If you have issues viewing or accessing this file, please contact us at NCJRS.gov. 168386 OFFICE OF NATIONAL

DRUG CONTROL POLICY

Reducing Drug Abuse in America

OPBRE/OCT97 f3gk

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY Washington, D.C. 20503 Biography of Barry R. McCaffrey Director, Office of National Drug Control Policy

Barry McCaffrey was confirmed by unanimous vote of the U.S. Senate as the Director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) on 29 February 1996. He serves as a full member of the President's Cabinet and as the senior drug policy official in the Executive Branch. He is also a member of the National Security Council and the President's Drug P..olicy Council. Prior to confirmation as ONDCP Director, he was the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces Southern Command coordinating all national security operations in Latin America.

General McCaffrey began his military career as a 17-year old Cadet at West Point. He served four combat tours: , Viemam (twice), and Iraq. When he retired from active duty, he was the most highly decorated and the youngest four star in the U.S. Army. -He twice received the Distinguished Service Cross, 's second highest award for valor. He also received two awards of the for heroism and three medals for wounds sustained in combat. During Operation Desert Storm, he commanded the 24th Infantry Division and led the 200 kilometer "leR hook" attack into the Euphrates River Valley.

Director McCaffrey graduated from , Andover, and the U.S. Military Academy. He has a Master of Arts degree in Civil Government from and taught American Government, National Security Studies, and Comparative Politics at West Point. He also attended the National Security Program. DirectOr McCaffrey is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and an associate member of the Inter-American Dialogue.

General McCaffrey served as the JCS assistant to General Colin PoweU. While serving as the Director for Strategic Plans and Policy on the , he supported the Chairman as the principal JCS Staff advisor to the Secretary of State and to the U.S. Ambassador to the . Among the many awards he has received for his service are: the Department of State's Superior Honor Award for support of the StrategicArms LimitationTalks; the NAACP Roy Wilkins Renewal Service Award; and decorations from the French, Brazilian,and Argentine governments.

Barry McCaffxey is married to the former Jill Ann Faulkner. They have three married children: Sean, a U.S. Army infantry Captain; Tara, a U.S. Army Washington National Guard nurse; and Amy, a school teacher. ONDCP NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY MAJOR DIRECTIONS Primary mission: To lead national efforts to reduce TEN YEAR STRA'IEGY illicit drug use and its consequences. - Long-term conmitment to approach - Goals and meaemrable objectives that direct and clarify Departmmt/agency • Created by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, as amended drug control efforts included - longer term outlook allows for better definition of priorities, stronger support • Develops National Drug Control Strategies and Coordinates and for programs that work, and stronger leadership from ONDCP Oversees Implementation FIVE YEAR BUDGET - Long-term funding support, linked to goals and objectives • Develops National Drug Control Budgets - Links resource allocation to the feedback provided by perfo~ mmmgement

• Recommends improvements in management and organization of drug COMMITMENT TO PERFORMANCE ~ SYSTEM control efforts -- Measure progress and calibrate policy and strategy accordingly - Efforts will build on agency measurement projects, supplemented as needed • Conducts performance measurement activities to improve program - New measuren-~data system under development effectiveness O~I~..JOCT07 OPBRFJOCT97

National Drug Control Strategy GOAL I: Educate and Enable America's Youth to Reject Illegal Drugs as well as the Use of Alcohol and Tobacco Goals, 1997

• !. Educate parentsJcaregivers to help youth reject drugs, alcohol, tobacco. • i: Educate and enable America's youth to reject illegal drugs as well as the use of alcohol and tobacco. • 2. Pursue vigorous media campaign on dangers of drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. • 3. Promote youth zero-tolerance use policies within school, workplace, and community.

• lh Increase the safety of America's citizens by substantially reducing • 4. Provide K-12 students with comp~hensive drug, alcohol, & tobacco prevention programs. drug-related crime and violence. • 5. Support parents/mentors in encouraging positive, healthy lifestyles. • 6. Assist community coalitions and programs in preventing use. • IH: Reduce health and social costs to the public of illegal drug use. • 7. Create partnership with media and sports organizations to avoid glamorization of use.

• 8. Support and disseminate scientific research on the consequences of legalization. • IV: Shield America's air, land, and sea frontiers from the drug threat. • 9. Implement national prevention principles.

-V: Break foreign and domestic drug sources of supply. • 10. Support research, including scientific information, about drug, alcohol, and tobacco prevention programs for youth. OPBI~OCTg7 OPBI~cJC~g7 GOAL ll: Increase Safety of America's Citizens by Substantially GOAL HI: Reduce Health and Social Costs to the Public of Reducing Drug-related Crime and Violence Illegal Drug Use

• !. Strengthen law enforcement, incl. task forces, to combat violence, disrupt • 1. Support effective, efficient, accessible, drug treatment responsive to emerging organizations, and arrest their leaders. trends.

• 2. Improve the ability of High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTAs), • 2. Reduce drug-related health problems, emphasis on infections diseases. to counter drug use, production, trafficking, and crime. • 3. Promote adoption of drug-free workplace programs that emphasize drug-testing as key component in a comprehensive program. • 3. Help law enforcement disrupt money laundering and seize criminal assets. • 4. Support research into the development of medications & treatment protocols • 4. Implement effective rehabilitative programs at all stages in the criminal justice to prevent/reduce dependence and abuse. system. • 5. Promote credentialing of professionals who work with substance abusers. • 5. Break cycle of drug abuse and crime. • 6. Support research and technology, incl. scientific data, to reduce health and social costs of illegal drug use. • 6. Support research, including information, to inform law enforcement, prosecution, incarceration, and treatment of offenders.

0~T97 OPBRFJEX~T97

GOAL IV" Shield America's Air, Land, and Sea Frontiers from GOAL V: Break Foreign and Domestic Source of Supply the Drug Threat

• l. Produce net reduction in worldwide cultivation of coca, opium, and marijuana and other drugs, especially methamphetamine. • I. Conduct flexible operations to disrupt, deter, and seize illegal drugs in transit to the U.S. and at borders. • 2. Disrupt and dismantle major international drug-trafficking organizations. and ~ their leaders. • 2. Improve coordination and effectiveness of law enforcement and intelligence, especially at the Southwest Border, Puerto Rico, and US. Virgin Islands. • 3. Strengthen source country drug control efforts, political will, and capabilities.

• 3. Improve bilateral and regional cooperation with Mexico and other transit countries • 4. Support bilateral, regional and multilateral initiatives and mobilize to reduce drug flow into U.S. international organizational efforts.

• 4. Support research & tech, ind. scientific data, to disrupt, deter & seize illegal drugs • 5. Promote international money-lannderlnginvestigations and related seizures of in transit to the U.S. and at borders. asset~

• 6. Support research and technology, includingscientific data, to reduce world-wide illegal drug supply.

OPBRFJOCT97 OPBRF.7OCT97 Fiscal Year 1998 Spending, by Goal The Federal Drug Control Budget has (dollars in millions) Doubled Since 1989 (Current Dollars)

(hml h $1,763 Reduce Y4Juth Drug Use Budget Authority; Billions of Dollars 20

Goal 5:$3,456 15 Reduce ~ of ~uppl3

10

G¢,ul 2:$5,519 Redm:e Drug-Related Crime and Vkdence

0 p,eg.~ ~ Goal 4:$1~88 .~tt~lp I,'lktwuf Dru~ at Bold 1.sl 1.712.012.4[2.812.914.814.76.719.81,1.011.0112.3112.1 13.3114.e115.1116.01

(;md 3: $3,¢~;I OP~REOCT97 Reduce CoB~lFJen~'zs of Drug U~ OPBRE.~CT97

13 Federal Drug Control Spending, by Function NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY 1981 -1998 MAJOR DIRECTIONS

20,000 TEN YEAR STRATEGY - Long-term conmitment to approach - C,eals and measurable objectives that direct and clarify Department/agency

15,000 drug control efforts kcluded - Longer term outlook allows for better definition of priorities, stronger support for programs that work, and stronger leadership from ONI)CP

10,000 FIVE YEAR BUDGET - Long-term funding support, linked to goals and objectives - Links resource allocation to the feedback provided by performance mmmgement

5,000 COMMITMENT TO W_JtFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEM -- Measure progress and calibrate policy and strategy accordingly - Efforts will build on agency measurement projects, supplemented as needed F"YBI F'V82 F'YK3 F'~'15~ J.'YB.~ 17Y86 J~Y81 JTy88 17~89 I.'YgO 17Y91 ~ FY93 F'Y94 1~'Y95 F'Y96 1~/9"7 F'Y98 - New measurenam~data system under development B DemandReduc0on B DomesticLaw Enforcement [] International B Interdiction OPBRE.OCT97 OPBRE,~CTg7 14

Role of Drug Prevention

• Deter new use

DRUG PREVENTION • Deter progression into more serious use

.- Encourage existing users to stop.using

• Break intergenerational cycle

OPBR~DC'~T OPBRE/0C197

Marijuana Initiation Slightly Down, 1995 to 1996, After Increasing Objectives of Drug Prevention for Several Years. However, Cocaine Initiation Rose.

Marijuana Initiates (lO00s) Cocaine Initiates (lO00s) 3,500

Reduce risk factors 3,000

2,500 1,,~oo Increase protective factors 2,000 1,ooo

Improve knowledge and attitudes 1,500

1,000 Reduce drug & alcohol problem behaviors 500

0 Illllllllll IIIIIIlll IIIII I I I I I i I i i i J i i i i t i i i i i i i i i

OPIB RFJOCTI)7 OPBRrdOcTID7 Source: 1996 HouseholdSurvey .111 Initiation Rates for both Heroin and Hallucinogens are Rising Perceived Harmfulness of Drug Use in the Dramatically. Household Population, Ages 12 and Above

HeroinInitiates (1000s) HallucinogenInitiates (100011) 160 1,400 Percent Reporting Great Risk From Occasional Use 100 140 - 12ooi ...... [ 80 ~._..9 77.3 7e..9, 77.s 8o.5 120 r" N 76.0 1,000 ...... / i ! 100 60 8O

6O BB I I 40 400 ...... I no data

20 ...... 200

O III Itlll; lllllll|l II I|]I II O I ! I I I I i I I ~ I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I ~ :1"i 'i Ii ii J 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1996 • Marijuana [] Cocaine OPSRF./OCT97 Source:1996 Household Survey OPBR~OClr97 Source: 1996 Household Survey

20 Perceived Harmfulness of Drug Use in the Household Population, Ages 12 to 17 Possible Factors Affecting Weakening Risk Perception

Percent Reporting Great Risk From Occasional Use • What hypotheses seem most promising to account for the observed changes [in drug use] ?

1006080f[ ~ 8s.4 s4.8 s4.3 a4.o ~e1.4 • Rise in delinquency - Increased use of gateway drugs (cigarettes) - Decline in perceived harmfulness of drug use - Mass culture (e.g., media) - Reduction in informal learning abotlt risks of drug use - Decline in Executive Leadership (Federal, State, local, 20- no data civic) Increased illicit drug availability & lower price (e.g., 0 m Marijuana) °ti1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1996 • Marijuana [] Cocaine

OPBREEX:TI)I Source: 1996 Household Survey Source:ONDCP" Report on the Meeting of the Ann Arbor Group, June 1994 OPSRF-K)CTg7 22 23 Attitudes and Their Affect on Drug Use

)after 1990

"'"-, Perception of the risk of drug~- 20 ~ SO !...... *,.,,o..b~J.in.s.,o, .w.e..a..1~..n...a~r.., 19~1...... ~...... ~ i°! DRUG USE

l I =,e S,n,,o ri--,o,,,, 60 1989I 1990I 1991I 1992I 19S~ 1994 199510 Somce: Monllorlngthe FutureSluR/ OPBRFJOCTg? OPBREJOC197

25 74 Million People Have Tried Drugs at Least 23 Million People Used Illicit Drugs at Least Once in Their Lifetime Once in 1996 Use in the Past Year Lifetime Drug Use (Users in Millions) (Users in Millions) Any Drug 23.2 Any Drug 74.4

Marijuana Marijuana

Cocaine 22.1 Cocaine 4.0

Crack 4.6 Crack 1.4

Heroin 12.4 , ~ , Heroin I O.S I I [ I 0 20 4O 6O 80 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

OPBRFJOCTg? Source: 1996Household Survey OPBRFJOCTO7 Source: 1996Household Survey 27 13 Million People Used Illicit Drugs on a Illicit Drug Use in the Past Month, Ages 12 Current (Past Month) Basis and Older, 1979 - 1996 Use in the Past Month Overall Drug Use Is Down (Users in Millions) Pen~ ot Hou~x~ Pop~a~on t, [ 1 Any Illicit Drug 13.0 Any Drug I Current 1: Marijuana Marijuana 10.1 Current Cocaine 1.7 Cocaine

0.7 Crack I Heroin 0.2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 79 82 85 88 90 91 9293949596

ORBRFJOCIW/ Source: 199e~ Sorvey O~gRF.JOCTg/ Source: 1996Household Survey

28 29 Current Use of Cocaine Is Down Current Use of Marijuana Is Down Significantly, 1985 to 1996 Significantly, 1979 - 1996

Millions of Users Millions of Users 30

25

20

15

10

5

0 1979 1982 1985 1988 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 4.7 14.~ 15.7 3.1 I 1.7 2.0 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.5 [ 1.7 I, 23.8 21.7 18.6 12.4 10.9 10.4 9.7 9.6 10. I 9.8 10.1 OPeRF.CCT97 Source: 1996Household Survey o~n~oc~w Source: 1096Household Survey 30 31

Current or Past Month Drug Use Appears to have Current Use of Marijuana Among those Age 12-17 is Down This Stabilized in the Household Population - 1992 to 1996 Year, but Current Use Among those 18-25 is Up.

Percentageof HouaeholdPopulatloe Percent Reporting Current, Peat Month Use 10 m1992 40r • 1993 • 1994 30 • 1995 [] 1996 20

10

79 t s2 ~ 8s 90 v! ~ ~ 94 9S 14.2 [ 9.9 10.2 5.4 4.4 3.6 3.4 4.0 &o 8.2 ?,l Age 12-17~ ...... ]_......

0 Age 18-25-" ~+ ~.2 z,., ,s.3 ,~7 ,2.9 ,~, ,,.l ,~, ,..,, ,.~.z Any Illicit drug Marijuana Cocaine I " I

O~BRF~I~B7 OPBRFJOCTg7 Source: 1996 Household Survey Source: 1996 Household Survey

33 While the Numbers are still Low, the NHSDA Shows a Heroin Use Significant Increase Since 1993 in Current Use of Heroin.

• Pulse Check indicates that heroin use nationwide is still low, Estimates In Thousands of Users but use is increasing. 250

• High purity heroin and lower prices contribute to increased 2OO use. 150 • Many heroin users also use other illegal drugs, most often cocaine. 100

50 • Majority of users are in the 30s and injecting; younger users beginning to inhale heroin. 0 197911982 1985 1988 1990 19911199211993 1994 1995 1996 • While the numbers are still low, the 1996 Household Survey 128 ] 162 137 79 41 71 92 I 68 117 196 216 (NHSDA) shows a significant increase since 1993 in current Source: 1996 Household Survey use of heroin (see next chart). OPBRI~OCT97 OPBRFJOCTg7 Estimated Number of Emergency Department Percentage of Adult Arrestees Who Tested Positive Episodes. Heroin Episodes and Total Episodes, for Opiate Use in 23 Cities 1988-1995

50 Number of Episodes 600,000 40 s00~oo 30 4OO,0OO

20 .'~0,0OO

10 2OO,0OO

IOO~OO 0 ! 0 .< 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95

Heroin/Morphine Episodes Total Drug Episodes " No data on Female Arrestees --.lid l OPSI~:.~CT~7 • Male • Female Source: Drug Abuse Warning Network Sougc.a: NIJIIXIF 1996 AnnuaJ Report OPBRE/OCT97

Profile of Heroin Users in Treatment Problem Heroin Areas in the

SEX 66% = male; 34% = female CEWG* Pulse Check DUF** RACE 45.3% = White; 26.6% = Hispanic; 25% = Black

AGE 22.3% = 35-39 years; 19.8% = 30-34 years; 19.6% = 40-44 years Newark (Delaware) Newark (Delaware) Washington, DC FREQUENCY OF USE 83.9% = daily i City New York City New York City

EMPLOYMENT 53.7% = not in labor force Seattle Seattle Portland i i EDUCATION 42.7% = high school/GED completed Chicago Chicago Chicago

MARITAL STATUS 53.7% = never married Philadelphia n~dgeport Philadelphia ii San Antonio San Antonio/El Paso San Antonio SOURCE OF INCOME 33.4% = public assistance Boston Boston Detroit # PRIOR TREATMENT 29% = 5 or more treatment episodes II EPISODES St. Louis Denver Phoenix * Community Efidemi.hv~yWorking Group ** Drug Use I;ort~tlng System OPeRFJUC~7 SourCe: SAMHSA's Treatn~nt Epis~xtg I)ala Set (Th'DS) OOBRFJ0C~7 Methamphetamine Use is Highest in the West Methamphetamine Use is Still Highest in the West But Rates Dropped Substantially in 1996 DrucJ Use Forecastinq Sites Where Methamphetamine Use Was Hicjhest in 1995

NOTE: All these cities reported a drop in methamphetamine use in 1996 (see next page for 1996 figures and comparison) --~- -~ 1996 Portland, OR ['~ / ~ iwllh ~mpirL~,n~to 19~5) ,~,',(<,o,,.,,,~>h.__ _ / t. ~-7 .... ~ / \ .o~d o. ~~ 1995

so, Jo,,,.CA /, / / L /4..' ,d~-~41 ~t c,¢-

San Jose. CA ii k / / I~'m'~ --I-- --" I ! / } LOS Angeles,C 2=~__._(d_owrt42%) o;225\c:. 7% (down 7%) --~i--__2. ~ L

OFBRE,~CT97

40 Summary of Current Situation Drug Use: An Emergency Situation Among our Youth

• Overall, drug use is down substantially. Since 1979, the number of current users of any illicit drug has declined from 25.4 million to 13 million - a decline of 50 percent. 2 [ Percentage Increase in ~ Drug Use Rates Among • This nation is moving away from cocaine. Current use of cocaine in the household population is down from its peak in 1985 of 5.7million users to 1.7 million in 1996 - a decline of 70 percenL

• Current use of marijuana is also down from 23.8 million users in 197910 10.1 million in 1996 - a decline of 58 percent.

• However, marijuana use is increasing dramatically among our young people.

• In addition, both heroin and methamphetamine use are on the rise, ~J 0.5 -There are reports of new, younger users inhaling and smoking heroin, and of increased marketing to new user populations.

- In some areas, methamphetamlne trafficking and use are on the rise. 1~2 I~3 1994 1995 1996

ORBRFJOCT~7 OPBRE~OCTg7 blcrease from ba~ year, 1991. 42 PREVALENCE OF USE OF CIGARETTES FOR PREVALENCE OF USE OF ALCOHOL FOR EIGHTH, TENTH, AND TWELFTH GRADERS, 1996 EIGHTH, TENTH, AND TWELFTH GRADERS, 1996

Cigarettes Alcohol (any use)

49.2% • By 12th grade, over • Nearly two-thirds of 12th 8th three-quarters of students 8th graders have used cigarettes have used alcohol in their in their lifetime, more than lifetime; 51 percent are one in five is a dail x user. 1Oth current users. lOth

12th 12th

i I , I , I , 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 0% 20% 40% 60% B0% 100%

I l Lifetime1-130-Dayl Daily I [ II Lifetime["lAnnual II 30-Day I

*'~c~wc¢ 199o M oZlitm ~M[ [b(t [4*ture ~tudy OPIBRE,~CT97 OFBREKJCT97

44 4b PREVALENCE OF USE OF ANY ILLICIT DRUG FOR PREVALENCE OF USE OF MARIJUANA FOR EIGHTH, TENTH, AND TWELFTH GRADERS, 1996 EIGHTH, TENTH, AND TWELFTH GRADERS, 1996

Lifetime, Annual, 30-day, Marijuana Any Illicit Drug and Daily use among 12th

1.2% graders is about double that ~:r~ ~ - The increase in use between the 18.3°1o 8th of 8th graders, s~ ,3~ 10th and 12th grades is much 1.5% less than the increase between About 45 percent of students 8th and 10th grades. 33,6% 10th have tried marijuana by the ~0.4% time they reach the 12th 3.5% • Over 50 percent of 12th graders have tried an illicit drug; nearly grade. 121h one in four are current users. 12111 More than one in five 12th i I i i . = I • t . ~ • 0% 10%20%30%40%50%60%70% graders are current users of marijuana; 1 in 20 are daily I lLifetime I-IAnnua11130-Day I I ILifetime I-IAnnuall30-Day II Daily I users. ~cr~e: 1996 MonhCwi=~d~ I:umm ,%luJy SouPc: 19~J¢;M¢¢~'o rm$ Ih= I~utur¢ Sludy OF~BR£,IOCT97 OPBRFJOC T97 47 PREVALENCE OF USE OF COCAINE FOR PREVALENCE OF USE OF HEROIN FOR EIGHTH, EIGHTH,TENTH, AND TWELFTH GRADERS, 1996 TENTH, AND TWELFTH GRADERS, 1996

Cocaine Heroin The prevalence of use of • Cocaine use is much less heroin among 8th, 10th, and prevalent among this 8th population. 12th graders is low.

A troubling finding is that • Seven percent of 12th l~h lOth Lifetime, Annual, and graders have used cocaine 30-day use of heroin is during their lifetime. greatest among today's 8th 121h graders. • Two percent are current ' , I i ' , I i users of cocaine. 0% 2% 4% 6% 0% 0% 0.5% 1% 1.0% 2% 2.5% One-half of a percent of 12th I l~et~eDAnnu~l~Day [ [ II Li/etime I-IAnnua11130-Day ] graders are current users of heroin. OPeFq~OCT97 OPBREX)CT97

Problem: Drug Use Among 8th, 10th, & Problem: 8th, 10th, & 12th Grade 12th Graders is Increasing Marijuana Use Increasin9

30-Day Use of Any Illicit Drug 30-Day Marijuana Use Up Percent who report use. Percent who report use. 25

25 20 2O 15 15 10 10

5 5

0 0 i 1991 1992 1993 i 1994 1995 1996 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 ~ Grade 5,7 6.8 8,4 l 10,9 12-4 14.8 ~th Grade 3,8 3.7 5.1 T8 9.1 11.3 11.6 11.0 14.0 i I&5 20.2 2"3.2 10th Grade,-, 8.7 8.1 10,9 15.8 17.2 20.4 y ~121h Grad~'~ 16.4 14.4 18,3 [ 21.9 23.8 24.6 12th G~ 13.8 11.9 1.~.5 19,0 21.2 21.9

~ I ~ M ~i~'tal[ the V-~uJte S~dy ~¢g I~x~ Mtnli~ori~[ ibe Pine,re ~,Jdy OPBR~GCTO7 TRENDS IN 30-DAY USE OF ALCOHOL ARE TRENDS IN 30-DAY USE OF CIGARETTES SHOW STABLE RISING USE, ESPECIALLY FOR 10TH GRADERS

30-Day Alcohol Use 30-Day Cigarette Use K)rt use Percent who re Percent who re )oft use 6O 35 55

50

45 25

40 ...... -- ...... I

35 2o ...... i ...... ~.

30

25

20 10 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 ~Gracle I ~.1 ~.1 26.2 ~.5 ~.6 262 BIh Grade -,- 143 lS~; 16.7 18.6 19.1 21.0 I~G~ ~.8 ~.9 41.5 ~.2 ~.8 ~.4 10th G~ 20.6 213 24.7 25.4 27.3 30.4 121h Grade'- 54.0 61.3 51.0 50.1 61.3 60.8 12th Grade~, 28.3 27.3 29.g 31.2 28.5 34.0 som'ce: 19,~Id~| ~ Putm~~,dy OPSl~OCll)7 OPeRF.JOCT~

Consequences of Drug Use Consequences of Drug Use

The Social Costs of Illicit Drug Abuse Add Up to $67 Billion Each Year, Most From the Cost of Crime. ~. -.~ ConDrUse gquUeSences ~

There are more than 1 Million Drug Arrests Annually -- Half of all FamilYr~Drug./ ~Use ~Ec onoCmi:munity, Arrestees Test Positive for illicit Drugs. There is a High Correlation for Drug Use and Gang Behavior, Violence, and Carrying a Gun to School

Violence Health There is a High Incidence of Property Crime Among Drug Users. O~RE,I~Tg/ OPBRE~CT97 The Money Spent to Buy Drugs Saps The Social Costs of Illicit Drug Abuse Add Up to the Economic Health of the Nation $67 Billion Each Year, Most From the Cost of Crime

Dollars, in Billions

U.S. Users Spend $62 Billion Annually Direct Billions of Dollars Medical NDS $3.2 $6~ 50

$41.4 40 |.0 30

Death 20 $3.4

$11.3 10 $7.0 $2.7 0 l Crln Cocaine Heroin Madjuana Other $4S. Source: ~P Pap~. What America'susms Spendon megaJDrugs

OPB RERJ13T97 OPBREK3CT97 Source:. ~ Ilstmd da~. O.P. Rice, Ins=lime lot Heath and AgOg, Untverslly of Calll~rnla

56

Crime Consequences Drug-Related Murders

• Over I million arrests annually Murders Related to Narcotic Drug Laws # of Deaths 1,600

• > 50 % arrestees test positive for illicit drugs 1,400

• High incidence of property crime by users 1,000 • Violence common to drug trafficking 800 600

• High correlation among drug use and gang 40O

behavior, violence, and carrying a gun to school 200

0 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 t ~Pt]RG',3C Tt~ OPBRE/OCT97 Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Repotls. 58 5# Cocaine and Heroin Episodes are Growing Problems in Emergency Rooms DAWN Drug-Related Deaths are Rising

Cocaine and Heroin Hospital Emergency DAWN Medical Examiner Data Room Mentions, 1978 - 1995 # of Deaths 160,000 12,000 140.000 lO.OOO 120,000 100,000 8,000 80,000 6,000 60,000 40,000 4,000 20,000 2,000 0 0 1990 1991 1992 t 993 1994 1995 • Accidental [] Suicide • Other

OPgREJOCT97 Source: HHS Drug Abuse Warning Network OPBRE,IOCTg7 Source: HHS Orug Abuse Warning Network

Drug Related Criminal Activity Drug Related Arrests are Rising

• NIDA study of drug users not in treatment found: Arrests for Drug Abuse Violations (in toillions)

- 46% report legal-only sources of income

1_47£ 1.506 .10% report illegal-only sources of income 1.5

• 42% report both legal and illegal sources

• 2% report no income.

0.5 • 30% of illegal income was generated from property crimes; 42% was from commercial sex.

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Source: NIDA, Drug Procurement Study. Source: Uniform Crime Reports, FBI. OP~RE/OCF97 OPBRE/OCT97 02 63 Reason For Drug Arrest Drug Trafficking Convictions in State Courts Lead to Stiffer Sentences than Drug Possession

Arrests for Drug Abuse Violations, 1996 Percent of Felons Sentenced to Prison, Jail, and Probation (Drug Possession versus Drug Trafficking)

Heroll~CocaJnt" el: L-~ 10L~dluana 6.3% 60 Possession mufacture 5O 48

4eroln/Cocalne 14.2% Sale/Manufacture 4O 34 ~4 3O

20 Other Possession 13.3% 10

OTHER 0 Marijuana _ Jnutscture 4.3% Possession Possession Trafficking • Prison [] Jail • Probation Soume: BJS Report, January 1997 Source: Uniform Crime ReporL, ORBR.~T97 OPBRE/OCT97

Marijuana Cases Make Up Only a Small Percentage of Number of Persons in Federal and State Prisons and Felony Drug Trafficking Convictions in State Courts Local Jails, 1985-96

200,000 1,800 93,167 Inmatee ]

!,500 150,000 t =g 1,200

I00,000 Breakdown of Trafficking v Convictions, by Drug 6OO 50,000 30O

0 0 Possession Trefllcldn 9 Marijuana Unspecltled Other 196,5 1087 19811 1091 1003 1995 Mid year Source: BJS Report, January 1997 1996 o PBRFJOC'[ 97 OPBRE/C~T97 E] Federal Prisons [] State Prisons • Jails The Hardcore Drug User Population is Small Hardcore Users Are Responsible for Most Illicit but Stable -- and the Heart of the Problem Drug Consumption, so Keep the Market Alive

Millions of Users Annual Consumption (Metric Tons of Pure Cocaine)

4.1 3s° t j D Har~coreUse 3.7 • Casual Use 30O I- ......

