New and emerging drugs in state crime lab evidence: Quarters 2 & 3, 2019
Data source, utility, and limitations
Crime lab data are a partial indicator of the supply of illegal drugs or prescription drugs that are controlled substances and suspected of being purchased or sold illegally. The data presented here are the results of the Washington State Patrol’s Crime Lab chemistry testing of samples submitted by law enforcement. While the data provide important insights into the supply of drugs, in part due to the use of precise chemical testing which indicates exactly which substance is present, they also have numerous important limitations that are described at the bottom of this page.
On this page, quarterly data provided by the Forensic Laboratory Services Bureau are used to identify drugs that appear to be increasing in law enforcement seizures in the most recent quarter. (Data are preliminary and will change. For more on the data, see the details at the end of the page).
Emerging drugs in the second quarter of 2019
Statewide, there were notable increases in fentanyl cases and those involving non-prescription "designer" benzodiazepines.
- Opioids
- Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid many times more powerful than heroin or morphine. Here we highlight cases of fentanyl itself, which is legally available but can be made illicitly, and not any of the many analogues. Statewide, there were 51 cases of fentanyl in the second quarter of 2019 (after a significant jump of 55 cases in the prior quarter). While this is more than double the average quarter over the prior three years, there were 170 cases total in 2018 (42.5 per quarter). There have been 187 fentanyl cases statewide so far in 2019. 10 counties saw significant increases in fentanyl cases, although that includes 3 counties with a single case in the quarter.
- Prescription-type opioids are opioids available legally, but the particular specimen seized may or may not have originated from a prescription and been diverted. Pacific County
had 3 cases of prescription opioids in the quarter (5 total in 2019) after having only 8 cases over the prior three years combined. From 2005 through 2015, however, the county averaged over 10 cases per year (2.5 per quarter). - Heroin: Spokane County
had 18 cases of heroin. Over the years 2005 through 2017, Spokane County averaged 20.5 heroin cases per year. 2018 saw 40 cases, and so far in 2019 the county has had 44 cases. - Cocaine: 7 counties saw jumps in cocaine cases, led by Chelan County with 7. Garfield, Klickitat, and San Juan Counties have each only had the one case so far in all of 2019.
- Methamphetamine: 2 neighboring counties saw significant jumps in meth cases: Asotin
with 12, and Garfield
with 5. Note that both are small counties, but Asotin County averaged over 19 cases per year over the prior 3 years and has had 16 so far in 2019, while Garfield County averaged less than 5 cases per year and has had 9 so far in 2019. - Cannabis: Island County
had 6 cases test positive for cannabis in the quarter, and 9 so far in 2019. It should be noted that the county had 16 cases in 2017. - Non-prescription benzodiazepines are generally very similar chemically to benzodiazepines that are approved for medical use, and are an example of illegal labs producing new variants of existing drugs that may be cheaper to produce or difficult to detect. Some may be imported from countries in which they are legal. They remain relatively rare. The single case in the quarter for each of Clark
, Skagit
, Thurston
, and Yakima
Counties (a fifth case could not be assigned to a specific county) equals the total cases across those 4 counties over the prior 17 years.
Emerging drugs in the third quarter of 2019
- Methylenedioxymethamphetamine or MDMA (known as "Ecstasy") and methylenedioxyamphetamine or MDA (sometimes known as "Sally") are the most common types of phenethylamines, which are consumed recreationally for their mood- and energy-enhancing properties. Grant County often sees jumps in phenethylamines and other so-called "party drugs" during the summer thanks to the Gorge Amphitheater. 11 of the 12 cases represented in the map were MDMA, the 12th being an MDA case in Grant County.
- Fentanyl cases again jumped in a number of counties, led by King County's 10 cases. Again, this is for fentanyl itself, not the many analogues, which remain relatively rare in crime lab data in Washington.
- Non-prescription benzodiazepines: As in the prior quarter, there was a statewide jump (to 5, matching the prior quarter) in cases testing positive for one or more non-prescription benzodiazepines over the average quarter in the prior 3 years. King County
had one such case (and 6 so far in 2019, after 4 total the prior 17 years), while Cowlitz County
saw its first 4 cases ever.
Prior editions of this page:
- Quarter 2, 2019
- Quarter 1, 2019
- Quarter 4, 2018
- Quarter 3, 2018
- Quarter 2, 2018
- Quarter 1, 2018
- Quarter 4, 2017
- Quarter 3, 2017
- Quarter 2, 2017
Data notes
In order to smooth the jumps, we compare the current quarter to the average quarter over the prior 3 years. This means that an unusually low number of cases in the prior year no longer creates what looks like a substantial increase, which is particularly an issue with relatively rare drug categories and/or small counties.
As we describe elsewhere, there are many limitations of the data, including: county being an imperfect geographic unit to report the data; changes in law enforcement policy, practice and resources over time; and often substantial lags between when drugs were seized by law enforcement and when they were submitted to the lab and then further lags due to testing and reporting.
Truly new drugs present a challenge for crime lab testing: the need for a standard to which to compare the lab sample for identification. Cannabimimetics and novel psychoactive drugs (for example, variations of MDMA), for example, are constantly changing. Often when a particular formulation gains enough notoriety--usually, being made illegal or causing a widely reported death--to warrant a standards company producing a chemical standard and a crime lab buying it, the formulation is changed. Thus, time trends in identified crime lab cases do not capture the initial rise of such a novel substance, but at best its peak and decline. Here we just focus on significant counts of new or rarely-before-seen substances.
In addition to the above issues with crime lab case counts, there are difficulties with reliably assigning a case to a particular quarter. First, the date entered as the received date for a particular case may be a few days after when the case actually arrived at the lab, which might put it into the next quarter. This date clearly comes after the actual arrest. Furthermore, testing takes time, and so results may not come until a subsequent quarter. Sometimes the initial request is for only some of the evidence from a case to be tested, and so the other items might be tested later at prosecutor request, adding further delay between submission and result.
In sum, "quarter" does not mean when law enforcement seized the drug, and counts will likely change. All data presented here are preliminary.
Please refer to the other crime lab data pages for other insight: