--------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     METHAMPHETAMINE PRECURSOR CHEMICAL
                           CONTROL IN THE 1990's
                               January, 1996
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Summary

By the late 1980s, traffickers and clandestine laboratory operators discovered
the ease with which ephedrine, a primary methamphetamine precursor, could be
converted to methamphetamine. When the Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act
imposed controls upon the import, export and distribution of bulk ephedrine
powder, drug traffickers switched to the diversion of ephedrine from
international commerce and the use of ephedrine tablets, which were exempt under
the law. When the Domestic Chemical Diversion Control Act effectively closed the
ephedrine loophole in the law, clandestine lab operators switched to the use of
pseudoephedrine as their methamphetamine precursor. Pseudoephedrine is a direct
substitute for ephedrine for this purpose.

By the early 1990s, Mexican traffickers had become the major source in the U.S.
of illicit methamphetamine. The magnitude of their involvement in the
international diversion of ephedrine was discovered in 1994, when 3.4 metric
tons of the chemical were seized at the Dallas/Ft. Worth airport. As a result of
this initial seizure, it was determined that between June 1993 and December
1994, brokers from Switzerland alone supplied Mexican traffickers with at least
70 metric tons of ephedrine. An additional 100 tons are believed to have been
diverted in a similar manner from a variety of international sources. This total
of 170 tons could yield 136 tons of methamphetamine, which, at today's prices,
would potentially generate a profit in excess of $3.2 billion, and would be
enough to supply 12.4 million abusers with three 10-milligram doses a day for
365 days a year.

Recent diplomatic efforts undertaken by DEA's Office of Diversion Control with
the foreign governments whose industry provides the major sources of raw
material for methamphetamine production have virtually eliminated the massive
diversion of ephedrine from foreign sources which the Mexicans had instituted.
However, traffickers and lab operators continue to find ways to adjust to DEA's
diplomatic and legislative initiatives. Now we have begun to see massive
diversion of pseudoephedrine to substitute for ephedrine, and tablets containing
ephedrine in combination with other substances such as guaifenesin, this time
primarily from domestic distributors. Enforcement action recently undertaken
against a single company reveals that it distributed approximately 68 metric
tons of chemicals sufficient to produce 50 tons of methamphetamine in a single
year. It is believed that virtually all of this material was diverted.

This paper provides an overview of DEA's accomplishments in combating
clandestine methamphetamine production through chemical control regulatory and
enforcement measures, and concludes with a brief discussion of plans for dealing
with the traffickers' and clandestine lab operators' latest "adjustment" to
these measures.

Gene R. Haislip
Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of Diversion Control
Drug Enforcement Administration

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                METHAMPHETAMINE
                    PRECURSOR CHEMICAL CONTROL IN THE 1990's
                          Office of Diversion Control

                                Introduction

There are two different aspects to DEA's effort to control the chemicals
necessary to produce methamphetamine. One is working with foreign counterparts
to cut off the supply of methamphetamine precursor chemicals to traffickers; the
other is shutting down domestic "rogue" chemical companies which knowingly sell
large quantities of the precursors to traffickers. This paper describes the
steps that the Office of Diversion Control (OD) has taken in both respects, and
the success which has thus far been achieved. This paper concludes with a brief
discussion of needs for the future if ultimate success in attacking this
particular drug problem is to be realized.

Methamphetamine History

Methamphetamine is a purely synthetic central-nervous-system stimulant of the
amphetamine family. Amphetamines were first synthesized in the late nineteenth
century by a German scientist; the synthesis of methamphetamine is attributed to
a Japanese chemist in 1919. Historically, methamphetamine has had therapeutic
uses. It also has been widely abused for its powerful stimulant effects.
Amphetamine derivatives, such as methamphetamine, were developed in both oral
and intravenous form. They were promoted as nonaddictive. In 1937, amphetamine
became available by prescription in tablet form. It was used in the treatment of
hyperactive children, Parkinson's disease, depression, and narcolepsy. When
narcolepsy patients reported loss of appetite, it was discovered that
amphetamines also worked as an anoretic.

Japan was the first country to experience a methamphetamine epidemic. During
World War II, large amounts of methamphetamine were produced for use by
war-industry factory workers to aid output. Following the war, methamphetamine
tablets, of which large quantities remained in store, were vigorously promoted
by pharmaceutical companies and large quantities were sold to the Japanese
public without prescription. Epidemic intravenous use of the drug soon followed.

Although a prescription was required in the U.S., during the 1950s large
quantities of amphetamines were sold by drug companies to bogus companies in
care of post office boxes. "Bennies" or pep pills, as they were known, were used
for nonmedical purposes by college students, athletes, truckers, and housewives,
as well as thousands of veterans returning from the war with amphetamine habits.
Use of methamphetamine expanded across the U.S. in this decade as production of
the drug increased significantly. Amphetamines were being marketed to treat
obesity, narcolepsy, hyperkinesis, and depression, but were being taken
primarily to increase energy, decrease the need for sleep, and elevate mood. In
the 1960s, doctors in San Francisco began prescribing amphetamine injections for
treatment of heroin addiction. Widespread abuse followed as San Francisco
pharmacies began selling injectable amphetamines without prescriptions, or with
crudely forged prescriptions, or through bogus telephone orders from users
posing as doctors. "Script-writers" appeared: physicians who, for the cost of an
office visit, would write prescriptions for the drugs. In 1962, federal, state
and local law enforcement agencies cracked down; eventually, amphetamine and
methamphetamine were controlled under the Drug Abuse Control Act of 1965.
Subsequent control in Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in 1970
placed restrictions, among other things, on the amounts of these drugs produced.
Drug companies took their liquid, injectable products off the market, although
they remained available to hospitals. In response to this market vacuum, illegal
crystal-methamphetamine labs began to appear in the Bay Area (1).

Intravenous methamphetamine abuse in the U.S. became prominent in the late 1960s
particularly in the Haight-Ashbury district of San Francisco, where speed, as
all amphetamines came to be known, began replacing drugs such as LSD and
mescaline in popularity. Public education, massive reduction of federally
approved production quotas, and treatment of abusers brought this epidemic under
control, although motorcycle gangs, in particular, remained involved in the
clandestine production of methamphetamine. During the rise in cocaine and crack
abuse in the early 1980s, bikers and "dopers" in rural areas, where cocaine was
less plentiful and too expensive, continued to favor "crystal meth" or "crank,"
which was typically snorted or injected. They produced the drug in crude
laboratories via a simple process. Among the general U.S. population, the
methamphetamine problem increased steadily. Unlike the earlier epidemic, abusers
today are not limited to urban areas, and more women are involved.

Extent of the Problem

The illicit domestic demand for stimulants such as methamphetamine has remained
constant for many years. A sharp drop in production and abuse occurred following
the implementation of the CDTA in 1989. But within the 1990s, reports of
methamphetamine/speed abuse episodes have exceeded those seen in the peak of
1989, according to national Drug Abuse Warning Network data for 1994. In
particular regions of the country the problem has been or continues to be more
severe. Methamphetamine abuse remains a particularly severe problem in
California and other southwestern states, such as Texas and Arizona. In fact,
authorities in San Diego and the southern San Francisco Bay area report that
methamphetamine is the number one drug of abuse in those locations. In San Diego
in 1994, there were nearly 3,000 admissions to publicly-funded treatment
programs for methamphetamine abuse, up from fewer than 600 in 1988.

