Pulse Check Trends in Drug Abuse January 2004

Book Id: WPLBN0000126011
Format Type: PDF eBook:
File Size: 7.67 MB
Reproduction Date: 2008

Title:	Pulse Check Trends in Drug Abuse January 2004
Author:
Volume:
Language:	English
Subject:	Government publications, Legislation., Government Printing Office (U.S.)
Collections:	Government Library Collection
Historic Publication Date:
Publisher:	Government Printing Office


Citation APA MLA Chicago Pulse Check Trends in Drug Abuse January 2004. (n.d.). Pulse Check Trends in Drug Abuse January 2004. Retrieved from http://self.gutenberg.org/

Excerpt
Introduction: The President has stated goals of reducing drug use among all Americans by 10 percent in 2 years and 25 percent in 5 years. As part of the strategy to accomplish this, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) has developed this special edition of Pulse Check to complement its current 25-Cities Initiative, which engages local officials and concerned citizens in 25 of American’s largest cities.

Table of Contents
CONTENTS Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 National Snapshot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Exhibits 1. How serious is the perceived drug problem in the 25 Pulse Check communities? (Fall 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 2. How has the perceived drug problem changed? (Spring vs fall 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 3. How difficult is it for undercover police and users to buy drugs? (Fall 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 4. How difficult is it for undercover police and users to buy drugs (0–10 scale, 0=not difficult at all, 10=extremely difficult)? (Fall 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 5. What are the most serious drug problems in the 25 Pulse Check cities, by type of source? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 6. What are the most serious drug problem in the 25 Pulse Check cities, by number of sources and sites? . . . . . . .8 7. What new problems have emerged or intensified during fall 2002? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 8. Where is diverted methadone emerging as a problem? (Fall 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 9. Where is PCP emerging as a problem? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 10a. What are the prices and purity levels of different types of heroin in Pulse Check cities? (Fall 2002) . . . . . . .17 10b. How much does one rock of crack cocaine cost in Pulse Check cities? (Fall 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 10c. How pure is powder cocaine, and how much does it cost? (Fall 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 10d. How much does marijuana cost? (Fall 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19 10e. How much does methamphetamine cost? (Fall 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 10f. How much does a pill (one dose) of ecstasy cost? (Fall 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 Special Topic: Local Drug Market: A Decade of Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Exhibits Beyond Cash: What else is accepted in exchange for drugs? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 To what degree have the following illicit marketing innovations or tools complicated efforts to detect or disrupt drug activity over the past 10 years? (Mean of 0–5 ratings) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 Dealers using band names: To what extent has it complicated detection and disruption efforts? (0–5 ratings) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Markets relocating within the community: To what extent has it complicated detection and disruption efforts? (0–5 ratings) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31 Throwaway cell phones: To what extent have they complicated detection and disruption efforts? (0–5 ratings) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32 Changes in the nature of users and the market: To what degree have they made the drug abuse problem more complex over the past 10 years? (Mean of 0–5 ratings) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .