through TheNEAR approach uses all NFLIS reporting laboratories.
December 2015 that were analyzed Appendix A provides a detailed description of the methods used
by March 31, 2016. Trends are in preparing these estimates.
presented for selected drugs from
2001 through 2015. 1.1 DRUG REPORTS
In 2015, a total of 1,549,466 drug reports were identified by
State and local forensic laboratories in the United States.
Thisestimate is an increase of 3% from the 1,511,313 drug
reports identified during 2014. Table 1.1 presents the 25 most
frequently identified drugs for the Nation and for each of the
U.S. census regions.
The top 25 drugs accounted for 86% of all drugs analyzed in
2015. The majority of all drugs reported in NFLIS were
identified as the top four drugs, with cannabis/THC,
methamphetamine, cocaine, and heroin representing 69% of all
drug reports. Nationally, 395,767 drug reports were identified as
cannabis/THC (26%), 272,823 as methamphetamine (18%),
216,129 as cocaine (14%), and 187,868 as heroin (12%).
In addition, nine narcotic analgesics were among the top
25drugs: oxycodone (41,894 reports), hydrocodone
(27,219reports), buprenorphine (17,917 reports), fentanyl
(14,051 reports), morphine (7,290 reports), tramadol
(5,334reports), methadone (5,023 reports), hydromorphone
(4,044 reports), and codeine (3,539 reports). Four tranquilizers
and depressants were included: alprazolam (45,584 reports),
clonazepam (12,269 reports), diazepam (5,306 reports), and
phencyclidine (PCP) (4,751 reports). There were also four
phenethylamines: amphetamine (12,222 reports), ethylone
(9,237reports), MDMA (5,188 reports), and alpha-PVP (the
national estimate of alpha-PVP reports was suppressed; see
Appendix A). In addition, there were two synthetic
cannabinoids: AB-CHMINACA (7,571 reports) and XLR11
(6,973 reports). Psilocin/psilocibin (4,061 reports), a controlled
drug, was also included in the list of the 25 most frequently
identified drugs.

Table 1.1 NATIONAL AND REGIONAL ESTIMATES FOR THE 25 MOST FREQUENTLY IDENTIFIED DRUGS1
Estimated number and percentage of drugs submitted to laboratories from January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015, and
analyzed by March 31, 2016
National West Midwest Northeast South

Drug Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Cannabis/THC 395,767 25.54% 47,978 18.04% 135,988 35.13% 75,107 27.55% 136,694 21.92%
Methamphetamine 272,823 17.61% 111,124 41.78% 47,639 12.30% 4,554 1.67% 109,507 17.56%
Cocaine 216,129 13.95% 18,427 6.93% 45,683 11.80% 54,110 19.84% 97,908 15.70%
Heroin 187,868 12.12% 31,811 11.96% 53,029 13.70% 60,960 22.36% 42,068 6.75%
Alprazolam 45,584 2.94% 4,661 1.75% 8,901 2.30% 5,914 2.17% 26,109 4.19%
Oxycodone 41,894 2.70% 4,901 1.84% 8,144 2.10% 8,862 3.25% 19,987 3.20%
Hydrocodone 27,219 1.76% 3,458 1.30% 6,684 1.73% 1,298 0.48% 15,779 2.53%
Buprenorphine 17,917 1.16% 1,528 0.57% 3,275 0.85% 4,729 1.73% 8,385 1.34%
Fentanyl 14,051 0.91% 278 0.10% 4,864 1.26% 5,896 2.16% 3,013 0.48%
Clonazepam 12,269 0.79% 1,187 0.45% 2,716 0.70% 2,161 0.79% 6,205 0.99%
Amphetamine 12,222 0.79% 1,228 0.46% 3,169 0.82% 1,486 0.54% 6,340 1.02%
Ethylone 9,237 0.60% 562 0.21% 955 0.25% 1,547 0.57% 6,173 0.99%
alpha-PVP * * 233 0.09% 898 0.23% 665 0.24% * *
AB-CHMINACA 7,571 0.49% 855 0.32% 1,027 0.27% 1,207 0.44% 4,482 0.72%
Morphine 7,290 0.47% 1,293 0.49% 1,824 0.47% 551 0.20% 3,622 0.58%
XLR11 6,973 0.45% 769 0.29% 1,361 0.35% 1,520 0.56% 3,323 0.53%
Tramadol 5,334 0.34% 690 0.26% 1,604 0.41% 466 0.17% 2,575 0.41%
Diazepam 5,306 0.34% 892 0.34% 1,238 0.32% 532 0.20% 2,644 0.42%
MDMA 5,188 0.33% 1,904 0.72% 1,634 0.42% 451 0.17% 1,200 0.19%
Methadone 5,023 0.32% 783 0.29% 1,004 0.26% 989 0.36% 2,247 0.36%
Phencyclidine (PCP) 4,751 0.31% 359 0.14% 995 0.26% 1,781 0.65% 1,617 0.26%
Psilocin/psilocibin 4,061 0.26% 1,586 0.60% 1,082 0.28% 335 0.12% 1,057 0.17%
Hydromorphone 4,044 0.26% 332 0.12% 513 0.13% 193 0.07% 3,006 0.48%
Noncontrolled, non-narcotic2 3,861 0.25% 1,770 0.67% 52 0.01% 686 0.25% 1,352 0.22%
Codeine 3,539 0.23% 540 0.20% 843 0.22% 473 0.17% 1,682 0.27%
Top 25 Total 1,324,770 85.50% 239,148 89.91% 335,120 86.56% 236,473 86.73% 514,030 82.42%
All Other Drug Reports 224,696 14.50% 26,847 10.09% 52,033 13.44% 36,195 13.27% 109,621 17.58%
Total Drug Reports3 1,549,466 100.00% 265,995 100.00% 387,153 100.00% 272,667 100.00% 623,651 100.00%
alpha-PVP=alpha-Pyrrolidinopentiophenone
AB-CHMINACA=(N-(1-Amino-3-methyl-1oxobutan-2-yl)-1-(cyclohexylmethyl)1H-indazole-3-carboxamide)
XLR11=[1-(5-Fluoro-pentyl)-1H-indol-3-yl],(2,2,3,3-tetramethylcyclopropyl)methanone
MDMA=3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine
* The estimate for this drug does not meet the standards of precision and reliability. See Appendix A for a more detailed methodology discussion.
1 Sample ns and 95% confidence intervals for all estimates are available on request.
2 As reported by NFLIS laboratories, with no specific drug name provided.
3 Numbers and percentages may not sum to totals because of rounding.

1.2 DRUG CASES ANALYZED Table 1.2 NATIONAL CASE ESTIMATES
Drug analysis results are also reported to NFLIS at the case Top 25 estimated number of drug-specific cases and
their percentage of distinct cases, January 1, 2015,
level. These case-level data typically describe all drugs identified
through December 31, 2015
within a drug-related incident, although a small proportion of
laboratories may assign a single case number to all drug Drug Number Percent
submissions related to an entire investigation. Table 1.2 presents Cannabis/THC 286,688 31.15%
national estimates of the top 25 drug-specific cases. This table Methamphetamine 208,983 22.71%
illustrates the number of cases that contained one or more Cocaine 173,361 18.84%
reports of the specified drug. In 2015, there were 1,192,079 Heroin 143,018 15.54%
drug-specific cases submitted to and analyzed by State and local Alprazolam 38,242 4.16%
forensic laboratories, representing a 1% increase from the Oxycodone 32,666 3.55%
1,174,858 drug-specific cases in 2014. Hydrocodone 23,621 2.57%
Buprenorphine 15,930 1.73%
Among all drug cases, cannabis/THC was the most common
Clonazepam 10,975 1.19%
drug reported during 2015. Nationally, 31% of drug cases
Fentanyl 10,897 1.18%
contained one or more reports of cannabis/THC, followed by Amphetamine 10,644 1.16%
methamphetamine, which was identified in 23% of all drug Ethylone 7,481 0.81%
cases. About 19% of drug cases contained cocaine, and 16% alpha-PVP * *
contained heroin. Alprazolam and oxycodone were each reported Morphine 6,338 0.69%
in about 4% of cases. AB-CHMINACA 5,686 0.62%
Tramadol 4,802 0.52%
Diazepam 4,695 0.51%
XLR11 4,621 0.50%
Cannabis Methadone 4,420 0.48%
Phencyclidine (PCP) 4,176 0.45%
MDMA 3,850 0.42%
Hydromorphone 3,543 0.38%
Psilocin/psilocibin 3,479 0.38%
Naloxone 3,234 0.35%
Codeine 3,129 0.34%
Top 25 Total 1,021,295 110.98%
All Other Drugs 170,784 18.56%
Total All Drugs1 1,192,079 129.54%2
AB-CHMINACA=(N-(1-Amino-3-methyl-1oxobutan-2-yl)-1-
(cyclohexylmethyl)1H-indazole-3-carboxamide)
XLR11=[1-(5-Fluoro-pentyl)-1H-indol-3-yl],(2,2,3,3-
tetramethylcyclopropyl)methanone
MDMA=3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine
* The estimate for this drug does not meet the standards of precision and
reliability. See Appendix A for a more detailed methodology discussion.
2 Multiple drugs can be reported within a single case, so the cumulative
percentage exceeds 100%. The estimated national total of distinct case
percentages is based on 920,225 distinct cases submitted to State and local
laboratories from January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015, and
analyzed by March 31, 2016.

Drugs Reported by Federal Laboratories
1.3 NATIONAL AND REGIONAL DRUG TRENDS
The remainder of this section presents annual national and
The majority of drug reports presented in this section are
regional trends of selected drugs submitted to State and local
from the eight U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
laboratories during each annual data reference period and
laboratories. The data reflect results of substance evidence from
drug seizures, undercover drug buys, and other evidence analyzed within three months of the end of each period.
analyzed at DEA laboratories across the country. DEA data Thetrend analyses test the data for the presence of linear and
include results for drug cases submitted by DEA agents, other curved trends using statistical methods described in more detail
Federal law enforcement agencies, and select local police in Appendix A. Curved trends are sometimes described as
agencies. Although the DEA captures domestic and U-shaped (i.e., decreasing in earlier years and increasing in recent
international drug cases, the results presented in this section years) and S-shaped (i.e., two turns in the trend, roughly either
describe only those drugs obtained within the United States. increasing-decreasing-increasing or decreasing-increasing-
Inaddition to drug reports from the DEA, reports from seven decreasing). Because the trends are determined through
U.S.Customs and Border Protection (CBP) laboratories are regression modeling, the descriptions of the trends detailed in
included. this section may differ slightly from the plotted lines of estimates
A total of 30,388 drugs were submitted to DEA and CBP featured in Figures 1.1 through 1.15. Estimates include all drug
laboratories in 2015 and analyzed by March 31, 2016, or about reports (up to three) identified among the NFLIS laboratories
2% of the estimated 1.55 million drugs reported by NFLIS reported drug items.
State and local laboratories during this period. In 2015, about
half of the drugs reported by DEA and CBP laboratories were
National prescription drug trends
identified as methamphetamine (17%), cocaine (13%), heroin Figures 1.1 and 1.2 present national trends for the estimated
(10%), or cannabis/THC (9%). Oxycodone was identified in 2% number of prescription drug reports that were identified as
of the reported drugs. alprazolam, oxycodone, hydrocodone, buprenorphine, fentanyl,
and clonazepam. Significant (p < .05) results include the
MOST FREQUENTLY REPORTED DRUGS BY
following:
FEDERAL LABORATORIES1
Number and percentage of drugs submitted to laboratories from Alprazolam showed a linear-increasing trend from 2001
January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015, and analyzed by through 2015. Although there were decreases in reports from
March 31, 2016 2011 to 2013, significant increases occurred in 2014 and
Drug Number Percent 2015, with the number of reports in 2015 surpassing all prior
Methamphetamine 5,182 17.05% annual estimates.
Cocaine 4,036 13.28% Oxycodone, hydrocodone, and buprenorphine reports showed
Heroin 3,144 10.35% S-shaped trends. Oxycodone and hydrocodone reports
Cannabis/THC 2,617 8.61% increased dramatically from 2002 to 2010, followed by recent
Oxycodone 473 1.56% downturns. The trend curve for buprenorphine lagged a few
Ethylone 336 1.11% years behind, with dramatic increases occurring from 2005 to
Phenacetin 323 1.06% 2010, followed by a steady increase from 2011 to 2013 and a
Fentanyl 315 1.04% significant increase beginning in 2014.
XLR11 282 0.93%
AB-CHMINACA 278 0.91% Figure 1.1 National trend estimates for alprazolam, oxycodone,
and hydrocodone, January 2001December 2015
All Other Drug Reports 13,402 44.10%
Total Drug Reports 30,388 100.00%2 70,000
Alprazolam
Number of Drug Reports
60,000 Oxycodone
Hydrocodone
XLR11=[1-(5-Fluoro-pentyl)-1H-indol-3-yl],(2,2,3,3- 50,000
tetramethylcyclopropyl)methanone
40,000
AB-CHMINACA=(N-(1-Amino-3-methyl-1oxobutan-2-yl)-1-
(cyclohexylmethyl)1H-indazole-3-carboxamide) 30,000
20,000
1 Federal drug reports in this table include 28,225 reports from DEA
laboratories and 2,163 reports from CBP laboratories. 10,000
0
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15

Heroin reports showed a U-shaped trend in which reports
Figure 1.2 National trend estimates for buprenorphine,
fentanyl, and clonazepam, January 2001 decreased from 2001 through 2005, but then increased from
December 20151 2006 to 2015.
MDMA showed an upside-down U-shaped trend. There was
20,000
Buprenorphine an overall increase in MDMA reports from 2001 to 2007,
Fentanyl
16,000 Clonazepam followed by a decrease through 2015. The most dramatic
decrease in MDMA reports occurred from 2010 to 2012.
12,000
More recently, from 2014 to 2015, reports of cannabis/THC
8,000 (from 437,117 to 395,767 reports) decreased significantly, while
reports of methamphetamine (from 236,175 to 272,823 reports)
4,000 and heroin (from 163,600 to 187,868 reports) increased
significantly (p < .05). The increases in cocaine (from 213,167 to
0
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 216,129 reports) and MDMA (from 4,902 to 5,188 reports)
were not statistically significant.
1 A dashed trend line indicates that estimates did not meet the criteria for
precision or reliability. See Appendix A for a more detailed methodology
discussion.
Figure 1.3 National trend estimates for cannabis/THC and
The S-shaped trend for fentanyl showed that reports methamphetamine, January 2001December 2015
remained steady from 2001 to 2005, which was followed by
700,000
a noticeable increase in 2006. Fentanyl reports continued to
remain fairly steady until dramatic increases occurred in 2014 600,000
and 2015. 500,000

Cannabis/THC
Clonazepam reports also showed an S-shaped trend, with the 400,000
Methamphetamine
most dramatic increase occurring between 2008 and 2010. 300,000
Estimates from 2011 to 2013 remained fairly steady, followed 200,000
by further increases in 2014 and 2015.
100,000
Significance tests were also performed on differences from
0
2014 to 2015 in order to identify more recent changes. Across 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15
these two periods, reports of alprazolam (from 40,747 to 45,584
reports), buprenorphine (from 15,209 to 17,917 reports), fentanyl
(from 4,642 to 14,051 reports), and clonazepam (from 11,797 to Figure 1.4 National trend estimates for cocaine, heroin, and
12,269 reports) increased significantly (p < .05). Reports of MDMA, January 2001December 2015
hydrocodone (from 33,132 to 27,219 reports) decreased
700,000
significantly. The decrease in oxycodone (from 43,000 to 41,894 Cocaine
Heroin
reports) was not statistically significant. 600,000
MDMA
500,000
Other national drug trends
400,000
Figures 1.3 and 1.4 present national trends for reports of
300,000
cannabis/THC, methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, and
200,000
MDMA. Significant (p < .05) results include the following:
100,000
Cannabis/THC, methamphetamine, and cocaine reports
all showed S-shaped trends. Cannabis/THC decreased 0
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15
from 2001 through 2004, slightly increased from 2005 to
2009, and decreased since 2009. Methamphetamine reports
increased from 2001 through 2005, decreased from 2005
through 2010, then continued to increase from 2011 to 2015.
Cocaine gradually increased from 2001 to 2006, then steadily
decreased through 2014 until a slight increase occurred in
2015.
Regional prescription drug trends Figure 1.5 Regional trends in alprazolam reported per
Figures 1.5 through 1.10 show regional trends per 100,000 100,000 persons aged 15 or older, January 2001
persons aged 15 or older for reports of alprazolam, oxycodone, December 20151
hydrocodone, buprenorphine, fentanyl, and clonazepam from 35
2001 to 2015. These figures illustrate changes in prescription West
Number of Alprazolam Reports

30 Midwest
drugs reported over time, taking into account the population Northeast
25 South
aged 15 years or older in each U.S. census region. Significant
(per 100,000)
(p< .05) trend results include the following: 20
For alprazolam, the West, Midwest, and South regions 15

showed linear-increasing trends. In the Northeast region, 10
the curve had a pronounced S-shape, with the trend lines 5
beginning to curve downward in 2011.
0
For oxycodone, all regions showed S-shaped trends similar to 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15
the national trend.

Figure 1.6 Regional trends in oxycodone reported per
For hydrocodone, all regions showed S-shaped trends except
100,000 persons aged 15 or older, January 2001
the Northeast region, which had an upside-down U-shaped
December 2015
trend, with the trend decreasing from 2008 through 2015.
For buprenorphine, the West, Midwest, and South regions 35
Number of Oxycodone Reports West
showed upward-curving trends. The Northeast had an 30 Midwest
Northeast
S-shaped trend as the trend began to turn downward in 2011, 25 South
(per 100,000)
while the other regions continued to increase.

20
For fentanyl, the Midwest, Northeast, and South regions 15
showed S-shaped trends, with trend lines dramatically
10
increasing from 2013 through 2015. The West region showed
5
a linear increasing trend due to a more gradual increase in
reports from 2001 to 2014, followed by a significant increase 0
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15
in 2015.
For clonazepam, the West region showed a linear-increasing
Figure 1.7 Regional trends in hydrocodone reported per
trend, while the Midwest region had an upward-curving
100,000 persons aged 15 or older, January 2001
trend. The South and Northeast regions had S-shaped December 2015
trends, although reports in the Northeast decreased more
dramatically in more recent years. 35
West
Number of Hydrocodone Reports
More recently, from 2014 to 2015, alprazolam increased 30 Midwest

Northeast
significantly in the West, Midwest, and South regions (p < .05). 25 South
(per 100,000)
Oxycodone reports decreased significantly in the Northeast

20
region but increased in the Midwest region, while hydrocodone
15
reports decreased significantly in all regions. Buprenorphine
increased significantly in all regions except the Northeast 10
region, while fentanyl increased significantly in all regions. 5
Clonazepam decreased significantly in the Northeast region but 0
increased significantly in the Midwest and South regions. 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15
Note: U.S. census 2015 population data by age were not available for this
publication. Population data for 2015 were imputed.
discussion.

Figure 1.8 Regional trends in buprenorphine reported per Other regional drug trends
100,000 persons aged 15 or older, January 2001 Figures 1.11 through 1.15 present regional trends per 100,000
December 20151 persons aged 15 or older for cannabis/THC, methamphetamine,
15 cocaine, heroin, and MDMA reports from 2001 through 2015.
Number of Buprenorphine Reports
West
Midwest
Significant (p < .05) trends include the following:
12 Northeast
South For cannabis/THC, the Midwest and South regions showed
(per 100,000)
9 downward-curving trends. The Northeast region showed an

upside-down U-shaped trend, and the West region showed
6 an S-shaped trend. All regions showed sharp decreases since
2009.
3
For methamphetamine, all four regions showed S-shaped
0 trends, with increases beginning around 2010 and 2011.
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15
For cocaine, all four regions showed S-shaped trends, with
reports decreasing since about 2004, although the rate of
decrease slowed down in recent years.
Figure 1.9 Regional trends in fentanyl reported per 100,000
persons aged 15 or older, January 2001December For heroin, all regions showed U-shaped trends. The lowest
20151 point occurred in 2004 for the Midwest region, in 2006 for
the West region, in 2007 for the Northeast region, and in
15
West 2008 for the South region.
Midwest
Number of Fentanyl Reports
12 Northeast For MDMA, the West and Midwest regions showed

South
upside-down U-shaped trends. The decline in the Midwest
(per 100,000)
9
region began around 2008, while the decline in the West
region began around 2009. The Northeast region showed an
6
S-shaped trend, with the trend decreasing from 2011 through
3 2015. The South region showed a linear-decreasing trend.
Between 2014 and 2015, cannabis/THC decreased
0
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 significantly in all regions except the Northeast region (p < .05).
Methamphetamine increased significantly in all regions. Cocaine
increased significantly in the Northeast and Midwest regions.
Figure 1.10 Regional trends in clonazepam reported per Heroin increased significantly in all regions except the South
100,000 persons aged 15 or older, January 2001 region. MDMA increased significantly in the Midwest region
December 2015 only.
15 Heroin fentanyl pills
West
Number of Clonazepam Reports
Midwest
12 Northeast
South
(per 100,000)
0
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15
precision and reliability. See Appendix A for a more detailed methodology
discussion.

Figure 1.11 Regional trends in cannabis/THC reported per Figure 1.14 Regional trends in heroin reported per 100,000
100,000 persons aged 15 or older, January 2001 persons aged 15 or older, January 2001December
December 2015 2015
500 150
Number of Cannabis/THC Reports
West West
Midwest Midwest
Number of Heroin Reports

400 Northeast 120 Northeast
South South
(per 100,000)
(per 100,000)
300 90
200 60
100 30
0 0
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15
Figure 1.12 Regional trends in methamphetamine reported Figure 1.15 Regional trends in MDMA reported per 100,000
per 100,000 persons aged 15 or older, January persons aged 15 or older, January 2001December
2001December 2015 1 2015
Number of Methamphetamine Reports
500 20
West West
Midwest Midwest
Number of MDMA Reports
400 Northeast Northeast

South 15 South
(per 100,000)
(per 100,000)
300
10
200
5
100
0 0
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15
Figure 1.13 Regional trends in cocaine reported per 100,000

persons aged 15 or older, January 2001December
2015
500
West
Midwest
Number of Cocaine Reports
400 Northeast
South
(per 100,000)
300
200
100
0
Crack cocaine
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15
discussion.

Section 2 MAJOR DRUG
CATEGORIES
Section 2 presents national and regional 2.1 NARCOTIC ANALGESICS
estimates of specific drugs by drug Narcotic analgesics are used to treat pain. Of these, opioids
category using the NEAR approach (see such as oxycodone and hydrocodone are highly addictive, and
Appendix A for a description of the abuse can lead to injury and death. In fact, the majority of drug
overdose deaths in the United States (more than 6 out of 10)
methodology). The first, second, and
involve an opioid.i Even so, these drugs continue to be prescribed
third drugs mentioned in laboratories and dispensed at increasingly higher levels, with the United States
drug items are included. An estimated accounting for almost 100% of the worlds hydrocodone
1,549,466 drugs were submitted to State prescriptions and 81% of all oxycodone prescriptions.ii
and local laboratories during 2015 and A total of 131,806 narcotic analgesic reports were identified by
were analyzed by March 31, 2016. NFLIS laboratories in 2014, representing 9% of all drug reports
(Table 2.1). Oxycodone (32%) and hydrocodone (21%) accounted
for the majority of all narcotic analgesic reports. Other narcotic
analgesics reported included buprenorphine (14%), fentanyl (11%),
morphine (6%), tramadol (4%), methadone (4%), hydromorphone
(3%), and codeine (3%). The types of narcotic analgesics reported
varied considerably by region (Figure 2.1). Incomparison with
reports from other regions in the country, the West and Northeast
regions reported the highest percentage of oxycodone (35% each).
i
Rudd, R. A., Aleshire, N., Zibbell, J. E., & The Northeast region also reported the highest percentage of
Gladden, R. M. (2016, January 1). Increases
buprenorphine (19%) and fentanyl (23%). Hydrocodone
in drug and opioid overdose deaths
United States, 20002014. Morbidity and accounted for 25% of narcotic analgesics in the West region, 25%
Mortality Weekly Report, 64, 13781382. in the South region, and 23% in the Midwest region.
Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/
preview/mmwrhtml/mm6450a3.htm?s_ Table 2.1 NARCOTIC ANALGESICS
cid=mm6450a3_w Number and percentage of narcotic analgesic
ii National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2015, reports in the United States, 20151
May 14). Testimony to Congress: Americas
addiction to opioids: Heroin and prescription
Narcotic Analgesic Reports Number Percent
drug abuse (presented by Nora D. Volkow, Oxycodone 41,894 31.78%
M.D., to the Senate Caucus on Hydrocodone 27,219 20.65%
International Narcotics Control). Retrieved Buprenorphine 17,917 13.59%
from https://www.drugabuse.gov/about- Fentanyl 14,051 10.66%
nida/legislative-activities/testimony-to-
congress/2016/americas-addiction-to-
Morphine 7,290 5.53%
opioids-heroin-prescription-drug-abuse Tramadol 5,334 4.05%
Methadone 5,023 3.81%
Hydromorphone 4,044 3.07%
Codeine 3,539 2.68%
Acetyl fentanyl 2,412 1.83%
Oxymorphone 2,277 1.73%
Butyryl fentanyl 205 0.16%
Table 2.1 Notes: Mitragynine 129 0.10%
1 Includes drugs submitted to laboratories
Propoxyphene 113 0.09%
from January 1, 2015, through December
31, 2015, that were analyzed by March 31, Meperidine 109 0.08%
2016. Other narcotic analgesics 251 0.19%
2 Numbers and percentages may not sum to
totals because of rounding. Total Narcotic Analgesic Reports2 131,806 100.00%
Total Drug Reports 1,549,466
Figure 2.1 Distribution of narcotic analgesic reports within Table 2.2 TRANQUILIZERS AND DEPRESSANTS
region, 20151 Number and percentage of tranquilizer and
West Midwest Northeast South depressant reports in the United States, 20151
Oxycodone Tranquilizer and

100% Depressant Reports Number Percent
Hydrocodone
Number and Percentage of Narcotic Analgesic Reports
Buprenorphine Alprazolam 45,584 56.01%

Fentanyl Clonazepam 12,269 15.07%
80% Other Diazepam 5,306 6.52%
Phencyclidine (PCP) 4,751 5.84%
Carisoprodol 2,808 3.45%
Lorazepam 2,635 3.24%
60% Zolpidem 1,668 2.05%
Ketamine 1,568 1.93%
Cyclobenzaprine 1,262 1.55%
Etizolam 504 0.62%
8,862
4,901
40%
19,987
Hydroxyzine 392 0.48%

3,902
8,144
Pregabalin 388 0.48%

15,779
15,453
3,458
5,896
6,684
6,680
Temazepam 331 0.41%

4,729
4,690
4,864
Butalbital 311 0.38%

20%
8,385
3,275
Gamma-hydroxybutrate (GHB) 296 0.36%

1,528
Other tranquilizers and depressants 1,319 1.62%

1,298
3,013
278
Total Tranquilizer and Depressant Reports2 81,393 100.00%

0% Total Number 2
14,067 29,646 25,476 62,617 131,806
Figure 2.2 Distribution of tranquilizer and depressant reports

within region, 20151
2.2 TRANQUILIZERS AND DEPRESSANTS
West Midwest Northeast South
Most tranquilizers and depressants are controlled and require
Number and Percentage of Tranquilizer and Depressant Reports
a prescription. They are used to treat sleep problems, anxiety, 100% Alprazolam
muscle spasms, and seizures. Even at the recommended doses for Clonazepam
medical treatment, long-term use can lead to physical Diazepam
dependence.iii In 2014, 1.9 million Americans aged 12 or older Phencyclidine (PCP)
used tranquilizers for nonmedical reasons (i.e., without a 80% Other
prescription or simply for the experience or feeling the
tranquilizers caused).iv 26,109
8,901
Approximately 5% of all drug reports in 2015, or 81,393 60%

4,661
reports, were identified by NFLIS laboratories as tranquilizers

5,914
and depressants (Table 2.2). Alprazolam accounted for 56% of

reported tranquilizers and depressants. Approximately 15% of
tranquilizers and depressants were identified as clonazepam. 40%
Alprazolam was identified in more than one-half of the
2,554
tranquilizers and depressants reported in the South and Midwest

2,253
2,161
2,716
regions (61% and 54%, respectively) (Figure 2.2). Clonazepam

2,567
1,781
6,205
6,107
20%
1,187
accounted for 17% of tranquilizers and depressants identified in

1,238
892
2,644
the Midwest and Northeast regions. The West region reported

995
1,617
532
359
the highest percentage of diazepam (9%), while the Northeast

region reported the highest percentage of PCP (14%). 0% Total Number 2
iii U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. (2015). Drugs of abuse: 9,653 16,416 12,641 42,683 81,393
ADEA resource guide (2015 ed.). Retrieved from https://www.dea.
gov/pr/multimedia-library/publications/drug_of_abuse.pdf
iv Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. (2015). 1 Includes drugs submitted to laboratories from January 1, 2015, through
Behavioral health trends in the United States: Results from the 2014 December 31, 2015, that were analyzed by March 31, 2016.
National Survey on Drug Use and Health (HHS Publication No. 2 Numbers and percentages may not sum to totals because of rounding.
SMA 15-4927, NSDUH Series H-50). Retrieved from http://www.
samhsa.gov/data nflis 2015 annual report | 15
2.3 ANABOLIC STEROIDS
Anabolic steroids are synthetically produced versions of the
naturally occurring male hormone testosterone. Anabolic
steroids are usually swallowed or injected; however, they can also
be applied to the skin as a cream, gel, or patch. People who
abuse steroids often take doses that are 10 to 100 times higher
than those prescribed to treat medical conditions.v
During 2015, a total of 3,933 drug reports were identified as
anabolic steroids (Table 2.3). The most commonly identified
anabolic steroid was testosterone (48%), followed by trenbolone
(9%), methandrostenolone (8%), and oxandrolone (7%).
Testosterone accounted for 57% of anabolic steroids in the
South region, 50% in the Midwest region, 41% in the West
region, and 35% in the Northeast region (Figure 2.3).
TheMidwest region reported the highest percentage of
Anabolic steroids
trenbolone (10%), the Northeast region reported the highest
percentage of methandrostenolone (11%), and the West region
reported the highest percentage of oxandrolone (19%).
Table 2.3 ANABOLIC STEROIDS Figure 2.3 Distribution of anabolic steroid reports within
Number and percentage of anabolic steroid reports region, 20151
in the United States, 20151 West Midwest Northeast South
Anabolic Steroid Reports Number Percent Testosterone
100%
Testosterone 1,905 48.43% Trenbolone
Number and Percentage of Anabolic Steroid Reports
Trenbolone 352 8.95% Methandrostenolone

Methandrostenolone 315 8.02% Oxandrolone
Oxandrolone 280 7.12% 80% Other
Stanozolol 254 6.46%
Nandrolone 227 5.78%
Boldenone 175 4.46% 891
Oxymetholone 131 3.33% 60%

479
Drostanolone 70 1.77%
Mestanolone 34 0.86%
286
275
Mesterolone 26 0.66%
40%
249
Methenolone 19 0.47%
Dehydroepiandrosterone 16 0.40%
257
174
375
4-Chlorodehydromethyltestosterone 11 0.29%
129
Methyltestosterone 10 0.26% 20%

Other steroids 107 2.73%
100
82
136
89
63
53
54
102
43
Total Anabolic Steroid Reports2 3,933 100.00%

62
36

0% Total Number2
695 960 713 1,565 3,933
1 Includes drugs submitted to laboratories from January 1, 2015, through
December 31, 2015, that were analyzed by March 31, 2016.
v National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2016, March). What are anabolic
steroids? Retrieved from https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/
drugfacts/anabolic-steroids

2.4 PHENETHYLAMINES
The use of phenethylamines, which include synthetic
cathinones, can result in serious health problems and death.
From October 2010 to June 2013, poison centers in the United
States received more than 9,600 calls related to side effects and
overdoses from exposure to synthetic cathinone products.
Synthetic cathinones were initially marked as legal alternatives
to controlled substances, such as cocaine, amphetamine, and
MDMA. Manufacturers often market these substances as
common household products, including bath salts, shoe
deodorizer, glass cleaner, and jewelry cleaner.vi
NFLIS laboratories identified 316,460 phenethylamine Bath salt
reports in 2015, representing 20% of all drug reports (Table 2.4).
Of these, 86% were identified as methamphetamine. Among the
other phenethylamine reports, 4% were identified as Figure 2.4 Distribution of phenethylamine reports within
amphetamine and 3% as ethylone. Methamphetamine accounted region, 20151
for 96% of phenethylamine reports in the West region, 84% in West Midwest Northeast South
the Midwest region, 82% in the South region, and 47% in the
100% Methamphetamine
Northeast region (Figure 2.4). Approximately 15% of the
Amphetamine
111,124
phenethylamines reported in the Northeast region were
47,639
109,507
Number and Percentage of Phenethylamine Reports
Ethylone
amphetamine. The Northeast region also reported the highest alpha-PVP
percentages of ethylone (16%) and alpha-PVP (7%). 80% Other
Table 2.4 PHENETHYLAMINES
Number and percentage of phenethylamine reports in
the United States, 20151
60%
Phenethylamine Reports Number Percent
4,554
Methamphetamine 272,823 86.21%
Amphetamine 12,222 3.86%
Ethylone 9,237 2.92% 40%
alpha-PVP * *
MDMA 5,188 1.64%
Lisdexamfetamine 1,941 0.61%
1,547
1,486
1,451
MDA 1,066 0.34% 20%

25I-NBOMe 838 0.26%
3,779
3,169
665
6,340
6,173
5,028
3,071
Phentermine 631 0.20%

1,228
955
898
562
233
Methylone 447 0.14%

*
25C-NBOMe 293 0.09% 0% Total Number2

25B-NBOMe 255 0.08% 116,217 56,439 9,703 134,102 316,460
Ephedrine 173 0.05% * The estimate for this drug does not meet the standards of precision or
alpha-PHP 163 0.05% reliabiity. See Appendix A for a more detailed methodology discussion.
Benzphetamine 156 0.05% 1 Includes drugs submitted to laboratories from January 1, 2015, through
Other phenethylamines 2,178 0.69% December 31, 2015, that were analyzed by March 31, 2016.
Total Phenethylamine Reports2 316,460 100.00%

vi Rannazzisi, J. T. (2013, September 25). Statement of Joseph T.
MDMA=3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control,
MDA=3,4-Methylenedioxyamphetamine Drug Enforcement Administration, before the Caucus on International
25I-NBOMe=2-(4-Iodo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-N-(2-methoxybenzyl) Narcotics Control, United States Senate, for a hearing entitled Dangerous
ethanamine Synthetic Drugs. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/dea/pr/
25C-NBOMe=2-(4-Chloro-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-N-(2-methoxybenzyl) speeches-testimony/2013t/092513t.pdf
ethanamine
25B-NBOMe=2-(4-Bromo-2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-N-(2-methoxybenzyl)
ethanamine
alpha-PHP=alpha-Pyrrolidinohexanophenone nflis 2015 annual report | 17
2.5 SYNTHETIC CANNABINOIDS Figure 2.5 Distribution of synthetic cannabinoid reports within
region, 20151
The side effects associated with the use of synthetic
West Midwest Northeast South
cannabinoids can be severe and include agitation, anxiety,
nausea, vomiting, tachycardia, high blood pressure, seizures, 100% AB-CHMINACA
Number and Percentage of Synthetic Cannabinoid Reports

hallucinations, suicidal thoughts, and death.vii Recently, poison XLR11
centers across the United States experienced a significant AB-PINACA
AB-FUBINACA
increase in calls related to synthetic cannabinoids. From January
80% Other
through May 2014, there were 1,085 calls to poison centers
related to synthetic cannabinoids. During the same period in
2015, the number of calls related to synthetic cannabinoids
tripled to 3,572.viii 60%
8,693
A total of 33,820 synthetic cannabinoid reports were
2,527
identified during 2015, accounting for about 2% of all drugs
2,170
reported (Table 2.5). AB-CHMINACA (22%) and XLR11 40%
993
(21%) were the most commonly identified synthetic
855
1,520
4,482
769
cannabinoids, followed by AB-PINACA (7%),
1,361
1,207
3,323
AB-FUBINACA (7%), and 5-fluoro AMB (7%).
1,027
20%
AB-CHMINACA accounted for one-fifth or more of all
798
647
324
559
490
1,143
synthetic cannabinoid reports in the West region (29%), South
881
region (24%), and Northeast region (20%) (Figure 2.5). XLR11
52
accounted for one-fifth or more of all synthetic cannabinoids 0% Total Number2
reported in the West region (26%), Northeast region (25%), and 2,994 6,271 6,034 18,521 33,820
Midwest region (22%). The Midwest region reported the
highest percentage of AB-PINACA (13%). In the Northeast AB-CHMINACA=(N-(1-Amino-3-methyl-1oxobutan-2-yl)-1-
(cyclohexylmethyl)1H-indazole-3-carboxamide)
region, 11% of synthetic cannabinoids were reported as
XLR11=[1-(5-Fluoro-pentyl)1H-indol-3-yl],(2,2,3,3-
AB-FUBINACA. tetramethylcyclopropyl)methanone
AB-PINACA=(N-(1-Amino-3-methyl1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-pentyl-1H-
indazole3-carboxamide)
Table 2.5 SYNTHETIC CANNABINOIDS AB-FUBINACA=(N-(1-Amino-3-methyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-(4-
fluorobenzyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide)
Number and percentage of synthetic cannabinoid
5-fluoro AMB=methylN-{[1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indazol-3-yl]carbonyl}
reports in the United States, 20151 valinate
Synthetic Cannabinoid Reports Number Percent MAB-CHMINACA=N-(1-Amino-3,3-dimethyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-
(cyclohexylmethyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide
AB-CHMINACA 7,571 22.39% NM2201=Naphthalene-1-yl 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indole-3-carboxylate
XLR11 6,973 20.62% 5-fluoro ADB=Methyl (R)-2-(1-(5-Fluoropentyl)-1H-indazole-3-
AB-PINACA 2,493 7.37% carboxamido)-3,3-dimethylbutanoate
AB-FUBINACA 2,402 7.10% 5F-AB-PINACA=N-(1-Amino-3-methyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-(5-
fluoropentyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide
5-fluoro AMB 2,258 6.68% FUB-AMB=Methyl 2-({1-[(4-fluorophenyl)methyl]-1H-indazole-3-
MAB-CHMINACA 1,711 5.06% carbonyl}amino)-3-methylbutanoate
NM2201 1,332 3.94% ADB-FUBINACA=N-(1-Amino-3,3-dimethyl-1-oxobutan-2-yl)-1-(4-
5-fluoro-ADB 805 2.38% fluorobenzyl)-1H-indazole-3-carboxamide
5F-AB-PINACA 538 1.59% 5F-PB-22=(Quinolin-8-yl 1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-indole-3-carboxylate)
FUB-AMB 534 1.58% FUB-PB-22=Quinolin-8-yl 1-(4-fluorobenzyl)-1H-indole-3-carboxylate
ADB-FUBINACA 450 1.33% MDMB-FUBINACA=Methyl (S)-2-(1-(4-fluorobenzyl)-1H-indazole-
3-carboxamido)-3,3-dimethylbutanoate
5F-PB-22 408 1.21% AKB48 N-(5-fluoropentyl)=N-(1-adamantyl)-1-(5-fluoropentyl)-1H-
FUB-PB-22 343 1.01% indazole-3-carboxamide
MDMB-FUBINACA 328 0.97%
vii Office of National Drug Control Policy, The White House. (n.d.).
AKB48 N-(5-fluoropentyl) 313 0.92%
Other synthetic cannabinoids 5,361 15.85% Synthetic drugs (a.k.a. K2, spice, bath salts, etc.). Retrieved from http://
www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/ondcp-fact-sheets/synthetic-drugs-k2-
Total Synthetic Cannabinoid Reports2 33,820 100.00% spice-bath-salts
viii Law, R., Schier, J., Martin, C., Chang, A., & Wolkin, A. (2015, June
12). Notes from the field: Increase in reported adverse health effects
1 Includes drugs submitted to laboratories from January 1, 2015, through related to synthetic cannabinoid use United States, JanuaryMay
December 31, 2015, that were analyzed by March 31, 2016. 2015. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 64, 618619. Retrieved
from https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6422a5.
htm
Section 3 GIS ANALYSIS:
ETHYLONE AND
AB-CHMINACA
COMPARISONS,
BY LOCATION,
2014 AND 2015
One of the unique features of This section presents data at the State and county levels for
NFLIS is the ability to analyze and the percentage of drug reports identified as ethylone and
AB-CHMINACA at two points in time2014 and 2015.
monitor, by the county of origin,
Reports of ethylone and AB-CHMINACA increased
variation in drugs reported by substantially in NFLIS between 2014 and 2015. Ethylone was
laboratories. By using Geographic first reported NFLIS in 2011, and AB-CHMINACA was first
Information System (GIS) analyses, reported in 2014. In 2015, both drugs first appeared in the
NFLIS can provide information on NFLIS list of the top 25 most frequently identified drugs;
ethylone and AB-CHMINACA were the 12th and 14th most
drug seizure locations.
frequently reported drugs, respectively.
The GIS data presented here are based on information
provided to NFLIS forensic laboratories by the submitting law
enforcement agencies (Figures 3.1 to 3.8). The information
submitted by law enforcement includes the ZIP Code or county
of origin associated with the drug seizure incident or the name
of the submitting law enforcement agency. When a ZIP Code or
county of origin is unavailable, the drug seizure or incident is
assigned to the same county as the submitting law enforcement
agency. If the submitting agency is unknown, the seizure or
incident is assigned to the county in which the laboratory
completing the analyses is located.
It is important to note that these data may not include all
drug items seized at the State and county levels. Instead, these
data represent only those drugs that were submitted to and
analyzed by NFLIS forensic laboratories. In addition, some
laboratories within several States are not currently reporting data
to NFLIS, and their absence may affect the relative distribution
of drugs seized and analyzed. Nevertheless, these data can serve
as an important source for identifying abuse and trafficking
trends and patterns across and within States.

Figure 3.1 Percentage of total drug reports identified as Figure 3.2 Percentage of total drug reports identified as
ethylone, by State, 20141 ethylone, by State, 20151
Percent per State Percent per State

1 .02 .4 1 .03 .3
0 .70 .9 0 .70 .9
0 .40 .6 0 .40 .6
0 .10 .3 0 .10 .3
0 .0 0 .0
No Data No Data
AB-CHMINACA, by State, 20141 AB-CHMINACA, by State, 20151
Percent per State Percent per State

1 .01 .6 1 .01 .7
0 .70 .9 0 .70 .9
0 .40 .6 0 .40 .6
0 .10 .3 0 .10 .3
0 .0 0 .0
No Data No Data
1 Includes drugs submitted to State and local laboratories during the calendar year that were analyzed within three months of the reporting period.

ethylone in Florida, by county, 20141 ethylone in Florida, by county, 20151

231

231
10 Tallahassee
(
!
(
! Jackson ville
10 Tallahassee
(
!
(
! Jackson ville

9

9

417

417
Orla ndo !
(
528 Orla ndo !
(
528

!( 275

!( 275
Tampa Tampa

175

175

91

91

95

95

27

27

869

869
Percent per County 75

Percent per County 75
Miami !
( Miami !
(
5 .013 .6 5 .07 .9
3 .04 .9

821
3 .04 .9

821
1 .02 .9 1 .02 .9
0 .10 .9 0 .10 .9
0 .0 0 .0
No Data No Data
AB-CHMINACA in Pennsylvania, by county, AB-CHMINACA in Pennsylvania, by county,
20141 20151
(
! (
!

Erie
90

Erie
90

79

79

84

84

180

380

180

380

80

80
Allentown !

!(
279
(

!(
279
Allentown !
(
Pittsburgh

476
Pittsburgh

476

99

76
176

99

176

276

70

81
(
!

70

81
76 276
(
!
Philadelphia

83

95

83

95
Philadelphia
Percent per County Percent per County

2 .02 .4 2 .012 .3
1 .01 .9 1 .01 .9
0 .60 .9 0 .60 .9
0 .10 .5 0 .10 .5
0 .0 0 .0
No Data No Data
1 Includes drugs submitted to State and local laboratories during the calendar year that were analyzed within three months of the reporting period.

Section 4 drugs identified
by laboratories in
selected u.s. cities
NFLIS can be used to monitor drugs This section presents data for the four most common drugs reported
by NFLIS laboratories located in selected cities. The laboratories
reported by forensic laboratories across
representing selected cities are presented in the summary table on the
the country, including laboratories in next page. The following results highlight geographic differences in the
large U.S. cities. This section presents types of drugs abused and trafficked, such as the higher levels of cocaine
drug analysis results of all drugs (up to reporting on the East Coast and methamphetamine reporting on the
three per laboratory item) submitted West Coast.
to State and local laboratories during Nationally, 14% of all drugs in NFLIS were identified as cocaine
2015 and analyzed by March 31, 2016. (Table 1.1). Laboratories representing cities in the South and Northeast
reported the highest levels of cocaine, including McAllen (56%), Miami
(48%), Orlando (34%), New York City (31%), Baltimore (27%),
Philadelphia (27%), Augusta (24%), Columbia (23%), and Tampa (22%).
Cities in the West, such as San Francisco (21%) and Denver (20%), also
100% reported a high percentage of cocaine.
50% 100%
100%
100% 0% 50%
Seattle
50%
50% 0% 100%
Spokane
0%
0% 50% Minneapolis-St. Paul
Portland
0%
100% 100% Rapid City 100%
100%
50% 50% 50%
100%
100% 50%
0% 0% 0%
Sacramento Cheyenne 50% Chicago
100% 50% 0%
Des Moines
100% 0%
50% 0% 100%
Lincoln
100% Salt Lake City
50% 100%
0% 50% 100%
San Francisco 50%
0% 50%
Las Vegas 0% 50%
100% 0% Denver
Fresno 0%
0% St. Louis
50% 100% Topeka
100% 100%
1
0% 50% 50%
Los Angeles 50% 100%
0% 0% 0%
San Diego Phoenix 50%
Sante Fe 100%
0%
50% Dallas
Note: Based on the total number of drugs reported,
0%
drugs that were reported less than 2% are not El Paso
presented even if they were one of the top four Cannabis/THC Hydrocodone
Cocaine Oxycodone
drugs for a selected location. Data reported for some
Methamphetamine AB-CHMINACA 100%
laboratories, especially State system laboratories, may XLR11
Heroin
include data from areas outside the referenced city. Fentanyl
Alprazolam 50%
0%
McAllen
The highest percentages of methamphetamine were reported by Selected Laboratories
laboratories representing cities in the West and Midwest, such as Fresno Atlanta (Georgia State Bureau of InvestigationDecatur Laboratory)
(64%), Rapid City (52%), Portland (51%), Sacramento (50%), San Diego Augusta (Maine Department of Human Services)
(50%), Lincoln (49%), Spokane (44%), Minneapolis-St. Paul (44%), Baltimore (Baltimore City Police Department)
Baton Rouge (Louisiana State Police)
LosAngeles (37%), Des Moines (31%), and Santa Fe (31%). Cities in the
Birmingham (Alabama Department of Forensic SciencesBirmingham
South, such as Dallas (41%), Oklahoma City (38%), and Atlanta (30%), also Laboratory)
reported a high percentage of drugs identified as methamphetamine. Cheyenne (Wyoming State Crime Laboratory)
Nationally, 18% of drugs in NFLIS were identified as methamphetamine. Chicago (Illinois State PoliceChicago Laboratory)
The highest percentages of heroin were reported by laboratories Cincinnati (Hamilton County Coroners Office)
representing the Northeastern cities of Pittsburgh (39%) and Augusta (33%); Columbia (South Carolina Law Enforcement DivisionColumbia
Laboratory)
the Midwestern cities of Cincinnati (26%), St. Louis (22%), and Chicago
Dallas (Texas Department of Public SafetyGarland Laboratory)
(22%); the Southern cities of Baltimore (27%) and Louisville (23%); and the
Denver (Denver Police Department Crime Laboratory)
Western cities of Seattle (25%), Phoenix (24%), and Portland (22%).
Des Moines (Iowa Division of Criminal Investigations)
Nationally, 12% of all drugs in NFLIS were identified as heroin.
El Paso (Texas Department of Public SafetyEl Paso Laboratory)
Among controlled prescription drugs, Nashville (6%) reported the highest Fresno (California Department of JusticeFresno Laboratory and Fresno
percentage of oxycodone, followed by Las Vegas (5%) and Philadelphia (5%). County Sheriffs Forensic Laboratory)
Houston (Texas Department of Public SafetyHouston Laboratory and
Nationally, 3% of drugs in NFLIS were identified as oxycodone. Little Rock Harris County Medical Examiners Office)
(5%) and Jackson (5%) reported the highest percentages of hydrocodone. Indianapolis (Indianapolis-Marion County Forensic Laboratory)
Nationally, 2% of drugs in NFLIS were identified as hydrocodone. McAllen Jackson (Mississippi Department of Public SafetyJackson Laboratory
(8%) and Tampa (6%) reported the highest percentages of alprazolam. and Jackson Police Department Crime Laboratory)
Nationally, 3% of drugs in NFLIS were identified as alprazolam. Cincinnati Las Vegas (Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Crime Laboratory)
(9%) and Augusta (6%) reported the highest percentages of fentanyl, while Lincoln (Nebraska State Patrol Criminalistics LaboratoryLincoln
Laboratory)
Salt Lake City (6%) reported the highest percentage of XLR11. Less than 1%
Little Rock (Arkansas State Crime Laboratory)
of drugs in NFLIS were identified as fentanyl or XLR11.
Los Angeles (Los Angeles Police Department and Los Angeles County
Sheriffs Department)
Louisville (Kentucky State PoliceLouisville Laboratory)
McAllen (Texas Department of Public SafetyMcAllen Laboratory)
100%
Miami (Miami-Dade Police Department Crime Laboratory)
50% Minneapolis-St. Paul (Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension
Minneapolis Laboratory)
0%
Augusta Montgomery (Alabama Department of Forensic SciencesMontgomery
Laboratory)
Nashville (Tennessee Bureau of InvestigationNashville Laboratory)
100% 100%
New York City (New York City Police Department Crime Laboratory)
100% 100%
50% 50% Oklahoma City (Oklahoma State Bureau of InvestigationOklahoma City
50% Laboratory)
50%
0% 0%
Pittsburgh Orlando (Florida Department of Law EnforcementOrlando Laboratory)
New York City
0% 0%
100% Cincinnati Philadelphia Philadelphia (Philadelphia Police Department Forensic Science
100% Laboratory)
100%
50% Phoenix (Phoenix Police Department)
50%
100% 50% Pittsburgh (Allegheny County Coroners Office)
0% 100%
Indianapolis 0% Portland (Oregon State Police Forensic Services DivisionPortland
Louisville 50% 0%
100% 50% Baltimore Laboratory)
0%
Rapid City (Rapid City Police Department)
50% 0% 100% Raleigh Raleigh (North Carolina State Bureau of InvestigationRaleigh
100% Nashville
100% 100% Laboratory)
0% 50%
50% Little Rock
50% Sacramento (Sacramento County District Attorneys Office)
50%
100% 0% Salt Lake City (Utah State Crime LaboratorySalt Lake City Laboratory)
0% Atlanta
Oklahoma City 0% 0%
Columbia San Diego (San Diego Police Department)
50% Birmingham 100%
San Francisco (San Francisco Police Department)
100% 0% 50% Santa Fe (New Mexico Department of Public SafetySanta Fe Laboratory)
100% Jackson
50% 100% 0% Seattle (Washington State PatrolSeattle Laboratory)
50% Orlando 100% Spokane (Washington State PatrolSpokane Laboratory)
0% 50% 100%
Baton Rouge St. Louis (St. Louis Police Department)
0% 50%
Houston 0% 50% Tampa (Florida Department of Law EnforcementTampa Laboratory)
Montgomery
0% Topeka (Kansas Bureau of InvestigationTopeka Laboratory)
0% Miami
Tampa
Appendix A STATISTICAL METHODOLOGY
Overview NEAR Methodology