Methamphetamine is abused for its stimulant effects; at therapeutic or slightly
higher doses, the drug promotes feelings of euphoria, increased alertness and
the perception of improved self-esteem and self-confidence, and feelings of
power and importance. And its effects last longer than those produced by cocaine
or crack. However, the drug often decreases performance and negatively affects
the ability to perform tasks requiring thought and creativity. Ultimately,
performance deteriorates due to sleep deprivation. Abusers of methamphetamine
typically increase the dosage, as a tolerance to some of its effects, notably
the euphoria, develops. Taken at higher levels, the drug may cause nervousness,
irritability, and restlessness. With high doses taken chronically, psychotic
reactions with paranoid delusions often mistaken for schizophrenia may occur.
Methamphetamine is smoked, snorted and injected. Tolerance develops to the
euphorigenic effects of methamphetamine, leading to higher and more frequent
doses. The abuser may take methamphetamine in "binges" lasting several days with
intervals of sleep, also lasting for days, between the binges. Repeated use of
methamphetamine rapidly produces strong psychological dependence and a
withdrawal syndrome consistent with physical dependence.

During the period 1989-1994, methamphetamine consistently accounted for 80
percent and more of clandestine lab seizures by DEA. Whereas the number of all
clandestine lab seizures, including methamphetamine, declined from 1989 to 1993
in reaction to domestic chemical control legislation, since 1993 methamphetamine
lab seizures have begun to increase, reflecting the heavy and increasing
involvement of Mexican drug traffickers in the production of methamphetamine.
Their role is described in greater detail below.

The Switch to Ephedrine/Pseudoephedrine

The earliest clandestine labs used the chemical phenyl-2-propanone, also known
as phenylacetone or P2P, to produce methamphetamine. Prior to its control in
1980 in Schedule II as an immediate precursor to amphetamine and methamphetamine
(for which it is used by legitimate industry), P2P was freely available. In
response to a consistent high number of clandestine amphetamine and
methamphetamine lab seizures throughout the 1970s, P2P was placed in Schedule II
of the CSA. This scheduling of P2P resulted in a brief decline in the number of
clandestine lab seizures. Traffickers adjusted to the scheduling of P2P by
switching to production of this chemical from other uncontrolled chemicals. In
1989, DEA embarked upon a broad chemical control program based onlegislative
authority. In the meantime, clandestine amphetamine/methamphetamine lab seizures
once again increased.

In 1987 the first DEA seizure of a clandestine lab which employed the hydriodic
acid/ephedrine reduction method of methamphetamine production occurred. Since
then, seizures of labs employing the ephedrine reduction method have far
outnumbered those using the P2P method each year; in 1994, it was more than six
times as many. This relatively simple, high yield method of producing the drug
results in a more potent isomer of methamphetamine. In fact, the stimulant
properties of ephedrine have been known for centuries, having first been
described by the Chinese over 5,000 years ago (2). Ephedrine is obtained from
the ephedra plant, known to the Chinese as mahuang. Ephedrine also is produced
via purely synthetic methods. Like ephedrine, for which it can be used as a
direct substitute in the clandestine manufacture of methamphetamine,
pseudoephedrine can be obtained from the ephedra plant or produced
synthetically. Ephedrine is used legitimately as a bronchodilator for asthma,
while pseudoephedrine is used as a nasal decongestant. Ephedrine is not produced
in the U.S.; however, pseudoephedrine is produced in this country from imported
ephedrine, as well as being imported itself. Major producing countries of
ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are China, India, Germany and the Czech Republic.

Approximately 48,000 25 mg. ephedrine tablets are required to extract one kilo
of pure ephedrine. One kilogram of ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, theoretically,
will yield 0.92 kilos of methamphetamine. Actual yield in clandestine labs is
typically in the range of 50 to 75 percent.

Methcathinone

In 1989, a new clandestinely manufactured drug made from ephedrine,
methcathinone or "cat," came to the attention of health and enforcement
officials in the upper Michigan peninsula area. This highly addictive
methamphetamine analog was, and continues to be, typically manufactured in small
batches by individual clandestine lab "cooks." The vast majority of ephedrine
used in methcathinone production is obtained from over-the-counter purchases of
25 mg. bottles of 1,000 or less tablets or capsules. Although clandestine cat
labs eventually were seized in other areas of the country such as Wisconsin,
Illinois, Missouri, and as far away as Washington, cat remains a relatively
isolated problem and no involvement by large trafficking or polydrug
organizations has yet been found. Methcathinone was placed into Schedule I of
the CSA in October 1993.