25O

2OO

Two -Ih h'd,~ of lhe 150 dru~ are u~ed by .nu-lhird of the" IL~.'rs. 100 1988 1993 1995 50 • coc=. • ~

Hard(ore users include individuals who use illicit drug at least weekly and 0 exhibit behaviocal problems stemming from their drug use. 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 OPlBREOCT97 OPBREJOCT97

LEFT BLANK LEFT BLANK

OI~RE~T97 OPSRFJOCTII7 70 Treatment Capacity is Not Adequate to Meet the Need

According to HHS --

• 3.8 million users exhibit problems from illicit drug DRUG Use

• 2.4 of these users need some type of specialty TREATMENT treatment

• Capacity exists for about 1.3 million users

• Treatment Gap of more than I million remains

Trend in Clients in Treatment Potential Treatment Capacity

Clients in Specialty Treatment for Drugs and Ncohol (one-day census of active clients) • Total Clients in Treatment: 943,623 1,200,000

1,000,000 • Divided by the Provider Utilization Rate: 74.2 percent 800,000

600,000 400,000 • Equals Total Potential Capacity: 1.3 million users 200,000

0 80 82 87 89 90 91 92 93 94 Source: National Drug and Alcohol Treatment Unil Survey (DHHS, Juno 1996) OPBRE/OCT97 OPBRE/OCT97 Types & Use of Drug and Alcohol Federal Resources for Treatment Treatment Capacity, 1994 Have Helped to Close Gap

(Clients In thousands) Dollars in billions; Clients in millions Dollars Clients Free-Standing/Out 3.0 1.0 Comm Mental Hlth 2.5 0.8 Gen Hospital m96 2.0 ResidentialFac m7( 0.6 1.5 SpecializedHosp 23 0.4 Halfway Houses m24 t.0 Correctional Fac. 0.5 0.2

Other/Unknown 0.0 0.0 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 0 100 2OO 3O0 4O0 5O0 600 Clients Budget m Source: 1995 Strategy OPC3RFJOC797 OPBP,E,,~CT97

Age Distribution of Those In Client Substance Abuse Problems Treatment (drugs & alcohol) Age Group 943,623 Clients In Treatment, 1995

10.6% A,cohoIOn~/ 34% 25.34 33.:

12-20 11.6% Drugsonh/ 25%

45+ 15.2%

35-44 29.4% Drugs & Alcohol 41%

Source: National Drug and Ncohol TreatmenUni| Survey (HHS) Source: National [')rug and Alcohol TreatmenUnit Survey (HHS) qJ~REA')CT~7 OPSRE/OCTg7 78 79 Race/Ethnicity of Clients in Admissions to Drug Treatment, by Primary Drug of Abuse Treatment (drugs & alcohol) 100 Clients in Treatment, 1995 80 White 5n o~ 60

40

Other 3.3% 20

;panic 14.6% Black 22.6% l 1 Cocaine [] Heroin [] Marijuana I Source: NaEonalDrug and Alcoh~ Treatment Unit Sun~ey(HHS) Smirce: &ll~tance Ahlk~ and Mental ||eallh ServicL~'~AdminL,~.rati.R, 1,9~7 OPBREK)CT97 OPBRE/OCfg7

Percent distribution of TEDS panel admissions and U.S. Percent distribution of cocaine admissions by the number population by race/ethnicity, 1995 of prior treatment episodes, 1995

White 35 30 Black 25 20 Hispanic l 15 10 Other i 5 i I i * 0 20 40 60 80 None 1 2 3 4 5 or more

II Percentage 1---]Percentage II Cocaine Admissions I II of Admissions I I of U.S. Population I I

OF~ RF_JOCTG7 OPBRFJOCT9? Percent distribution of heroin admissions by the number Percent distribution of marijuana admissions by the of prior treatment episodes, 1995 number of prior treatment episodes, 1995

35 70

30 60

25 50

20 40

15 30

10 20

5 10

0 0 None 1 2 3 4 5 or more None 1 2 3 4 5 or more II Heroin Admissions I - Marijuana Admissi°ns ]

OPSRER~CI~7 OPBRE JOCT97

85 Benefits From Treatment to Treatment Costs and Effects Society Are Significant

Effects per Treatment • 94 Study (CALDATA) reported: Type of Percent of Cost Per Off Cocaine Off Heavy Use Treatment Treatments Treatment In Treatment After Treatment * - Cost of treating 150,000 drug addicts in 92 was Outpatient 77%- $76o 73% 34% $209 million. ..

- Benefits worth $1.5 billion, mostly from reduced Residential 23% $5100 99% 38% crime. w~g~t~ Avg - $1740 79% 35% - Benefits were to the taxpayer (fewer Crimes) and society (fewer disability payments, welfare Source: Rand, 1994. transfers). * For those who are In treatment for at least 3months.