Since 2001, NFLIS publications have included national and In NFLIS publications before 2011, data reported by
regional estimates for the number of drug reports and drug cases nonsampled laboratories were not used in national or regional
analyzed by State and local forensic laboratories in the United estimates.ix However, as the number of nonsampled laboratories
States. This appendix discusses the methods used for producing reporting to NFLIS increased,x it began to make sense to
these estimates, including sample selection, weighting, imputation, consider ways to use the data they submitted. Under NEAR,
and trend analysis procedures. RTI International, under contract the volunteer laboratories (i.e., the reporting nonsampled
to the DEA, began implementing NFLIS in 1997. Results from laboratories) represent themselves and are no longer represented
a 1998 survey (updated in 2002, 2004, 2008, and 2013) provided by the reporting sampled laboratories. The volunteer laboratories
laboratory-specific information, including annual caseloads, which are assigned weights of one; hence, the weights of the sampled
was used to establish a national sampling frame of all State and and responding laboratories are appropriately adjusted downward.
local forensic laboratories that routinely perform drug chemistry The outcome is that the estimates are more precise, especially
analyses. A probability proportional to size (PPS) sample was for recent years, which include a large number of volunteer
drawn on the basis of annual cases analyzed per laboratory, laboratories. More precision allows for more power to detect
resulting in a NFLIS national sample of 29 State laboratory trends and fewer suppressed estimates in Tables 1.1 and 1.2 of the
systems and 31 local or municipal laboratories, and a total of NFLIS annual and midyear reports.
168 individual laboratories (see Appendix B for a list of sampled
NFLIS laboratories). NEAR imputations and adjusting for missing
Estimates appearing in this publication are based on cases
monthly data in reporting laboratories
and items submitted to laboratories between January 1, 2015, and Because of technical and other reporting issues, some
December 31, 2015, and analyzed by March 31, 2016. Analysis laboratories do not report data for every month during a
has shown that approximately 95% of cases submitted during an given reporting period, resulting in missing monthly data. If a
annual period are analyzed within three months of the end of the laboratory reports fewer than six months of data for the annual
annual period (not including the approximately 30% of cases that estimates (fewer than three months for the semiannual estimates),
are never analyzed). it is considered nonreporting, and its reported data are not
included in the estimates. Otherwise, imputations are performed
For each drug item (or exhibit) analyzed by a laboratory in the separately by drug for laboratories that are missing monthly
NFLIS program, up to three drugs can be reported to NFLIS and data, using drug-specific proportions generated from laboratories
counted in the estimation process. A drug-specific case is one for that are reporting all months of data. This imputation method
which the specific drug was identified as the first, second, or third is used for cases, items, and drug-specific reports and accounts
drug report for any item associated with the case. A drug-specific for the typical month-to-month variation and the size of the
report is the total number of reports of the specific drug. laboratory requiring imputation. The general idea is to use the
Currently, laboratories representing more than 97% of the nonmissing months to assess the size of the laboratory requiring
national drug caseload participate in NFLIS, with about 94% imputation and then to apply the seasonal pattern exhibited by
of the national caseload reported during the current reporting all laboratories with no missing data. Imputation of monthly case
period. Because of the continued high level of reporting among counts are created using the following ratio ( ):
laboratories, the NEAR (National Estimates Based on All
Reports) method, which has strong statistical advantages for
producing national and regional estimates, continues to be
implemented.
where
= set of all nonmissing months in laboratory ,
= case count for laboratory in month , and
= mean case counts for all laboratories reporting
ix complete data.
The case and item loads for the nonsampled laboratories were used
in calculating the weights.
x In the current reporting period, for example, out of 112 nonsampled
laboratories and laboratory systems, 80 (or 72%) reported.

Monthly item counts are imputed for each laboratory using certainty laboratory status. To ensure that the NFLIS sample
an estimated item-to-case ratio ( ) for nonmissing monthly item had strong regional representation, U.S. census regions were
counts within the laboratory. The imputed value for the missing used as the geographical divisions to guide the selection of
monthly number of items in each laboratory is calculated by certainty laboratories and systems. Some large laboratories were
multiplying by . automatically part of the original NFLIS sample because they
were deemed critically important to the calculation of reliable
estimates. These laboratories are called certainty laboratories.
The criteria used in selecting the certainty laboratories included
(1) size, (2) region, (3)geographical location, and (4) other special
considerations (e.g., strategic importance of the laboratory).
where Each weight has two components, the design weight and the
nonresponse adjustment factor, the product of which is the final
= set of all nonmissing months in laboratory , weight used in estimation. After imputation, the final item weight
= item count for laboratory in month , and is based on the item count, and the final case weight is based on
= case count for laboratory in month . the case count of each laboratory or laboratory system. The final
weights are used to calculate national and regional estimates. The
Drug-specific case and report counts are imputed using the
first component, the design weight, is based on the proportion of
same imputation techniques presented above for the case and
the caseload and item load of the NFLIS universexi represented
item counts. The total drug, item, and case counts are calculated
by the individual laboratory or laboratory system. This step takes
by aggregating the laboratory and laboratory system counts for
advantage of the original PPS sample design and provides precise
those with complete reporting and those that require imputation.
estimates as long as the drug-specific case and report counts are
correlated with the overall caseload and item load.xii
NEAR imputations and drug report-level
adjustments For noncertainty reporting laboratories in the sample (and
reporting laboratories in the certainty strata with nonreporting
Most forensic laboratories classify and report case-level
laboratories), the design-based weight for each laboratory is
analyses consistently in terms of the number of vials of a
calculated as follows:
particular pill. A small number, however, do not produce drug
report-level counts in the same way as those submitted by the vast
majority. Instead, they report as items the count of the individual
pills themselves. Laboratories that consider items in this manner
also consider drug report-level counts in this same manner. Drug where
report-to-case ratios for each drug were produced for the similarly = th laboratory or laboratory system;
sized laboratories, and these drug-specific ratios were then used to = sum of the case (item) counts for all of the
adjust the drug report counts for the relevant laboratories. laboratories and laboratory systems (sampled and
nonsampled) within a specific stratum, excluding
NEAR weighting procedures certainty strata and the volunteer stratum; and
Each NFLIS reporting laboratory was assigned a weight = number of sampled laboratories and laboratory
systems within the same stratum, excluding
to be used in calculating design-consistent, nonresponse-adjusted
certainty strata and the volunteer stratum.
estimates. Two weights were created: one for estimating cases
and one for estimating drug reports. The weight used for case Certainty laboratories were assigned a design weight of one.xiii
estimation was based on the caseload for every laboratory in
the NFLIS population, and the weight used for drug reports
estimation was based on the item load for every laboratory in xi
See the Introduction of this publication for a description of the
the NFLIS population. For reporting laboratories, the caseload NFLIS universe.
xii
and item load used in weighting were the reported totals. For Lohr, S. L. (2010). Sampling: Design and analysis (2nd ed., pp. 231-
nonreporting laboratories, the caseload and item load used in 234). Boston, MA: Brooks/Cole.
xiii
weighting were obtained from an updated laboratory survey With respect to the design weight, reporting laboratories and
administered in 2013. laboratory systems in certainty strata with nonreporting laboratories
and laboratory systems are treated the same way as reporting
When the NFLIS sample was originally drawn, two stratifying noncertainty sampled laboratories and laboratory systems. This is
done to reduce the variance; otherwise, all reporting laboratories
variables were used: (1) type of laboratory (State system or and laboratory systems in these strata would get the same weight
municipal or county laboratory) and (2)determination of regardless of their size.

The second component, the nonresponse adjustment factor, Statistical Techniques for Trend Analysis
adjusts the weights of the reporting and sampled laboratories
to account for the nonreporting and sampled laboratories. Two types of analyses to compare estimates across years were
The nonresponse ( ) adjustment, for certainty and noncertainty used. The first is called prior-year comparisons and compared
laboratories, is calculated as follows: national and regional estimates from January 2014 through
December 2014 with those from January 2015 through
December 2015. The second is called long-term trends and
examined trends in the annual national and regional estimates
where from January 2001 through December 2015. The long-term
= stratum; trends method described below was implemented beginning with
= number of sampled laboratories and laboratory the 2012 Midyear Report. The new method offers the ability
systems in the stratum, excluding the volunteer to identify linear and curved trends, unlike the method used in
stratum; and previous NFLIS publications. Both types of trend analyses are
= number of laboratories and laboratory systems in the described below. For the region-level prior-year comparisons and
stratum that were sampled and reporting. long-term trends, the estimated drug reports were standardized
Because volunteer laboratories represent only themselves, they to the most recent regional population totals for persons aged
were automatically assigned a final weight of one. 15years or older.
NEAR estimation Prior-year comparisons

The estimates in this publication are the weighted sum of For selected drugs, the prior-year comparisons statistically
the counts from each laboratory. The weighting procedures compared estimates in Table 1.1 of this publication with estimates
make the estimates more precise by assigning large weights to in Table 1.1 of the 2014 Annual Report. The specific test
small laboratories and small weights to large laboratories.xiv examined whether the difference between any two estimates was
Because most of the values being estimated tend to be related to significantly different from zero. A standard t-test was completed
laboratory size, the product of the weight and the value to using the statistic,
be estimated tend to be relatively stable across laboratories,
aT2015 bT2014
resulting in precise estimates. tdf =
a 2 var(T2015 ) + b 2 var(T2014 ) 2ab cov(T2014,T2015 )
A finite population correction is also applied to account for
the high sampling rate. In a sample-based design, the sampling
fraction, which is used to create the weights, equals the number where
of sampled laboratories divided by the number of laboratories in
df = appropriate degrees of freedom (number of laboratories
the NFLIS universe. Under NEAR, the sampling fraction equals minus number of strata);
the number of sampled laboratories divided by the sum of the
number of sampled laboratories and the number of nonreporting, T2015 = estimated total number of reports for the given drug for
unsampled laboratories. Volunteer laboratories are not included January 2015 through December 2015;
in the sampling fraction calculation. Thus, the NEAR approach
makes the sampling rate even higher because volunteer T2014 = estimated total number of reports for the given drug for
laboratories do not count as nonsampled laboratories. January 2014 through December 2014;
Suppression of Unreliable Estimates var( T2015 ) = variance of T2015 ;
For some drugs, such as cannabis/THC and cocaine, var( T2014 ) = variance of T2014 ; and
thousands of reports occur annually, allowing for reliable national
prevalence estimates to be computed. For other drugs, reliable and cov( T2014 ,T2015 ) = covariance between T2014 and T2015 .
precise estimates cannot be computed because of a combination
of low report counts and substantial variability in report counts For the national prior-year comparisons, a = b = 1. For the
between laboratories. Thus, a suppression rule was established. regional prior-year comparisons, a = 100,000 divided by the
Precision and reliability of estimates are evaluated using the regional population total for 2015, and b = 100,000 divided by the
relative standard error (RSE), which is the ratio between the regional population total for 2014.
standard error of an estimate and the estimate. Drug estimates The percentile of the test statistic in the t distribution
with an RSE > 50% are suppressed and not shown in the tables. determined whether the prior-year comparison was statistically
significant (a two-tailed test at = .05).
xiv See footnote xiii.

Long-term trends To implement the regression model, point estimates of totals
Yt and their standard errors were obtained for all 15 annual
A long-term regression trends analysis was performed on the
January 2001 through December 2015 annual national estimates periods beginning with the January to December 2001 period
of totals and regional estimates of rates for selected drug reports. and ending with the January to December 2015 period. Sampling
The models allow for randomness in the totals and rates due to standard errors were estimated as the full sampling variance-
the sample and the population. That is, for the vector of time covariance matrix S over these 15 time periods. The S matrix
period totals over that time, contains variances in totals at any time period and covariances in
totals between any two time periods, thus giving a very general
YT (Y1 , Y2 , , Y15 ) , modeling of the sampling variance structure. The variance-
covariance matrix of the totals is then , where I
and for the estimates, is the identity matrix.
T (Y , Y , , Y )
Y Regression coefficients were estimated using the REML
1 2 15
method. Because higher-order polynomial regression models
generally show strong collinearity among predictor variables, the
the regression model is model was reparameterized using orthogonal polynomials. The
reparameterized model is
,
where ,
is a 15 1 vector of errors due to the probability
sample, and where
=15 1 vector of errors due to the underlying model. for all , and
provide contributions for the first-
Randomness due to the sample exists because only a sample of
order (linear), second-order (quadratic), and third-order
all eligible laboratories has been randomly selected to be included.
(cubic) polynomials, respectively.
Randomness due to the population exists because many factors
that can be viewed as random contribute to the specific total Note that the error term is the same in the original model
reported by a laboratory in a time period. For example, not all and the reparameterized model because the fitted surface is the
drug seizures that could have been made were actually made, and same for both models. The model was further constrained to
there may have been some reporting errors. If rates (per 100,000 have regression residuals sum to zero, a constraint that is not
persons aged 15 years or older) and not totals are of interest, the guaranteed by theory for these models but was considered to
above model can be applied to , where c equals 100,000 improve model fit due to an approximation required to estimate
divided by the 15-or-older regional population size as given by S . Standard errors of the regression trend estimates were
the U.S. Census Bureau. obtained by simulation.
The regression model used to perform the analysis is Final models were selected after testing for the significance of
coefficients at the = 0.05 level (p < .05), which means that if the
, trend of interest (linear, quadratic, cubic) was in fact zero, then
there would be a 5% chance that the trend would be detected as
where statistically significant when in fact it is not. Final fitted models
Yt = the population total value, considered to be a are most easily interpreted using graphical plots.
realization of the underlying model; and
t = one of a set of 15 independent normal variates with a
mean of zero and a variance of .
The model allows for a variety of trend types: linear (straight-

line), quadratic (U-shaped), and cubic (S-shaped). Because it is a
model for Yt but the sample estimates Yt differ by the sampling
error, estimation was performed by restricted maximum likelihood
(REML), allowing for the two sources of error.