A New Domestic Tool: The Chemical Diversion and Trafficking Act

A new tool to attack the clandestine methamphetamine production problem became
available to DEA in 1988 with the amending of the CSA to include the Chemical
Diversion and Trafficking Act (CDTA). The CDTA imposed reporting, record keeping
and import/export notification requirements for regulated transactions in
controlled chemicals. Under this law, bulk ephedrine became regulated; however,
the law exempted over-the-counter ephedrine products such as tablets and
capsules which are legally marketed or distributed under the Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act. At the time the CDTA was drafted in the mid-1980s, the widespread
use of ephedrine to manufacture methamphetamine had not yet emerged. Under
strong pressure from industry involved in the over-the-counter market of this
product, the exemption was provided for ephedrine products lawfully marketed
under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

By the late 1980s, however, traffickers and clandestine lab operators had
discovered the ease with which ephedrine could be converted to methamphetamine.
Bulk ephedrine powder eventually was encountered with greater frequency than P2P
in clandestine lab seizures. Both

l-ephedrine and d-pseudoephedrine, which have very similar chemical structures,
can be used to produce d-methamphetamine, a more potent version than the
dl-methamphetamine produced via the P2P synthesis method. Within a month
following enactment of the CDTA and the controls it placed upon ephedrine
powder, the first encounter with ephedrine tablets at a clandestine
methamphetamine lab seizure occurred. Traffickers had quickly realized that
noncontrolled ephedrine tablets could easily be purchased in large quantities
for conversion to methamphetamine. At the same time, DEA became aware of a
number of mail order distributors aggressively marketing ephedrine tablets in
100 and 1,000-count bottles through ads in national magazines such as
Cosmopolitan, High Times and Hustler. These mail order outfits and other retail
distributors ostensibly sold the ephedrine tablets as bronchodilators, energy
boosters, or diet aids. Criminal prosecution under the CDTA is possible even
when exempt tablets are involved if the government can prove that the company
sold the product knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the tablets
would be used to illegally manufacture a controlled substance. These
distributors routinely disclaimed any knowledge of unlawful conduct, however. It
became all too evident that the ephedrine tablet exemption contained in the CDTA
provided traffickers a loophole that would have to be closed.

Recognizing that additional authority under the law was required to deal with
rogue chemical companies, in addition to closing the ephedrine loophole, OD
drafted the Domestic Chemical Diversion Control Act (DCDCA) in 1990. In November
1993 Congress passed the law; it became effective April 16, 1994. Regulations
implementing the DCDCA became effective in August 1995. This law requires that
all distributors, importers and exporters who distribute List I chemicals
register with the DEA, as is required of controlled substances handlers under
the CSA. This will allow DEA to deny registration to, or in future, revoke the
registration of companies whose actions pose an imminent threat to the public
health and safety, without proof of criminal intent. The DCDCA also removes the
record keeping and reporting exemption for single entity ephedrine products and
requires registration for distributors of these products. The law does not
remove the exemption provided for over-the-counter pseudoephedrine products,
although it provides a mechanism for dealing with this problem should it become
necessary.

Traffickers have again reacted quickly to DEA's actions. There is some evidence
of the use of over-the-counter combination products containing ephedrine. Also,
clandestine lab operators have searched for other unregulated sources of
methamphetamine precursors. This has led to the diversion of pseudoephedrine
tablets for the illicit production of methamphetamine. Because of their chemical
similarity, the illicit use of either ephedrine or pseudoephedrine yields the
same quantity of controlled substance. By 1994, 28 clandestine methamphetamine
labs using pseudoephedrine for precursor material were seized by DEA (3). It now
appears that many tons of pseudoephedrine tablets are being supplied to the
illicit drug traffic by a handful of mail-order distributors.

Case Examples

DEA became aware of the activities of Clifton Pharmaceuticals, an
ephedrine/-pseudoephedrine tablet manufacturer located in western Pennsylvania,
in early 1995. Clifton also transacted business under the names Nittany
Pharmaceutical, Interglow Associates, and Valley Run Pharmaceutical.
Import/export declarations being filed by several bulk importers of ephedrine
and pseudoephedrine powder showed that massive quantities of ephedrine and
pseudoephedrine were being imported into the U.S., and investigation revealed
that Clifton Pharmaceuticals was the primary customer of all of these bulk
importers. Further investigation quickly revealed that Clifton's primary
customers were three mail order firms located in Florida and Kentucky, who were
selling tremendous volumes of the two chemicals principally to buyers on the
West Coast. The products shipped by these mail order firms were regularly being
seized in clandestine laboratories in California and several other western
states. In May 1995, a federal search and seizure warrant was executed at
Clifton Pharmaceuticals following an undercover purchase of 20 million 60 mg.
pseudoephedrine tablets, for which Clifton was paid $180,000. Seized at the
plant were ephedrine, pseudoephedrine and phenylpropanolamine powder and
tableted drug products which filled five 50-foot tractor trailers. The ephedrine
and pseudoephedrine alone totalled 25 metric tons.

In the early 1990s, Nationwide Purveyors, Inc., of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
operated as a mail order supplier of ephedrine tablets selling millions of
ephedrine 25 mg. tablets annually. An estimated 80 percent of this company's
sales were ephedrine tablets, and it was identified as the source of ephedrine
tablet supply in numerous DEA clandestine lab seizures throughout the U.S. In
June 1992, the corporate officers and other employees of this company were
arrested pursuant to a federal indictment returned by a grand jury in San Diego,
California. The indictment alleged a conspiracy between the Nationwide
defendants and co-conspirators from Southern California to divert approximately
9,000 pounds of ephedrine. In August 1993, the defendants were sentenced
following guilty pleas to federal charges of conspiracy to manufacture
methamphetamine, illegal distribution of a listed chemical, and money
laundering. Sentences ranged from five years probation and 300 hours of
community service for one company employee, to 20 years of imprisonment, 10
years supervised probation, and a $100,000 fine imposed on Nationwide's
president.

Between October 1993 and May 1994, ephedrine tablets furnished by one
Arkansas-based mail order distributor were encountered at several hundred
clandestine labs in Arkansas and California. Based on this fact, the owner of
the company was federally indicted on charges of money laundering and
distribution of a listed chemical knowing that it would be used to manufacture
methamphetamine. The owner was documented in undercover tape recordings as
having knowledge that the ephedrine tablets he was selling were being used to
make illegal drugs. Two million ephedrine tablets were seized at the owner's
residence, and another eight to nine million were seized at his warehouse. He
was sentenced in March 1995 to 41 months in prison, a $10,000 fine, and two
years supervised release after prison.

The Mexican Traffickers

Following implementation of the CDTA, the nature of the methamphetamine traffic
and its predominant suppliers changed. Mexican polydrug organizations with
connections to Colombian traffickers replaced the outlaw motorcycle gangs as the
primary methamphetamine producers, traffickers, and distributors in California
and the western U.S. In 1990, shortly after passage of the CDTA, smuggling of
precursor chemicals along the U.S./Mexican border increased significantly,
reflecting the Mexican traffickers' preference for manufacturing the drug in the
U.S. In this way, they avoided the more significant penalties associated with
smuggling the final product, methamphetamine, across the border. These
traffickers established large scale clandestine laboratories, staffed by
previously unemployed or low-wage Mexican immigrants, which are capable of
producing an average of 20 to 100 pounds of methamphetamine per process. The
labs are typically established in remote locations throughout California,
primarily in the southern part of the state (4). In fact, in 1994, California
accounted for over 40 percent of all clandestine methamphetamine labs seized
nationwide. DEA intelligence indicates that traffickers also are producing
methamphetamine in mobile clandestine labs. Although these mobile labs generally
have a smaller production capacity than stationary ones, they are a more
difficult target for law enforcement.