OPBR~OCT07 ** ONDCP estimate of weighted average offectlve rate. OP~E~OCT97 ~6 87 Treatment has been Proven to be Effective Treatment has been Proven to be Effective (continued) The Caidata Findings were corroborated by the 1996 National Treatment Improvement Evaluation The key findings of the Caldata study are as follows: Study's conclusions that:

Treatment can generate a seven to one return on investment. The study estknated that the Treatment reduces drug use. Clients reported reducing drug use by about 50 percent in $209 million cost of providing treatment to 150,000 individuals generated an estimated the year following treatment. $1.5 billion in savings (mostly due to reduction in crime). All types of treatment programs can be effective. Methadone maintenance programs, non- Treatment reduces drug use. Illegal drug use by participants dropped by 40 percent as a methadone outpatient programs, and both short and long-term residential programs result of treatment. demonstrated an ability to reduce drug use among participants. Treatment reduces drug-related iflness. Hospitalization rates dropped by a third after Criminal activity declines after treatment. Reports of "beating someone up" decreased treatment. from 49.3 to 11 percem, and reports of arrests decreased from 48.2 to 17.2 percent comparing the year before with the year following treatment. Put-treatmant criminal activity correlates with the length of treatment programs. While overall criminal activity of surveyed individuals dropped by two-thirds after completion of • : Health improves after treatmenL Substance abuse-related medical visits decreased by treatment, the greater the time spent in a treatment program, the greater the reduction in more than 50 percent and in-patient mental health visits by more than 25 percent after individual criminal activity. treatment.. So, too, did risk indicators of sexually-transmitted diseases. Treatment can be effective for all. All populations -- men and womeat, young and old, Treatment improves individual well-being. Following treatment, employment rates African-American, Hispanic, and white -- experienced generally equal treatmem increased while homelessness and welfare receipts both decreased. effectiveness for each type of program studied.

OPBR,E/OCTg7 OPBR~OCTg7

LEFT BLANK LEFT BLANK

OPBRFJOC'i~? OPBREX~CT97 1993: A New Approach to Reducing the Drug Supply Began

SUPPLY REDUCTION • Broaden Interdiction to Include the Three Primary Areas for Impact

• Recognize that Interdiction Can Only Have a Limited Impact on the Flow of Drugs and Must be Supported by Other Programs and Approaches, if it is to Succeed

• Focus Attention on the Source of Drugs in What are Termed the Source Countries ope RDUC'I'~ OPBRE/OCTB7

Interdiction Strengths and Weaknesses The Source Country Focus

• Interdiction alone cannot greatly impact the • Provides for better intelligence, so drug flow interdiction assets can be strategically placed and efficiently used • Without production control at the source, with each interdiction, producers can simply • Focuses attention close to where drugs produce more are produced, increasing the leverage from each action • Targetted interdiction, based on solid intelligence data, has the greatest chance of • Limits production to maximize the impact success from interdiction

OPEIREJOCT97 OPBREJCCT87 Source Country Focus (cont.) Breaking Up the Delivery System • Our strategy also focuses on breaking up the delivery system, at all levels • Interdiction is most effective when it occurs closest to the source because • The air bridge between Peru and is a alternative supplies of coca leaf and base weak link, and there has been success there are limited • Peru and Colombia end game participation is • Thus, stopping the flow of drugs before it key to success can be moved out into the broader expanse of the transit zone is the most • Attacking that air bridge causes backups all the way up the line effective strategy

OPBRFJOCI~7 OPBRE,~CT97

Significant Successes Action Against Cartel Leadership • Increasing End Game Action in Colombia and Peru

• Air Bridge broken • Attacking the cartel leadership structure is key to disruption of business • Paste and leaf prices fall close or below the cost of production in much of Peru • Focus on arresting and prosecuting leaders • Farmers are neglecting and abandoning coca fields • Requires substantial political will by source • Price for hiring pilots has risen dramatically countries

OPBREK)CI~7 OPRREK~T97 FEDERAL-WIDE DRUG SEIZURE SYSTEM Current Successes and Results ANNUAL SEIZURES, BY FISCAL YEAR

• Six of the seven Cali Cartel leaders have been arrested, the seventh killed resisting arrest 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996"

• Scrambling for alternative delivery methods as flight paths are blocked OO¢&ll~

• TOm) 107.3 111.7 187.6 110.8 130 10Q.8 108.1 • Transit Zone interdiction is down

HEROIN • Worldwide interdiction is the same or better than when we spent far 0m.OS) 815.0 1,374.4 1,157.2 1,894.8 1,270.5 1,162.4 1,524.8 more of the Federal budget on interdiction in the transit zone

• We are getting better results for less m ~ 303.3 ~ ~ ~1.7 ~.3 ~.6 TOm) • We are more effective in attacking the structure

Source: I)EA'.~ ~'1)~ Rep~Jrt (4/22~7) *FY 1996 figures are preliminary and subject to updallng. ORBRF..K~T97 OFE~OCTS?

10o

Cocaine Seizures versus Production mJ~o to~l 1,

U.S. luxl hnzgn govlnlmenls Interdict about me-tl'dxd of w~rldwkJle ~ woducUon:

Woddwlde production has ranged generagy belween BOOto 900 met/k: tons since 1090. U.S. cocaine se],ls~oshave averaged 113 LEFT BLANK metric tons p~r year ovw the 109~ to 1095 p*rkxL

Foreign government seizures have averaged 168 metric tons over the same pedod.

US. ¢ocalrm seizures ale up In 1996 - 66.5 meb'lc tons of cocaine were seized In tha flint three quarters of 1996, up 4 petrcont compared to the same pedod In 1995.

9O 91 92 93 94 95

OPBRE/OC'~7 OP~KX~T97