Appendix B PARTICIPATING AND REPORTING FORENSIC LABORATORIES
Lab Lab
State Type Laboratory Name Reporting State Type Laboratory Name Reporting
AK State Alaska Department of Public Safety MS State Mississippi Department of Public Safety (4 sites)
AL State Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences (5 sites) Local Jackson Police Department Crime Laboratory
AR State Arkansas State Crime Laboratory (2 sites) Local Tupelo Police Department
AZ State Arizona Department of Public Safety, Scientific Analysis Bureau (4 sites) MT State Montana Forensic Science Division
Local Mesa Police Department NC State North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation (3 sites)
Local Phoenix Police Department Local Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department
Local Scottsdale Police Department Local Iredell County Sheriffs Office Crime Laboratory (Statesville)
Local Tucson Police Department Crime Laboratory ND State North Dakota Crime Laboratory Division
CA State California Department of Justice (10 sites) NE State Nebraska State Patrol Criminalistics Laboratory (2 sites)
Local Alameda County Sheriffs Office Crime Laboratory (San Leandro) NH State New Hampshire State Police Forensic Laboratory
Local Contra Costa County Sheriffs Office (Martinez) NJ State New Jersey State Police (4 sites)
Local Fresno County Sheriffs Forensic Laboratory Local Burlington County Forensic Laboratory (Mt. Holly)
Local Kern County District Attorneys Office (Bakersfield)* Local Cape May County Prosecutors Office
Local Long Beach Police Department Local Hudson County Prosecutors Office (Jersey City)
Local Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department (4 sites) Local Ocean County Sheriffs Department (Toms River)
Local Los Angeles Police Department (2 sites) Local Union County Prosecutors Office (Westfield)
Local Oakland Police Department Crime Laboratory NM State New Mexico Department of Public Safety (3 sites)
Local Orange County Sheriffs Department (Santa Ana) Local Albuquerque Police Department
Local Sacramento County District Attorneys Office NV Local Henderson City Crime Laboratory
Local San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department Local Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Crime Laboratory
Local San Diego County Sheriffs Department Local Washoe County Sheriffs Office Crime Laboratory (Reno)
Local San Diego Police Department NY State New York State Police (4 sites)
Local San Francisco Police Department* Local Erie County Central Police Services Laboratory (Buffalo)
Local San Mateo County Sheriffs Office (San Mateo) Local Nassau County Office of Medical Examiner (East Meadow)
Local Santa Clara District Attorneys Office (San Jose) Local New York City Police Department Crime Laboratory**
Local Ventura County Sheriffs Department Local Niagara County Sheriffs Office Forensic Laboratory (Lockport)
CO State Colorado Bureau of Investigation (4 sites) Local Onondaga County Center for Forensic Sciences (Syracuse)
Local Suffolk County Crime Laboratory (Hauppauge)
Local Aurora Police Department
Local Westchester County Forensic Sciences Laboratory (Valhalla)
Local Colorado Springs Police Department Local Yonkers Police Department Forensic Science Laboratory
Local Denver Police Department Crime Laboratory
Local Jefferson County Sheriffs Office (Golden) OH State Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification & Investigation (3 sites)
State Ohio State Highway Patrol
CT State Connecticut Department of Public Safety Local Canton-Stark County Crime Laboratory (Canton)
DE State Chief Medical Examiners Office* Local Columbus Police Department
FL State Florida Department of Law Enforcement (5 sites) Local Cuyahoga County Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (Cleveland)
Local Broward County Sheriffs Office (Fort Lauderdale) Local Hamilton County Coroners Office (Cincinnati)
Local Indian River Crime Laboratory (Fort Pierce) Local Lake County Regional Forensic Laboratory (Painesville)
Local Manatee County Sheriffs Office (Bradenton) Local Lorain County Crime Laboratory (Elyria)
Local Miami-Dade Police Department Crime Laboratory Local Mansfield Police Department
Local Palm Beach County Sheriffs Office Crime Laboratory (West Palm Beach) Local Miami Valley Regional Crime Laboratory (Dayton)
Local Pinellas County Forensic Laboratory (Largo) Local Newark Police Department Forensic Services
Local Sarasota County Sheriffs Office Local Toledo Police Forensic Laboratory
GA State Georgia State Bureau of Investigation (6 sites) OK State Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (5 sites)
HI Local Honolulu Police Department Local Tulsa Police Department Forensic Laboratory
IA State Iowa Division of Criminal Investigations OR State Oregon State Police Forensic Services Division (5 sites)
ID State Idaho State Police (3 sites) PA State Pennsylvania State Police Crime Laboratory (6 sites)
Local Allegheny Office of the Medical Examiner Forensic Laboratory (Pittsburgh)
IL State Illinois State Police (7 sites) Local Philadelphia Police Department Forensic Science Laboratory
Local DuPage County Forensic Science Center (Wheaton)
RI State Rhode Island Forensic Sciences Laboratory
Local Northern Illinois Police Crime Laboratory (Chicago)
SC State South Carolina Law Enforcement Division
IN State Indiana State Police Laboratory (4 sites) Local Anderson/Oconee Regional Forensics Laboratory
Local Indianapolis-Marion County Forensic Laboratory (Indianapolis) Local Charleston Police Department
KS State Kansas Bureau of Investigation (3 sites) Local Richland County Sheriffs Department Forensic Sciences Laboratory (Columbia)
Local Johnson County Sheriffs Office (Mission) Local Spartanburg Police Department
Local Sedgwick County Regional Forensic Science Center (Wichita) SD State South Dakota Department of Public Health Laboratory
KY State Kentucky State Police (6 sites) Local Rapid City Police Department
LA State Louisiana State Police TN State Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (3 sites)
Local Acadiana Criminalistics Laboratory (New Iberia) TX State Texas Department of Public Safety (13 sites)
Local Jefferson Parish Sheriffs Office (Metairie) Local Austin Police Department
Local New Orleans Police Department Crime Laboratory Local Bexar County Criminal Investigations Laboratory (San Antonio)
Local North Louisiana Criminalistics Laboratory System (3 sites) Local Brazoria County Sheriffs Office Crime Laboratory (Angleton)
Local Southwest Louisiana Criminalistics Laboratory (Lake Charles) Local Fort Worth Police Department Criminalistics Laboratory
MA State Massachusetts State Police Local Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences Crime Laboratory (Houston)
Local University of Massachusetts Medical School (Worcester) Local Houston Forensic Science Local Governance Corporation
MD State Maryland State Police Forensic Sciences Division (3 sites) Local Institute of Forensic Sciences (Dallas)
Local Anne Arundel County Police Department (Millersville) Local Jefferson County Sheriffs Regional Crime Laboratory (Beaumont)
Local Baltimore City Police Department UT State Utah Department of Public Safety (3 sites)
Local Baltimore County Police Department (Towson) VA State Virginia Department of Forensic Science (4 sites)
Local Montgomery County Police Department Crime Laboratory (Rockville) VT State Vermont Forensic Laboratory
Local Prince Georges County Police Department (Landover) WA State Washington State Patrol (6 sites)
ME State Maine Department of Health and Human Services WI State Wisconsin Department of Justice (3 sites)
MI State Michigan State Police (7 sites) Local Kenosha County Division of Health Services
MN State Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (2 sites) WV State West Virginia State Police
MO State Missouri State Highway Patrol (8 sites) WY State Wyoming State Crime Laboratory
Local Independence Police Department PR Territory Institute of Forensic Science of Puerto Rico Criminalistics Laboratory (3 sites)
Local KCMO Regional Crime Laboratory (Kansas City) This list identifies laboratories that are participating in and reporting to NFLIS as of July 20, 2016.
Local St. Charles County Police Department Criminalistics Laboratory (OFallon) *These laboratories are not currently conducting drug chemistry analysis. Cases for the agencies they serve are
Local St. Louis County Police Department Crime Laboratory (Clayton)
being analyzed via contracts or agreements with other laboratories.
Local St. Louis Police Department
**The New York City Police Department Crime Laboratory currently reports summary data.
Appendix C NFLIS BENEFITS AND LIMITATIONS
Benefits Limitations
The systematic collection and analysis of drug analysis data NFLIS has limitations that must be considered when
aid our understanding of the Nations illicit drug problem. interpreting findings generated from the database.
NFLIS serves as a resource for supporting drug scheduling
policy and drug enforcement initiatives nationally and in specific Currently, NFLIS includes data from Federal, State, and local
communities around the country. forensic laboratories. Federal data are shown separately in this
publication. Efforts are under way to enroll additional Federal
Specifically, NFLIS helps the drug control community achieve laboratories.
its mission by
NFLIS includes drug chemistry results from completed
providing detailed information on the prevalence and types of analyses only. Drug evidence secured by law enforcement but
controlled substances secured in law enforcement operations; not analyzed by laboratories is not included in the database.
identifying variations in controlled and noncontrolled National and regional estimates may be subject to variation
substances at the national, State, and local levels; associated with sample estimates, including nonresponse bias.
identifying emerging drug problems and changes in drug State and local policies related to the enforcement and
availability in a timely fashion; prosecution of specific drugs may affect drug evidence
monitoring the diversion of legitimately marketed drugs into submissions to laboratories for analysis.
illicit channels; Laboratory policies and procedures for handling drug evidence
providing information on the characteristics of drugs, including vary. Some laboratories analyze all evidence submitted to
quantity, purity, and drug combinations; and them, whereas others analyze only selected case items. Many
laboratories do not analyze drug evidence if the criminal case
supplementing information from other drug sources, including was dismissed from court or if no defendant could be linked to
the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) and the case.
the Monitoring the Future (MTF) study.
Laboratories vary with respect to the records they maintain.
NFLIS is an opportunity for State and local laboratories to For example, some laboratories automated records include the
participate in a useful, high-visibility initiative. Participating weight of the sample selected for analysis (e.g., the weight of
laboratories regularly receive reports that summarize national
one of five bags of powder), whereas others record total weight.
and regional data. In addition, the Data Query System (DQS)
is a secure website that allows NFLIS participantsincluding
State and local laboratories, the DEA, and other Federal drug
control agenciesto run customized queries on the NFLIS data.
Enhancements to the DQS provide a new interagency exchange
forum that will allow the DEA, forensic laboratories, and other
members of the drug control community to post and respond to
current information.

Appendix D NFLIS WEBSITE AND DATA QUERY SYSTEM (DQS)
The NFLIS website (https://www.nflis.deadiversion.usdoj. The private site requires user accounts, and security roles
gov/) is an important feature of the NFLIS program. It is the are assigned to manage access to its features, including the
key resource to provide NFLIS-related information, through a Map Library, NFLIS Data Entry Application, and DQS. The
public site and through a private site, which gives secure access to DQS is a distinct resource for NFLIS reporting laboratories to
the NFLIS DQS. run customizable queries on their own case-level data and on
The public site is frequently updated with NFLIS-related aggregated metropolitan, State, regional, and national data.
news, including information relevant to drug control efforts Features include the drug category queries for synthetic
and DEA participation in conferences. Also available are cannabinoids and synthetic cathinones.
downloadable versions of published NFLIS reports, links to
other websites, and contact information for key NFLIS staff.
Public features include a link to the Scientific Working Group To obtain information about NFLIS participation
for the Analysis of Seized Drugs (SWGDRUG) mass spectral or the DQS, please visit the NFLIS website at
library at http://www.swgdrug.org/. https://www.nflis.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/.

PUBLIC DOMAIN NOTICE
All material appearing in this publication is in the public domain
and may be reproduced or copied without permission from the DEA.
However, this publication may not be reproduced or distributed for a fee
without the specific, written authorization of the U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration, U.S. Department of Justice. Citation of the source is
appreciated. Suggested citation:
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Diversion Control Division.

(2016). National Forensic Laboratory Information System: Year 2015 Annual
Report. Springfield, VA: U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.
OBTAINING COPIES OF THIS

PUBLICATION
Electronic copies of this publication can be downloaded from the
NFLIS website at https://www.nflis.deadiversion.usdoj.gov.
nflis 2015 annual report | 31 nflis 2015 annual report | 31

U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
Diversion Control Division
8701 Morrissette Drive
Springfield, VA 22152
September 2016

National Forensic Laboratory Information System 2015 Annual Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Forensic Laboratory Information System 2015 Annual Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Forensic Laboratory Information System 2015 Annual Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NFLIS

NATIONAL FORENSIC LABORATORY

2015 ANNUAL REPORT

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Appendix A: Statistical Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Public Domain Notice and Obtaining Copies of This Publication . . . . . . . . 31

nflis 2015 annual report | 3

(NFLIS) is a program of the Drug Enforcement Administration MT

laboratories/laboratory systems, representing a total of 277 Tucson

4 | nflis 2015 annual report

Reporting State Laboratory System

6 | nflis 2015 annual report

National West Midwest Northeast South

nflis 2015 annual report | 7

8 | nflis 2015 annual report

nflis 2015 annual report | 9

remain fairly steady until dramatic increases occurred in 2014 600,000

and 2015. 500,000

Number of Alprazolam Reports

For alprazolam, the West, Midwest, and South regions 15

the national trend.

while the other regions continued to increase.

More recently, from 2014 to 2015, alprazolam increased 30 Midwest

Oxycodone reports decreased significantly in the Northeast

nflis 2015 annual report | 11

9 downward-curving trends. The Northeast region showed an

12 Northeast For MDMA, the West and Midwest regions showed

12 | nflis 2015 annual report

Number of Heroin Reports

400 Northeast Northeast

Figure 1.13 Regional trends in cocaine reported per 100,000

nflis 2015 annual report | 13

Oxycodone Tranquilizer and

Buprenorphine Alprazolam 45,584 56.01%

Hydroxyzine 392 0.48%

Pregabalin 388 0.48%

Temazepam 331 0.41%

Butalbital 311 0.38%

Gamma-hydroxybutrate (GHB) 296 0.36%

Other tranquilizers and depressants 1,319 1.62%

Total Tranquilizer and Depressant Reports2 81,393 100.00%

Figure 2.2 Distribution of tranquilizer and depressant reports

Approximately 5% of all drug reports in 2015, or 81,393 60%

reports, were identified by NFLIS laboratories as tranquilizers

and depressants (Table 2.2). Alprazolam accounted for 56% of

tranquilizers and depressants reported in the South and Midwest

regions (61% and 54%, respectively) (Figure 2.2). Clonazepam

accounted for 17% of tranquilizers and depressants identified in

the Midwest and Northeast regions. The West region reported

the highest percentage of diazepam (9%), while the Northeast

Trenbolone 352 8.95% Methandrostenolone

Oxymetholone 131 3.33% 60%

Methyltestosterone 10 0.26% 20%

Total Anabolic Steroid Reports2 3,933 100.00%

Total Drug Reports 1,549,466

16 | nflis 2015 annual report

MDA 1,066 0.34% 20%

Phentermine 631 0.20%

Methylone 447 0.14%