Not only do Mexican traffickers operate labs in the U.S., but they produce the
methamphetamine clandestinely in Mexico and smuggle the drug into the U.S. In
their dominance of the U.S. market, these traffickers regard the Mexican/U.S.
border as nonexistent, moving methamphetamine and its precursor chemicals in
either direction across the border to facilitate their production and
distribution needs. Methamphetamine distribution has been expanded by using
established heroin, cocaine and marijuana distribution networks (4). The
enormous profit involved in the trade of methamphetamine explains the lure of
this drug to these traffickers. An investment of $500 in chemicals yields about
one pound of methamphetamine, which sells for as much as $12,000 in California,
to as much as $18,500 elsewhere in the U.S.

Although Mexican criminal organizations dominate the production and distribution
of methamphetamine, other players in this illegal market include Asian gangs in
northern California, Washington State, and other Asian groups in British
Columbia which have penetrated the U.S. market. Outlaw motorcycle gangs never
withdrew from this drug scene entirely, and there are indications that they are
increasing the level of their activities.

The International Effort

In March 1994, the U.S. Customs Service at the Dallas/Ft. Worth airport seized
3.4 metric tons of ephedrine which was in transit to Mexico. This was the
largest quantity of the chemical seized in the U.S. since passage of the CDTA.
It was purely by chance that this ephedrine shipment happened to come within
U.S. jurisdiction and thus to the attention of Customs and DEA. Brokered by a
Swiss firm, the ephedrine, manufactured by an Indian company, was intended to be
shipped from Zurich via Frankfurt to Mexico City. Because of flight scheduling,
the ephedrine wound up on a flight which transited Dallas/Ft. Worth airport. It
caught the attention of Customs because the proper export documentation was
lacking, and the packaging had been visibly altered. It was subsequently
determined that some of the information accompanying the shipment was false. It
was notable that all of the cardboard drums containing this ephedrine had the
manufacturer's labels removed, and the drum lids had been turned inside out and
the broker's name concealed with black paint. Four months later, a 2.3 metric
ton ephedrine seizure was once again made at the same location. In the fall of
1994, authorities intercepted 6.8 metric tons of the drug at Schipol airport in
Amsterdam, which was destined ultimately for Mexico via Guatemala. These
ephedrine seizures focused attention on the magnitude of ephedrine diversion by
the Mexican organizations, and set in motion an effort to focus international
attention on the ephedrine diversion problem and to take action to prevent such
diversion.

From the initial discovery of large-scale ephedrine diversion through the
Dallas/Ft. Worth airport, and through available shipping documents, DEA
investigators documented numerous multi-ton and multi-kilo ephedrine and
pseudoephedrine shipments destined for bogus or nonexistent Mexican firms. Many
of these chemicals were being produced in the Czech Republic and brokered
through Switzerland. It was determined that three Swiss firms were involved in
this activity, and Swiss officials were able to confirm that at least 70 tons
had been shipped over the past year. In addition, large volumes were originating
in India and China and transiting the United Arab Emirates, the Netherlands,
Germany, Guatemala, and other Latin American countries. Elaborate schemes to
conceal the Mexican sources of funds for these ephedrine and pseudoephedrine
purchases led back to all of these countries and even Thailand. It was very
clear that the Mexican traffickers had established a virtually unlimited supply
of precursor chemicals for their clandestine methamphetamine production.

With the knowledge of the massive scale of ephedrine diversion, and subsequently
pseudoephedrine diversion, that was occurring, diplomatic efforts were swiftly
undertaken with the exporting and transit countries involved. Close cooperation
was developed initially with the Swiss, Czech and Indian governments, and with
limited success with the Mexican and Guatemalan governments. It has been
determined that as a result of these efforts, during the period March 1994
through May 1995, 19.7 metric tons of ephedrine have either been seized or
shipment prevented, resulting in major disruption of the methamphetamine
traffic. These 19.7 tons would have produced close to 16 tons of
methamphetamine, and would have had a minimum street value of $160 million. But
much remains to be done. Unfortunately, traffickers continue today to procure
precursor chemicals, facilitated by the activity of unethical brokers.

The U.N. International Narcotics Control Board

An important aspect of the international effort concerning methamphetamine
precursors has been the close working relationship that has been established
with the U.N.'s International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), and the important
contribution the INCB has made by focussing its attention on this problem. The
INCB has taken a significant interest in the diversion of methamphetamine
precursors. In the summer of 1994, it hosted an international working group on
the issue, and the INCB notified competent authorities throughout the world to
be aware of the problem. This organization also acts as a central collection
point for data regarding ephedrine and pseudoephedrine shipments, which it
disseminates worldwide on a timely basis via electronic mail. This support from
the INCB has been a significant factor in the outstanding cooperation OD has
received from the countries mentioned above.

Needs for the Future

It is evident that battling the diversion of precursors for the illicit
production of methamphetamine (and methcathinone) is a difficult and complex
task both on the domestic front and internationally. The concerted international
effort to curtail and prevent ephedrine and pseudoephedrine diversion have
impacted the traffickers' activity. A 25 kg. barrel of ephedrine, selling in the
legitimate market for an average of about $1,800, which traffickers were able to
procure for $45,000 in mid-1995, reportedly sells in January 1996 for
$60,000-$80,000. But as described above, each time legal or regulatory measures
have been implemented both federally and by states, traffickers and clandestine
lab operators have reacted by seeking alternatives. Success in working with the
international community to shut down the unlimited source of ephedrine supply to
traffickers has resulted in the massive domestic diversion of pseudoephedrine.
OD is aware of several mail order distributors located on the East Coast and in
the Midwest that are currently dealing almost exclusively in exempt
pseudoephedrine tablets and combination ephedrine tablets, who are shipping
massive quantities of the tablets on a weekly basis to recipients on the West
Coast. Recently, over-the-counter pseudoephedrine products, containing 30-120
mg. pseudoephedrine and which are currently exempt from the chemical provisions
of the Controlled Substances Act, have begun turning up in clandestine
laboratory seizures around the country.

On October 31, 1995, DEA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Federal Register which proposed the removal of the drug exemption for certain
over-the-counter pseudoephedrine products. The NPRM would require registration
and record keeping and reporting requirements for business entities at the
manufacturer and distributor level. The retail level, such as pharmacies, truck
stops and mini-marts, would be exempt from registration for the sale of small
quantities for individual medical use. DEA is working closely with the
pharmaceutical industry in order to arrive at a solution which does not have
negative impact on the availability of pseudoephedrine for legitimate use.

A vital domestic aspect of this drug effort is the need for resources sufficient
to fully implement the DCDCA. This law, as described above, will allow DEA to
investigate all distributors of ephedrine so that registration may be denied to
rogue companies, effectively putting them out of business. DEA was not provided
resources for the purpose of implementing this legislation. At present, the
Office of Diversion Control does not, therefore, have the resources to conduct
in a timely fashion all of the investigations which will be needed as a result
of the registration process.

REFERENCES

1.      Mike Sager, "The Ice Age," Rolling Stone, 8 February 1990, 53-116.

2.      Cho, Arthur K., "Ice: A New Dosage Form of an Old Drug," Science, 10
        August 1990, 249:631-634.

3.      Drug Enforcement Administration, Office of Diversion Control, Drug and
        Chemical Evaluation Section. 30 March 1995. The Licit and Illicit
        Utilization of Pseudoephedrine: A Background Paper. Internal DEA
        document. Washington, D.C.

4.      Drug Enforcement Administration, Intelligence Division. March 1995.
        Mexican Methamphetamine Traffickers: A Growing Domestic Threat.
        Washington, D.C. (DEA-95026).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
